Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal JOdom - Read the various offerings of the various TRAINS editors over the years, and tell me which one seems most inclined to "aspire" to the level of a Ted Rall. Then go and wipe the brown off your nose.
QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal Mark in Utah - The ability to recirculate water seems to be able to work just as easily for a closed loop pipeline as in a generating plant, if not easier. The generating plant needs to keep the water clean to keep from damaging boilers, injectors, et al. The coal pipeline water only needs to be purged of things that might block the pumps. There would be an efficiency cost in such a system, the question then is the overall capital cost of a closed loop coal pipeline vs the overall capital cost of new rail tracks.
QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal [ MWH - Your snide comments are unbecoming for a so-called professional. David P. Morgan or J. David Ingles would never slip to your level.
QUOTE: Originally posted by Murphy Siding mark_in_utah: a utility guy question-Is there such a thing as a "closed link"? type of power plant that condenses and re-uses the water?
QUOTE: Originally posted by CSSHEGEWISCH Building excess capacity in advance of possible demand requires a much better crystal ball than most people have. "If you build it they will come" rarely occurs in real life. Also, the bee in futuremodal's bonnet does not create excess track capacity, either.
QUOTE: Originally posted by TheAntiGates I'm surprised that the folks at Gunderson haven't explored the economics of pressing prisoners into logs, and shooting them through pipelines
Originally posted by kurtconi The Decker MT. to Superior WI. line is is 1,033 miles long, and that is just a five train per day pipeline. IIRC the PRB sends out about 55 trains per day. It would seem like BNSF could ship coal north out of the PRB,then east. Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar. Reply Clutch Cargo Member sinceSeptember 2002 From: Van Halens Van. 215 posts Posted by Clutch Cargo on Sunday, August 28, 2005 2:42 PM The Decker MT. to Superior WI. line is is 1,033 miles long, and that is just a five train per day pipeline. IIRC the PRB sends out about 55 trains per day. Is this a Haliburton project. [:D] Kurt Next to Duluth....We`re Superior. Will Rogers never met an FBI Agent. Reply dehusman Member sinceSeptember 2003 From: Omaha, NE 10,619 posts Posted by dehusman on Sunday, August 28, 2005 2:12 PM If you are piping the logs a short distance then what good is it? How does it help congestion on a 200 mile line to pipe the coal 100 miles then build an entire duplicate of the congested area there to transfer the coal? Its just another boondoggle. If you want more capacity then build more capacity straight up, don't add layer upon layer of management and moving parts and cost and handling and expect it to be cheaper or more efficient. Dave H. Dave H. Painted side goes up. My website : wnbranch.com Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Sunday, August 28, 2005 1:52 PM dehusman - I consider the maintenance problems of the Orin line as endemic of capacity constraints. Even if BNSF has fixed the line by now, they are still projected to only provide 80% of the coal orders for the rest of the year, according to the story. You could have one centrally located facility processing logs for/from each mine, so that specific blends can be maintained. If the mineheads are located close enough to the log processing facility, then such short transportation shouldn't be a problem. Don't get me wrong on this. I would prefer more rail capacity to slurry or log pipelines. But the reality is the closed access rail system does not allow for rail capacity to be built for future demand, rather it is built incrementally (and reluctantly, if at all) as demand exceeds supply, so there is a constant congestion problem built into the system. Reply Edit CSXrules4eva Member sinceAugust 2004 From: Louisville, KY 1,345 posts Posted by CSXrules4eva on Sunday, August 28, 2005 1:38 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by jeaton Sulphur and salt? No problem. Those big furnaces can burn up anything. NO! because then we would get more SOx in the stratosphere and that really isn't all that great! lol LORD HELP US ALL TO BE ORIGINAL AND NOT CRISPY!!! please? Sarah J.M. Warner conductor CSX Reply 12 Join our Community! Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account. Login » Register » Search the Community Newsletter Sign-Up By signing up you may also receive occasional reader surveys and special offers from Trains magazine.Please view our privacy policy More great sites from Kalmbach Media Terms Of Use | Privacy Policy | Copyright Policy
Dave H. Painted side goes up. My website : wnbranch.com
QUOTE: Originally posted by jeaton Sulphur and salt? No problem. Those big furnaces can burn up anything.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.