Is there a Drastic Coal Train Reduction on UP’s Triple-Track Mainline in Nebraska?

[K. P. Harrier]

Is there a Drastic Coal Train Reduction on UP’s Triple-Track Mainline in Nebraska?

Coal reportedly is on its way out bigtime for environmental reasons.  UP’s triple-track mainline in Nebraska has seen 150 trains a day, with an incredible amount of those 150 trains being coal trains.  But, is the spectacular show ending to never return?

Photos at Kearney, NE, 2010

To personally see the huge amount of coal trains on Union Pacific’s triple-track mainline in Nebraska is fantastic!  But, is un-fantastic on its way?  Reports are contradictory.  What should one believe?  I haven’t been there for five years and need the forum’s help on this.

[dehusman]

Coal volumes are down about a third due to economic reasons (not environmental reasons, natural gas is very cheap).  The utilities will tell you its for environmental reasons, but its really the low cost of gas.

And both the UP and BNSF have seen coal loadings drop.  If you listen to NPR, Georgia Power has an ad about them switching to natural gas.  They were one of the biggest coal customers, they used a low of Powder River Basin coal, currently the BNSF has the PRB haulage contract, so if they are using more gas they are using less coal which means the both the eastern and western carriers are hauling less coal.

[kgbw49]

K.P. and all, I follow the weekly FRA rail traffic loadings date reported on these two web sites because it is a leading economic indicator (not the only one, but one). As we all know, railroads haul the raw materials that become finished products, and they haul the finished products from both US manufacturers and imports from the rest of the world.

 

Overall rail traffic in the last year has been for the most part flat to declining. One portion of the drop in overall rail traffic is the drop in coal loadings for the reasons mentioned by several others. Other rail traffic sectors are also seeing drops pretty much across the board, and unfortunately for what it seems to portend for the economy, as previously mentinoed that has been pretty consistent for most of 2015 with loads in all sectors pretty much down from the 2014 levels.

http://www.railwayage.com/index.php/freight/class-i/rail-traffic-takes-a-dive.html?channel=50

http://www.progressiverailroading.com/rail_industry_trends/news/US-Class-I-workforce-continues-to-shrink--46577

 

 

[jeffhergert]

UP and BNSF also compete against each other for coal contracts.  A coal contract lost to the UP might be BNSF's gain, and vice-versa.

After Berkshire-Hathaway bought the BNSF, we lost most of the Mid-American Energy business in Iowa when the contracts came up for renewal.  I think we kept one because UP serves the power plant.  All the others are on a connecting carrier where there's a choice between the trains orginating on UP or BNSF.  At least one of those plants is also going to (if it hasn't already) convert to natural gas.

Jeff 

[466lex]

UP Coal:  2015 vs 2014

Latest Week:  -28%  (-9,944 loads; ~ 75 trains)

Qrtr to Date:  -21%

Yr to Date:     -17%

 

Source:  UP website

[Bruce Kelly]

BNSF Coal: 2015 vs 2014

Latest Week: +1.23% (+518 loads)

Qrtr to Date: +.38%

Yr to Date: +3.09%

Source:

http://bnsf.com/about-bnsf/financial-information/weekly-carload-reports/pdf/20151121.pdf

 

 

[K. P. Harrier]

446lex (11-28):

Incredible figures!  But, could you provide a link to those UP figures?

Thanks.

Bruce Kelly (11-28):

Your BNSF figures are quite a contrast to those of UP’s (if they can be linked).

Best,

K.P.

[466lex]

UP Source:

http://www.up.com/investor/aar-stb_reports/

Current carlodings:  Week 46

[466lex]

The Surface Transportation Board has been collecting weekly data (for a couple of years) from the Class 1s relative to “service issues” in the Ex Parte 724 proceeding.  Only in the past two weeks have the weekly data been put into a reasonably accessible format (pdf and Excel), and now 2015 weeks can be compared with 2014 weeks:

http://www.stb.dot.gov/stb/railserviceissues/rail_service_reports.html#loaded

The data include those metrics (velocity, dwell time, cars on line) already available on the “RPM” website:

http://www.railroadpm.org/

But also data on grain and coal loadings, including geographic data.

Also, included are stats from the Chicago Transportation Coordination Office on throughput for the major Chicago yards, and for number of trains delayed.

 

The data provide a bit of new perspective on some of the industry’s major sectors and metrics.

[466lex]

Ex Parte 724 data directly relevant to this thread:

UP Trains per Day:    11-20-15 vs 11-19-14:

Powder River Basin        21.4             27.3       -~ 6

Uinta Basin (CO & UT)     4.6               6.4       -~ 2  

(Note:  Better data shows weekly reduction of 56 trains vs my earlier estimate of 75 trains.)

 

BNSF

PRB                              44.3             46.4       -~2

Other                             3.6               2.0      +~2

 

[chutton01]

kgbw49

Overall rail traffic in the last year has been for the most part flat to declining. One portion of the drop in overall rail traffic is the drop in coal loadings for the reasons mentioned by several others. Other rail traffic sectors are also seeing drops pretty much across the board, and unfortunately for what it seems to portend for the economy, as previously mentioned that has been pretty consistent for most of 2015 with loads in all sectors pretty much down from the 2014 levels.

http://www.railwayage.com/index.php/freight/class-i/rail-traffic-takes-a-dive.html?channel=50

Looks like OBR (Oil By Rail) took an even bigger hit in that period:
"petroleum and petroleum products, down a whopping 25.8% to 11,894 carloads"
"coal, down a steep 16.8% to 92,998 carloads". Yes, petroleum is starting from a smaller base, but still a steeper percentage decline.

I couldn't tell from that report, but does "petroleum products" include plastic (some types are generated from other feedstocks), or is that a separate category.

[jeffhergert]

Some time after the first of the year we are supposed to be losing a couple of more coal trains.  The plant is converting to natural gas.

One conductor (10 years of service) wondered if once we lost all the coal traffic, if UP might sell or abandon our line.  (I heard the same question about 6 or 7 years ago when we also were losing business.)  I said I didn't think so, there is still intermodal traffic, not to mention grain,ethanol and manifest business.  What I didn't say is that it would probably lead to closing our home terminal.  Something that UP (and CNW before it) has wanted to do.

Jeff