According to an article in Railroad And Railfan Magazine The Reading & Northern will be purchasing 100 second hand aluminum hoppers for an export anthricite coal train. The cars will run as a unit train to the Port Of Baltimore. Cars will be in the RBNM 7600 series. No mention of where the cars are being purchased from or where the caal min is.
My assumption is that it is coming from northern Pennsylvania's Lehigh Valley, which is where the anthricite coal mines are. and is served by the Reading And Northern. Any furthur news will be posted as I get it.
Traditionally, a lot of those R&N anthracite coal moves then went by ship to Quebec Iron & Titanium plants NE of Quebec city in Quebec Province. This might be for more of same - or perhaps that metallurgical grade coal will be going overseas instead to fuel the primary metals operations of one of the'emerging markets' countries such as China, India, etc. - which would make a lot more sense.
- Paul North.
According to the article, these shipments will be going to the Port of Baltimre for export, which to me means it will be going to a foreign country, such as China.
Canada isn't a foreign country?
It's been fun. But it isn't much fun anymore. Signing off for now.
The opinions expressed here represent my own and not those of my employer, any other railroad, company, or person.t fun any
Right - some Canadians might not like that implication,either - and even if that's true of most of the Great White North, Quebec surely qualifies as one, ne c'est pas ?
If this coal was going to Canada, it would move north by train, NOT to the Port Of Baltimore!!!!.
RBMN already ships coal to the port of Baltimore. And they use QIT hoppers to do it. I heard it was going to the ports to be loaded on a ship to go to Quebec....
Actually, yes it would, screwy as that seems - hence my first post above. For a while it was loaded out at Philly, I believe, but that ended some years ago. I'll see if I can find a link or something with more info . . .
The reason that the coal is going by ship is that the QI&T is not connected to the Canadian rail network. All railcars and locomotives are brought in by railferry.
I wonder why QIT then doesn't either:
- Bring the hopper cars in by that rail ferry, unload them, and ship them out the same way; or,
- More practically, load the coal at the Pennsylvania mine/ breaker - "New St. Nick", I believe it is - in either dump trailers or assigned-service containers, and load those as intermodal railcars. At the plant, then transfer them to either the road or a container chassis that can also dump, and unload them that way. If I recall correctly, that plant gets between 25,000 and 40,000 tons of coal a year, which is 500 to 800 tons a week or so = 75 to 115 tons per day on average, which is from 4 to 5 or 6 truckloads per day - certainly do-able at any intermodal yard, or with a single straddle crane or PiggyPacker and a single truck tractor and driver assigned to that service.
The railferry is on a monthly schedule, the ship has a regular daily route across the Gulf of St. Lawrence, but makes a trip to each of the isolated rail operations once a month. (QI&T, QCM, and QNS&L). IIRC its regular route is Trois Riveres to Matane, PQ. So the plant gets a shipload of coal a few times per year, and the output also leaves by bulk freighter.
For example:
- Reading & Northern has a direct interchange with CP at Taylor yard, a couple miles southwest of Scranton, PA - see:
http://www.readingnorthern.com/map.shtml
- CP could then run the intermodal cars w/ containers directly north over its D&H subsidiary via Binghamton, Albany, and Rouses Point to the Montreal area. There, the cars could be transferred to CP rails and thence to its existing Lachine Intermodal Terminal - see:
http://www8.cpr.ca/cms/English/Customers/Existing+Customers/Facilities/Intermodal/Lachine+Intermodal+Terminal+.htm?Pro=Intermodal
- From there, it's about 65 miles and 1 hr. 15 mins. each way to the QIT plant at Sorel-Tracy, Quebec - see:
http://www.qit.com/eng/profil/sorel_tracy.html
- The containers of anthracite coal - up to 40 ft. long to maximize volume per vehicle - could be end-dumped, using a 40 ft. Dump Container Chassis such as this one:
http://www.tradekorea.com/e-catalogue/hantrl/product-detail/P00011009/40ft%20Dump%20Container%20Chassis.html
I wonder if anyone ever seriously considered this method, and / or why it wasn't selected. I believe it would be cost competitive with the long ship haul, and would not require a lot of specialized capital investment.
Paul,
If I am reading the other posts correctly the boat service is also in place. That means the dock and capital equipment needed to unload the ship are in place and paid for. Intermodal drays are frightfully expensive as a matter of course. I suspect intermodal can not undercut the low cost of in place maritime terminal facilities.
Mac
If as stated above the total coal recieved is between 25000 and 40000 tons per year. Why is Reading and Northern buying 100 100 ton cars. thats 10000 ton capacity. The article stated that these cars were going to be used in unit trains service... It is a waste of money for the railroad to buy so many cars for such a small customer. I still think the coal is being shipped overseas NOT to Canada.
Good point. I was already thinking about that anyway - note that I'm still relying on my memory, too, so . . . - but I'm now recalling that those 25,000 - 40,000 ton shipments are called 'campaigns' by the R&N - and that seems to me to be about the right size or amount for a small to medium-size self-unloading ship that woUld be used for this kind of service. So it may be that whenever QIT chartered a ship to replenish its coal stockpile, that's when R&N would schedule a 'campaign' of 3 to 5 trains or so. Also, that quantity seems too small for a plant of QIT's size, per the link above. So I'm now thinking that there may be several 'campaigns' a year - i'mguessing at somewhere in the 4 to 10 range - but not often enough for the R&N to make it a regularly scheduled move, or to keep an inventory stockpile at Baltimore. I also recall that from time to time in the past QIT was buying cheaper coal elsewhere, and that it was good news in the coal regions when they came back to R&N, so it's not an assured deal or constant flow, either.
Mac - you're right, there's nothing as cheap as tools that are already bought and paid for. And you're also right about the dray costs - it seems as soon as a container is involved, the rates skyrocket . . . I looked - there's presently not an established intermodal terminal closer than CP's at Montreal, not even on CN. So a more economical alternative would have to involve yet another interchange - from CP to CN - and then on to Quebec. There, a transload for the coal would have to be established, at either one of the several existing warehouses/ distributino centers/ yards, or a new one set up, to keep the dray down to handful of miles. It would have to be fairly low-tech - no rotary dumpers can be afforded - so a straddle crane or PiggyPacker would be OK. With the haul down to a couple of miles, a 'captive' truck and driver from the plant could be used - might be capable of a round-trip an hour or 150 tons per shift/ 400 tons per day/ 12,000 tons per month, which is probably close to what the plant actually uses.
I just have a hard time believing that the present operation can't be improved upon. The first 150 or so rail miles to Baltimore are in the entirely wrong direction ! Applied in the opposite and 'correct' direction would get the loads up to about Albany. From there, it's around 200 rail miles to the plant. But from Baltimore, the ship has to sail even more the wrong way southwards down the Chesapeake Bay to Norfolk, to a U-turn to the east, and come northeasterly all the way back up the East Coast, past New York, Boston, and Halifax to the Gulf of St. Lawrence, and then do another U-turn to the north to go southwesterly back down to Quebec - I'm guessing it's about 1,000 sea miles altogether, plus the operating cost of unloading and handling the coal. Is the ship's rate really like 1/5 the ton-mile rate of the train ?
Paul_D_North_Jr Good point. I was already thinking about that anyway - note that I'm still relying on my memory, too, so . . . - but I'm now recalling that those 25,000 - 40,000 ton shipments are called 'campaigns' by the R&N - and that seems to me to be about the right size or amount for a small to medium-size self-unloading ship that woUld be used for this kind of service. So it may be that whenever QIT chartered a ship to replenish its coal stockpile, that's when R&N would schedule a 'campaign' of 3 to 5 trains or so. Also, that quantity seems too small for a plant of QIT's size, per the link above. So I'm now thinking that there may be several 'campaigns' a year - i'mguessing at somewhere in the 4 to 10 range - but not often enough for the R&N to make it a regularly scheduled move, or to keep an inventory stockpile at Baltimore. I also recall that from time to time in the past QIT was buying cheaper coal elsewhere, and that it was good news in the coal regions when they came back to R&N, so it's not an assured deal or constant flow, either. Mac - you're right, there's nothing as cheap as tools that are already bought and paid for. And you're also right about the dray costs - it seems as soon as a container is involved, the rates skyrocket . . . I looked - there's presently not an established intermodal terminal closer than CP's at Montreal, not even on CN. So a more economical alternative would have to involve yet another interchange - from CP to CN - and then on to Quebec. There, a transload for the coal would have to be established, at either one of the several existing warehouses/ distributino centers/ yards, or a new one set up, to keep the dray down to handful of miles. It would have to be fairly low-tech - no rotary dumpers can be afforded - so a straddle crane or PiggyPacker would be OK. With the haul down to a couple of miles, a 'captive' truck and driver from the plant could be used - might be capable of a round-trip an hour or 150 tons per shift/ 400 tons per day/ 12,000 tons per month, which is probably close to what the plant actually uses. I just have a hard time believing that the present operation can't be improved upon. The first 150 or so rail miles to Baltimore are in the entirely wrong direction ! Applied in the opposite and 'correct' direction would get the loads up to about Albany. From there, it's around 200 rail miles to the plant. But from Baltimore, the ship has to sail even more the wrong way southwards down the Chesapeake Bay to Norfolk, to a U-turn to the east, and come northeasterly all the way back up the East Coast, past New York, Boston, and Halifax to the Gulf of St. Lawrence, and then do another U-turn to the north to go southwesterly back down to Quebec - I'm guessing it's about 1,000 sea miles altogether, plus the operating cost of unloading and handling the coal. Is the ship's rate really like 1/5 the ton-mile rate of the train ? - Paul North.
Well Detroit Edison gets most of its coal via the port at Superior, WI rather than via a direct rail haul. The typical self-unloading laker is pretty efficient, During the winter when the St. Lawrence Seaway is closed to the Iron Ore carrying lakers the freight rates probably drop significantly. Also CN seems to have a hard time or doesn't try to compete for the haul of Gypsum out of Nova Scotia to US East Coast areas, it all goes via ship.
igoldberg If as stated above the total coal recieved is between 25000 and 40000 tons per year. Why is Reading and Northern buying 100 100 ton cars. thats 10000 ton capacity. The article stated that these cars were going to be used in unit trains service... It is a waste of money for the railroad to buy so many cars for such a small customer. I still think the coal is being shipped overseas NOT to Canada.
It's only one train of 2nd hand cars. Can't exactly ship a lot of coal using one train - esp when it has to go the whole way to Baltimore and back.
Do you suppose John Kneilling is spinning in his grave?
Zug:
That train of 100 one hundred ton cars is ten thousand tons of coal. That is a lot of coal for the short haul from Reading , Pennsylvania to Baltimore. it is almost a straight run down the Susquhanna river over the old Pennsylvania line from Harrisburg which is a multi track line.
Where do I start ?
rrboomer - Yes, I'm sure he is, though I'm trying to slow down his rate of rotation . . .
igoldberg - The Coumbia & Port Deposit/ "Port Road" branch from Harrisburg south to Perryville is mostly single track with passing sidings, and has been that way for many years (though it may have been double-tracked once, such as when it was electrified).
Everyone - I went to "the horse's mouth" and learned quite a bit from the R&N's employee magazine - "R&N News" - for Summer 2010, Vol. 12, Issue 3 (16 pgs., approx. 2.3 MB in size), at this link:
http://www.readingnorthern.com/news/rbmn_summer10.pdf
In brief, it seems that like the parable of the 3 blind guys grabbing different parts of a camel and coming away with different impressions, most of us are right about some things, and 'off-base' on others. I especially recommend reading the several articles by different officials on pgs. 3 and 4, 5, 6, 7, 10 and 11, and the photos on 8 - 9. beaulieu, I was surprised to see that large quantities of anthracite are being shipped back up to your neck of the woods - to a Mesabi Nugget plant in Michigan, apparently.
Note that the page layout is odd, like it would be if you unbound the magazine and organized the pages from top to bottom, something like this:
Back Cover [16] - Front Cover [1]
2 - 15
14 - 3
4 - 13
12 - 5
6 - 11
10 - 7
8 - 9
See also the Summer 2007 "R&N News", Vol. 9, Issue 3 (16 pgs., approx. 2.9 MB in size), i.e., the 2 articles on pages 3 - 4 and 7 - 11 (same odd page layout as noted above), and esp. under "Hopper Car Fleet" on pg. 11, at:
http://www.readingnorthern.com/news/rbmn_summer07.pdf
Finally, this lengthy article on the Reading & Northern from the November 1992 issue of Railway Age was informative, though dated:
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1215/is_n11_v193/ai_12907511/
igoldberg Zug: That train of 100 one hundred ton cars is ten thousand tons of coal. That is a lot of coal for the short haul from Reading , Pennsylvania to Baltimore. it is almost a straight run down the Susquhanna river over the old Pennsylvania line from Harrisburg which is a multi track line.
I am quite aware of that fact, sir. But one100 car coal train is not a lot at all. Many of the regular class 1 coal trains are in the 130 car range.
And no, it isn't a straight shot. You still have to do the enola shuffle and contend with Amtrak on the NEC. So it's not like you can take the train down and turn it with one crew...
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.