This should be no surprise to anyone but it is a comprehensive article with some interesting points and comparisons:
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/death-rail-hauled-coal-true-212412269.html
I would opine that as long as there is coal used (and thus mined) it will travel by rail.
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...
I am surprised by anyone using Yahoo! news for information.
And even more surprised Yahoo! is still around...
You DO know that any long time Trains reader would have read more complete stories on coal than that, right?
That's like using Motley Fool for investment advice...
As long as there's a demand for coal, it'll be moved by rail, it's the most efficient way to move it, bar none.
Even if the domestic demand isn't what it was it'll still be wanted for export.
LensCapOn I am surprised by anyone using Yahoo! news for information. And even more surprised Yahoo! is still around... You DO know that any long time Trains reader would have read more complete stories on coal than that, right?
Wow! not a single item from you contibuted as an original post for all of 2019 so far and I bet if I go further back into your posting history..........the long drought of discussion forum contributions extends further back then that....
At any rate since your so intelligent I thought I might gleefully correct you. Yahoo News was the internet distribution channel which I linked to, it was not the source of the story. So you misfired on the criticism as well by failing to pay attention to detail. Guess long time Trains readers such as yourself are not so smart after all....huh?
BackshopThat's like using Motley Fool for investment advice...
I do use them and lets see how that 500 shares of Shopify (NYSE: SHOP) I bought at $40 a share is doing? I know software and software consulting from a long career in IT. Motley Fool recommended the stock after I bought it though but still they recommended it early. Not a bad service if you also have your own stock criteria to use. I would not buy everything Motley Fool recommends. They have missed on several stocks.....badly. So you have to cherry pick.
Though I have to admit.....I am not your average Trains Reader.
CMStPnPThough I have to admit.....I am not your average Trains Reader.
That can go two ways...
The Yahoo article provides a good overview for the general reader. It contains some very good graphs. Most important, without being overly burdensome with unnecessary detail, it tells a general reader what is happening with coal and its impact on the rail industry.
If a reader wants to dig deeper, h/she certainly can. However, I suspect the typical reader will be satisfied with the article.
LensCapOnI am surprised by anyone using Yahoo! news for information.
Yahoo News is, as of June, 2019, the number one most viewed news site in the world.
Here are the number of unique visitors each of the top news sites had:
Yahoo News: 175,000,000 unique visitors
Google News: 150,000,000
Huffington Post: 110,000,000
CNN: 95,000,000
New York Times: 70,000,000
Fox News: 63,000,000
Mail Online: 53,000,000
Washington Post: 47,000,000
The Guardian: 42,000,000
Wall Street Journal: 40,000,000
ABC News: 36,000,000
BBC News: 35,000,000
USA Today: 34,000,000
LA Times: 32,500,000
York1 John
York1Here are the number of unique visitors each of the top news sites....
Maybe some met coal. But steam coal is dying a quick death. Down from over 50% of electric generation to less than 30% in less than 15 years.
https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=34612
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
zardozAre those figures per day, week, month, year; and are the stats for just the US, or the world?
The figures are worldwide per month. However, they are a combination of the U.S. figures using Quantcast numbers and the worldwide count using Alexa and SimilarWeb.
Zardoz, I believe that the company that reports these numbers, http://www.ebizmba.com, is a fairly accurate web traffic reporting site.
However, I honestly am not in this business, and I'm not qualified to say whether the numbers are correct.
As long as coal is mined - railroads will haul it.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
US Millennials for the most part get their news from Yahoo news.
kgbw49US Millennials for the most part get their news from Yahoo news.
I really doubt that.
The opinions expressed here represent my own and not those of my employer, any other railroad, company, or person.
BaltACD As long as coal is mined - railroads will haul it.
Good morning. Please stay on topic. Thank you!
Ang
Angela Pusztai-Pasternak, Production Editor, Trains Magazine
oltmannd Maybe some met coal. But steam coal is dying a quick death. Down from over 50% of electric generation to less than 30% in less than 15 years. https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=34612
Angela Pusztai-PasternakPlease stay on topic.
Angela Pusztai-PasternakGood morning. Please stay on topic. Thank you! Ang
Topics are more than 4 feet 8.5 inches wide.
Since the transportation of coal has played a major role undergirding railroad prosperity, how does its disappearance affect the railroads' ability to transport other goods economically?
I think you can look to CN and CP as examples. While they have some coal, neither have ever been dependent on it as it is a relatively small percentage, neither is currently very dependent on it and both are doing quite well.
The article says the Clean Air Act spurred demand for PRB coal. Is that coal anthracite?
The PRB coal is very and I mean VERY low in sulphur content IIRC it is over 90% lower than anything eastern seam based. It however is not fully formed coal it is considered sub bit coal not quite bitumious coal but beyond lignite coal. It will burn but needs to be almost in a powder to do so. Also it was cheap to get at with the seams just a few hundred feet below ground and they were thick some places over 400-500 feet thick themselves. The current estimate is that even at current usage rates with the proven reserves we still have over 400 years of coal in the PRB.
The power plant companies loved it because they could burn it in already constructed plants with minimal modifications it was cheap to get and they did not need to install massive scrubbers in the stacks to collect the Sulphur that was being emitted. It was said that the PRB literally paid for the merger of the BN to the Santa Fe.
Shadow the Cats owner Also it was cheap to get at with the seams just a few hundred feet below ground and they were thick some places over 400-500 feet thick themselves.
Also it was cheap to get at with the seams just a few hundred feet below ground and they were thick some places over 400-500 feet thick themselves.
A minor correction, at Colstrip, MT, the overburden is maybe 70 to 100' thick over the top seam and the top seam is about 30' thick (at least when I saw the mine in 1971). In the as-mined state, the coal has a fairly high moisture content, and becomes susceptble to spontaneous combustion. There are several areas around eastern Montana and Wyoming with red rock formed when the underlying coal seams caught fire and turned the clay into sort of a brick like rock.
Erik_Mag Shadow the Cats owner Also it was cheap to get at with the seams just a few hundred feet below ground and they were thick some places over 400-500 feet thick themselves. A minor correction, at Colstrip, MT, the overburden is maybe 70 to 100' thick over the top seam and the top seam is about 30' thick (at least when I saw the mine in 1971). In the as-mined state, the coal has a fairly high moisture content, and becomes susceptble to spontaneous combustion. There are several areas around eastern Montana and Wyoming with red rock formed when the underlying coal seams caught fire and turned the clay into sort of a brick like rock.
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
When it dries out. I suspect the drying out process exposes a lot of surface area in the coal, whicg greatly speeds up the interaction between the coal and air. I've heard of a few active coal seam fires in southeastern Montana.
Murphy SidingHow does a high moisture content cause the coal to be more susceptable to spontaeous combustion? I've seen piles of PRB coal at Duluth smoldering. They had big sprinklers wetting down the coal piles.
I've been puzzling over this for years. I remember reading that in ships they would try to keep the coal dry to prevent combustion, and often the coal was delivered smoldering. Also, I've read about wetting the coal as Murphy said.
The following is just conjecture, and is likely to be all wet:
I wonder if there might be a difference between "damp" and "wet". If the coal is damp, there might be a rotting process which generates heat much like a compost pile. If the coal is wet, the water excludes oxygen, and there is no combustion. Again, this is just a guess.
Remember "Remember the Maine!"? About 20 years ago I read that a study had been made of the remains, and it was concluded that the explosion was likely not an act of sabotage. The ship was built with the coal bunker next to the powder room (not the ladies' rest room), and heat from spontaneous combustion in the coal set off the powder.
_____________
"A stranger's just a friend you ain't met yet." --- Dave Gardner
Usually the cause of "spontanious combustion" in coal is due to two things, gas emissions from the coal (some coal is more "gassy" than others) and static electricity, and some times from a combination of airborne coal dust and static.
One of the reasons to wet coal was to keep the dust down, static electricity could ignite the dust and in turn the pile. The "Titanic" began its voyage with a fire in one of the coal bunkers, probably caused by static and dust from the dry coal they loaded it with, a fairly common event on the coal-fired ships of the time. They were in a rush to fuel the ship and the coal hadn't been wet down properly. Also, the Welsh coal "Titanic" was fueled with is especially gassy, which is one of the reasons it burns so well.
It's been speculated that the second explosion that sank the "Lusitania" was caused by a coal dust explosion.
Anyway, it's one of the reasons steamships began a conversion to oil-firing after the First World War, oil was easier to handle and a lot safer than coal.
Coal on steamships was a king-sized pain in the butt, they were glad to be rid of it.
I've never heard of wet coal causing a problem, but just because I've never heard of it doesn't mean it's not possible.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.