http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-10-07/buffett-bets-on-rail-superhighway-to-beat-trucks-as-coal-fades
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
Interesting article. Didn't the double tracking start long before Buffett bought BNSF? The article makes it sound like Buffett saw and opportunity, and started laying tracks.
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
Krebs startedd it, but got shot down by Wall Streeters.
nyc#25Krebs startedd it, but got shot down by Wall Streeters.
The article linked in the OP is quite superficial. Eliminating the bottlenecks on the southern transcon has been going on for at least ten years, back when the traffic load was quite high and growing. See this topic for some more recent details: http://cs.trains.com/trn/f/111/t/144645.aspx I can't speak to the exact traffic levels, but they may have risen close to those before the 2008 banking fiasco.
For a better overview, the author should have done a brief look at the other main lanes - the northern transcon to the PNW, the 'mini transcon' to Birmingham and the Gulf lines that I know very little about. Coal traffic may be declining, but other segments seem to be doing OK and 'debottlenecking' continues elsewhere on the system.
A less heralded but equally critical need is the 'last mile' infrastructure - the 'rails' posting on Trains blogs point out a possible overfocus on main line DT while ignoring terminal congestion. Not details that most investors would comprehend or care about ....
Links to my Google Maps ---> Sunset Route overview, SoCal metro, Yuma sub, Gila sub, SR east of Tucson, BNSF Northern Transcon and Southern Transcon *** Why you should support Ukraine! ***
Predates Krebs by quite a bit. (He wasn't even a snot-nosed / silver spoon fed trainmaster on SP yet. He did urge it on.) Thank you Mr. John Shedd Reed and your predcessors.
A little late, but the sheltered souls on Wall Street noticed. Not that they will remember tomorrow.
Right on MC, but we should also credit Earnie Marsh for the 1960 Williams- Crookton line change that was probably the most significant event since the double double tracking in he 20's.
One problem here is that Bloomberg (like many others) is casting that "coal-is-down" premise a bit too broadly when speaking about BNSF. Anyone who follows the numbers would know that, so far, BNSF's coal business is not just holding steady but edging slightly upward, at least according to the figures they post weekly:
http://bnsf.com/about-bnsf/financial-information/weekly-carload-reports/pdf/20151003.pdf
The previous week (late September) showed a slight dip in BNSF's coal carloads from the same week last year. Otherwise, the overall picture for the year has been on the plus side.
Since I always ask simple questions...
If you shut down a majority or even some of the coal-fired plants, what is the alternative. They want to cut back on coal, but I haven't seen any replacements yet. Wind turbines are a solution, but the general public is complaining about the noise. (With our constant wind, we should be able to be over-energized!) I think we have 2 - maybe 3 here in area.
She who has no signature! cinscocom-tmw
Mookie- Simple answer is that there is a plentiful supply of (relatively) cheap natural gas right now.
MookieWind turbines are a solution, but the general public is complaining about the noise. (With our constant wind, we should be able to be over-energized!) I think we have 2 - maybe 3 here in area.
Many areas have seen significant pushback on wind, some because of problems with birdstrikes, some for visual reasons, and even some because of jealousy (they'll benefit and I won't...).
A locale near here saw a summer resident change his residency to this area, and he ran (successfully) for town supervisor. Wind is a dead issue there - mostly due to people who didn't want to see the turbines. Ironically, the Canadians (who didn't have to seek approval on this side of the river) built a large wind farm which the anti-wind folks have to look at every time they gaze on the river...
As for traffic levels, sometimes we tend to forget the cyclical nature of many types of traffic. Grain we get, but others may be less obvious.
We have seen wind turbine parts travelling by rail here.
Larry Resident Microferroequinologist (at least at my house) Everyone goes home; Safety begins with you My Opinion. Standard Disclaimers Apply. No Expiration Date Come ride the rails with me! There's one thing about humility - the moment you think you've got it, you've lost it...
Mookie Since I always ask simple questions... If you shut down a majority or even some of the coal-fired plants, what is the alternative. They want to cut back on coal, but I haven't seen any replacements yet. Wind turbines are a solution, but the general public is complaining about the noise. (With our constant wind, we should be able to be over-energized!) I think we have 2 - maybe 3 here in area.
Ah - I hadn't thought of natural gas! Of course! And, Tree - if you ever watch House Hunters, people are so finicky about not looking out their window and seeing either neighbor's houses or electrical lines anywhere near the property. This is the United States, not the United Islands!
I love that this is a teaching forum!
Coal now. Gas next. Sierra Club and others were successful in lobbying to get the Northwest's two remaining coal-fired powerplants (Centralia, WA; Boardman, OR) to agree to a phase-out of coal in the coming years. And they've no doubt been successful in shutting down coal plants elsewhere. But they're not stopping at coal. They're already targeting natural gas. Sierra Club got themselves regretably entangled in a scandal involving collusion with the gas industry as part of their "Beyond Coal" campaign. Now they've cut those gas ties and are turning against gas. This could have implications not just for the nation's production of electricity, but for the efforts by some railroads to develop LNG-fueled locomotives.
https://www.google.com/search?q=sierra+club+natural+gas+campaign&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&channel=nts
http://content.sierraclub.org/creative-archive/sites/content.sierraclub.org.creative-archive/files/pdfs/100_58-Natural-Gas_FactSheet_11_low_0.pdf
http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702304363104577390432521371296
Etc....
So - we go to wind turbines. Birds and noise, so far. Is there anything that has less drawbacks than coal, electricity, wind, nuclear - probably a dirt that can make energy - I don't know. Everything has its drawbacks, but what would be the least in the drawback department? (I know - depends on who you talk to about this)
Mookie So - we go to wind turbines. Birds and noise, so far. Is there anything that has less drawbacks than coal, electricity, wind, nuclear - probably a dirt that can make energy - I don't know. Everything has its drawbacks, but what would be the least in the drawback department? (I know - depends on who you talk to about this)
Tidal movement can generate energy. However, there isn't too much tidal movement in Iowa and Nebraska.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
BaltACD Mookie So - we go to wind turbines. Birds and noise, so far. Is there anything that has less drawbacks than coal, electricity, wind, nuclear - probably a dirt that can make energy - I don't know. Everything has its drawbacks, but what would be the least in the drawback department? (I know - depends on who you talk to about this) Tidal movement can generate energy. However, there isn't too much tidal movement in Iowa and Nebraska.
Johnny
Hydropower is clean and efficient, but has its detractors as well.
There's one version of hydropower that requires other sources of power, and that's stored. Water is pumped uphill into a reservoir, then released to generate power during peak demand.
It does require some manner of elevation, however, and that's kinda rare out on the plains as well.
Unfortunately, there are those who would prefer we go back to eating roots and berries, and using available daylight only.
tree68Unfortunately, there are those who would prefer we go back to eating roots and berries, and using available daylight only.
As we all reach a certain age, I think this is what happens to everyone....
There is also solar. Germany gets a lot of energy from solar (I think it's 30%) and Germany is not really a very sunny place.
tree68 Hydropower is clean and efficient, but has its detractors as well. There's one version of hydropower that requires other sources of power, and that's stored. Water is pumped uphill into a reservoir, then released to generate power during peak demand. ...
...
In Michigan they recently built a wind farm next to a pumped storage plant. A great way to even out the variability of wind.
What hydropower produces is usually worth less than what it destroys, not only in resources but in natural beauty. The flooded Missouri River valley (where I live) is Exhibit A.
The test: Would the dams be built again? No way!
So, to keep this neutral - what if we, the people, can't come to an agreement on a particular type of energy - will we find ourselves one day lighting the last ounce of coal and saying "now what"?
I will leave it at that and enjoy all the different answers everyone has.(No, I have no answers, but I won't be around for the above either!)
dakotafred What hydropower produces is usually worth less than what it destroys, not only in resources but in natural beauty. The flooded Missouri River valley (where I live) is Exhibit A. The test: Would the dams be built again? No way!
Murphy Siding I've always read that an important featue of the Missouri dams built in the Dakota I live in was to provide flood control in the spring. This seems to be a useful tool on the Nebraska / South Dakota border. Further north, where the river is contined in deep valleys, maybe not so much. What resources were destoyed by the ND dams?
I've always read that an important featue of the Missouri dams built in the Dakota I live in was to provide flood control in the spring. This seems to be a useful tool on the Nebraska / South Dakota border. Further north, where the river is contined in deep valleys, maybe not so much. What resources were destoyed by the ND dams?
Much of the industrial and residential development that has occured around here since the early 1950's would be in a frequent flood plain without those dams. We got just a taste of what would be an annual event here without the dams a few years ago. A freak rain storm system combined with unusually heavy winter snows in the upper Rockies and lousy reservoir management by the Corps of Engineers overcame the storage capacity of the system.
As a bonus, we get cheap and non-polluting hydropower.
Nearly all of the bank stabilization material used on the river as rip rap is those "pink rocks" that Murphy sees on the trains that go by his workplace.
Wow has this thread gone off topic! Anyhow, I wish the BNSF luck but I still think UP will eat their lunch as it has more and longer rail corridors to serve with Intermodal.
A lot of dams built last century are now inadaquatly maintained. Small hydro plants are closed as inefficient, and some backwaters have filled up with sediment. Your tax dollars now have to go to a ferderal program to remove them, restore rivers thru former resevoirs, and buy out properties in flood plains.
MookieAs we all reach a certain age, I think this is what happens to everyone....
True, but for a different reason...
While we seem to have wandered off topic, there is still relevance to railroads. In addition to flood control, dams have been used to control navigability of rivers. Removal of dams may have an effect on river traffic, and it's possible that traffic would go by rail.
CMStPnP Wow has this thread gone off topic! Anyhow, I wish the BNSF luck but I still think UP will eat their lunch as it has more and longer rail corridors to serve with Intermodal.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.