From: ahk@chinet.com   
      
   dpeltier@my-deja.com wrote:   
   >Clark F Morris  wrote:   
      
   >>explain the thinking.  Given the taxing policies and the investment   
   >>climate, the rational decision was to cut capacity to only that   
   >>justified by current traffic.  (Page 41 notes that   
      
   >In pretty much any environment, you want to shed assets with resale value   
   >(like rail) if they aren't generating additional revenue.   
      
   In Illinois, rights of way are taxed on miles of main track basis, so it   
   is a tax incentive to eliminate second mains. I don't know how other states   
   in IC territory would tax railroads. IC was unique in that it was taxed   
   on gross revenues (if I recall) on the charter lines, a provision of the   
   constitution of 1870. IC was the nation's first land grant railroad thanks   
   to Lincoln and Douglas, but the land grant was to the state. A brand new   
   constitution was in effect in the Amtrak era which had not retained   
   this provision.   
      
   >But in the case of the IC single tracking, my recollection from a   
   >presentation by some of the folks who ran the project is that it was   
   >approximately cash-neutral. They traded a double-track, directional-running   
   >double main with hand throw crossovers for a single main with CTC, long   
   >sidings with minimal at-grade crossings, and power switches. They paid for   
   >the signal upgrades using money from the salvaged track material. Whether   
   >that leads to an increase or a decrease in operational efficiency is a   
   >complicated question that depends on lots of factors.   
      
   This came up in a Yahoo group. As one would expect without CTC, IC had   
   no convenient method of reversing the flow of traffic on a main. So how   
   was it done? How were trains given permission to pass trains on the other   
   main, and how were trains in the other direction held? Was the train being   
   passed the one given permission to throw switches and hold on the other   
   main? Were these done as a series of orders in a train order given over   
   the radio? Or were these movements scheduled?   
      
   It's possible Amtrak had no ability to object. IC may have been able to   
   point to instances of gains in capacity in theory.   
      
   In practice, IC's mains were in substandard condition throughout the   
   1970's. People used to observe trains rocking back and forth as they   
   passed through major depots like Kankakee and Champaign, wondering if   
   canopies would be torn off.   
      
   I don't know when IC finally rebuilt the subbase and repaired track and   
   ties, work that had been deferred for years. That didn't necessarily   
   happen before pulling the second main; I recall it happened after in   
   any number of locations. It was pathetic, but almost all railroads were   
   bleeding cash and had no access to capital.   
      
   When Congress addressed the northeastern railroad crisis upon creating   
   Conrail, it ignored all the railroads in the rest of the country that   
   were in nearly the same sorry shape. In that era, nearly any railroad   
   except Santa Fe and Southern and FEC could have had some argument for   
   nationalization. And there was hardly enough made available through the   
   federal loan program to make things better.   
      
   --- SoupGate/W32 v1.03   
    * Origin: LiveWire BBS -=*=- UseNet FTN Gateway (1:2320/1)