Hi All
Good to see this video.
Notch Hill is just east of Kamloops, BC where train speeds start to increase in places as the coal trains move west and downgrade to Vancouver and BTW into more populated areas.
I live in Chilliwack, BC and have lived here for nearly 20 years. In the early days, CP did not spray their coal trains to Pt Roberts. The result was the kind of black cloud that others have described on PWR coal trains. In Chilliwack this was quite noticeable as trains through here can reach track speeds of 50mph. With local inflow/outflow winds as well train speed these clouds could be really quite dark....and lengthy. This became a matter of intense local concern in many areas.
IIRC a concerted campaign by municipalities along the CP/CN ROW from Kamloops to Vancouver over a period of about a year (in the late 1990's IIRC) forced CP to do something about coal dust control. This is CP's solution.
The result is a greatly improved air quality in an airshed (of the Fraser Valley) that already has enough particulate load from other sources.
Charlie
Chilliwack, BC
dragonriversteel Folk's here's a video of what CP does to counter coal dust. CP latex coal sprayer .
Folk's here's a video of what CP does to counter coal dust. CP latex coal sprayer .
[/quote]
Fixed the link!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VFiV55zohC4&feature=channel_video_title
Fear an Ignorant Man more than a Lion- Turkish proverb
Modeling an ficticious HO scale intergrated Scrap Yard & Steel Mill Melt Shop.
Southland Industrial Railway or S.I.R for short. Enterchanging with Norfolk Southern.
Allen Jenkins The solution? CUT FUNDING FOR E.P.A. NOW!
The solution? CUT FUNDING FOR E.P.A. NOW!
Coal dust represents potential damage to the physical plant of a railroad.
How does cutting the EPA solve that?
You have to remember that even on concrete ties, the roadbed moves up and down like a snake over wagon ruts...there is no way to create a solid roadbed. If you make it rigid, storm runoff will wash away the sub-base forming a "bridge."
You can Google BNSF or go to their website to find current experiments on this matter.
The solution? CUT FUNDING FOR E.P.A. NOW! And I so could add an alphabet full of other capitol money wasters! Do not even think it could never happen...which would you choose-SS or EPA?
I heard a brag on the UP Big Boys that the line they pulled on Sherman Hill was covered 3' thick for one mile ether side of the mainline in coal cinders...if that's true, what happened to all that slag?
i agree with 'budyrus' on ballast roofing. in highway engineering practice this would be known as a 'chip seal' and difffers only in that rock chips would be spread over the emulsified asphalt to make it skid-proof. also since the ballast cover wouldn't carry any load you could use a softer, more self-sealing grade of asphalt. when our rail museum group salvaged an abandoned siding, the ties were completely rotted out; we could lift the spikes out by hand. however, where they'd been covered by an all-asphalt grade crossing, they were just like new and very tenacious of spikes. -arturo
Maybe there could be concrete pads built for the tracks much like subways are built? Then it would be a simple solution to run a vacuum over the tracks to pick up the coal dust? Further RRs could then sell coal as salvage. [ incentative for coal company to solve problem?
How much coal is unloaded in rotary dumpers compared to coal unloaded through the bottom hopper doors? The fiberglass covers under development do not appear able to accommodate unloading by rotary dumpers.
If you can’t solve the coal dust problem by covering the loads, the other possibility is covering the ballast. One drawback to this approach is that it does not solve the environmental problem, and I expect that will rise to the point of being mandated some time soon. I don’t know how much a real problem it is, but there is rising regulatory concern about the production of environmental dust in operations such as farming. So trains leaving a trail of coal dust must be on the radar screen of the regulators. They don’t like coal much anyway.
But aside from the problem of not solving the environmental problem, covering the ballast presents a considerable engineering challenge. However, considering the economic burden on the railroads imposed by ballast fouling, it seems like solving the problem would justify some rather elaborate approaches.
Somehow a barrier would need to be added above the ties. This poses problems with the interruptions needed for the tie/rail interface, and also complication for maintenance operations. However some maintenance might be reduced by virtue of the dust barrier, particularly if the barrier would also serve to prevent rain and snow melt from entering the ballast. Some type of fabric or sheet seems like an obvious choice for the barrier.
Another possibility would be to top the ballast with say a one-inch layer of a finer crushed aggregate, say ½-inch size. Then top coat that with a thin layer of rock sand 1-inch or less thick. Then spray on a coating of binder asphalt emulsion. The binder would wet the sand and be thick enough to fill the spaces between the particles. The ½-inch rock below the sand would permit pouring on the sand without having it run deep into the ballast layer. During use, some of this ½-inch rock would settle into the ballast, but there would not be enough to degrade the normal ballast function.
This barrier layer would be interrupted by the ties, and would not be able to seal watertight with them, but it would prevent the majority of coal dust from entering the ballast. Or it might cover the ties and come right up to the bottom of the rail, leaving the tops of the tie plates exposed. It may be helpful to have this emulsion retain some flexibility or the ability to flow and re-seal to adjust to minor shifting of the ties in relation to the ballast, or any development of cracks that might develop. The barrier layer could also be reinforced with a plastic mesh, to help hold it together, but it would be best if that component could be avoided.
I would call this concept Ballast Roofing.
I recall reading somewhere of the "Blue Coal Company" which apparently sprayed something blue on top of its coal, in the hoppers, IIRC. I don't remember any other details, or even where I read it.
Edit: Just found this on Wikipedia: "Blue Coal" is the term for a once-popular, specific, trademarked brand of anthracite, mined by the Glen Alden Coal Company in Pennsylvania, and sprayed with a blue dye at the mine before shipping to its Northeastern U.S.A. markets to distinguish it from its competitors.
"Blue Coal" is the term for a once-popular, specific, trademarked brand of anthracite, mined by the Glen Alden Coal Company in Pennsylvania, and sprayed with a blue dye at the mine before shipping to its Northeastern U.S.A. markets to distinguish it from its competitors.
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...
Prior to the early 1970's most coal was screened to remove the fines and was more on the order of a lump, thus blow off of dust was not a major issue. Now days most Western coal is shipped as "Slack" , measuring 2 1/2" X 0. With the exception of a few Colorado/Utah mines, most western coal is not washed, which also tends to remove the fines. As far as covers go, there have been some moves of lignite that involved the use of covers. I remember reading an article years ago in Railway Age abount a move on the MILW, that used covers, it was a captive short haul move.
Spraying coal with anything but water can alter the emissions recovery systems in fossil fueled power generation. Scrubbers clog, the BTU output alter, etc. Even the solution itself can be a hazard to the environment, such as ethylene-glycol anti-freeze sprayed to prevent freezing in winter.
The fines lost en-route are usually on the ground in the areas surrounding the mines. A thousand miles out pretty much blows the top layer off.
Coal dust in ballast holds water, creating mud holes. The current idea is to lay a sheet of plastic over the sub-base, preventing dirt from rising into the ballast. When the rails are replaced, the ties are lifted and all the ballast is removed and transported in the trough trains to a screening site somewhere. The coal can be recovered, but it is a huge maintenance cost altogether.
Watch the Southen Company utilities, especially Georgia Power. They are envioronmentally aware, cost effective and have the lowest rates in the nation. Whatever is decided will envolve their fossil fuels operations, as far as end user options go.
Bucyrus The electric consumer pays for it.
The electric consumer pays for it.
For the most part this answer is correct. However, there may be exceptions. In Texas we have electric energy competition. People in major cities, outside of Austin and San Antonio, who are captives of public power, have Choice. They can shop for the best deal in town.
If power company A is heavily dependent on coal generation, whereas its competition has significant alternative fuels sources for its generation, A and retailers that buy power from it may not be able to pass on all of the incremental cost to the customer. In this case some of the additional cost would be worn by capital or labor or a combination.
mudchicken Between Boise City, OK and Amarillo, TX on BNSF alongside US-287, coal loads look like warships laying out a smokescreen going by. VERY noticable gray/black roostertail clouds for miles.
Between Boise City, OK and Amarillo, TX on BNSF alongside US-287, coal loads look like warships laying out a smokescreen going by. VERY noticable gray/black roostertail clouds for miles.
I spent several summers in the 1970's watching coal trains roll east of Miles City (close to where the connection with the Milw interchange track) and don't recall seeing much of any problem with coal dust flying off. A couple of points, the coal was very fresh, much of it having loaded at either Colstrip or Sarpy Creek and the trains may have been lucky to be doing 35 MPH when they went by me. I don't know if fouling was a problem on the line, but there was a substantial reduction in vibration when the jointed rail was replaced with CWR.
BaltACD:
Good point on the problems with freezing - didn't occur to me as the closest point were ballast freezing would be a problem is near the summit of Cajon pass. Where I live, ice is something that you find in freezers and snow is something we travel to the mountains to see.
- Erik
Why not spray the coal with a plastic/resin coating, as copper concentrates (also a fine powder) are currently.
From my observation - they will be in tatters after 3 round trips.
zugmann Sounds good in theory. But can it survive abuse typical use on a railroad?
Sounds good in theory. But can it survive abuse typical use on a railroad?
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
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
Bucyrus Here is the solution to the coal dust problem. Fiberglass covers open and close for loading and unloading. The power to open and close the covers comes from the moving cars engaging stationary actuator features called a wedge and a funnel. It kind of reminds me of the system they used to open and close taconite hoppers on the Erie Mining Railroad in Minnesota. http://www.free-press-release.com/news-overhead-crane-company-gets-innovative-coal-rail-car-project-on-track-1291663594.html
Here is the solution to the coal dust problem. Fiberglass covers open and close for loading and unloading. The power to open and close the covers comes from the moving cars engaging stationary actuator features called a wedge and a funnel. It kind of reminds me of the system they used to open and close taconite hoppers on the Erie Mining Railroad in Minnesota.
And then the fight started!
The fight being about who pays! Coal shipper/consignee or carrier?
http://www.free-press-release.com/news-overhead-crane-company-gets-innovative-coal-rail-car-project-on-track-1291663594.html
What got left out of the discussion so far:
The coal dust gets to blowing out of the cars pretty good at 45 MPH. The railroads and some states have asked to either wet down (the railroads) or tarp the coal loads (several western states). The utilities fought off the requests in court because of weight and cost issues.
The coal is shipped by the ton-mile, water = more tonnage. Unloading frozen coal would be an adventure by itself. Tarps & Covers in a railroad environment?
If you walk the ballast section in the PRB or in Oklahoma on the primary SB coal lines, the blackened ballast is very noticable. Trying to hold surface in fouled ballast is almost impossible and slow orders are too many to count. A geometry car in fouled ballast country is a trackman's nightmare.
I am no expert on coal. There is a lot of coal handled in my area. What I hear is that the Powder River Basin coal is almost the consistency of dirt rather than the crystalline rock like consistence of Eastern coals, thus moving Powder River coal trains create more coal dust than do the Eastern coals. I recall reading somewhere (wish I could provide the link) that while Powder River coal is low sulphur, it is also of a lower BTU content than Eastern coals. The one thing my railroad experience has taught me about coal is...While it is all BLACK, it is not all the same. There are many varieties of coal, all of differing metallurgical content, ash content and BTU output.
Bucyrus I would have to study the subject further, but I get the impression that this coal dust fouling has rather suddenly emerged as a major cost. However, railroads have been hauling coal for a long time, so I do not know exactly why the problem should be worse today, if it is.
Here is a wonderfully informative paper on the subject. It has great photographs of fouled ballast among other things. Apparently, coal dust is a particularly bad foulant:
http://ict.illinois.edu/railroad/CEE/pdf/PPT's/fall08/Tutumluer%20-%2010_10_2008.pdf
I would have to study the subject further, but I get the impression that this coal dust fouling has rather suddenly emerged as a major cost. However, railroads have been hauling coal for a long time, so I do not know exactly why the problem should be worse today, if it is.
So I would say that they either have to cover the cars to keep the dust in, or cover the ballast to keep the dust out. I would not be surprised if new environmental regulations soon force the covering of the cars. That would be quite an engineering challenge. I would think that car covers would need to be powered to make them practical.
Ballast performs two functions in the track structure. Hold the ties and thus the rails in place and provide drainage for precipitation into the drainage areas alongside the track structure and away from the grade and subgrade upon which the track is constructed. The interlocking nature of the ballast section after it has 'set up' is what keeps the track structure in place under the variety of loads that are place on it. Loads for the trains that operate over it and loads from the heating and cooling stresses that nature applies to it. Coal dust or any other 'dusty' commodity can contaminate the ballast section over time and thus disrupt the drainage function of the ballast. With water accumulating in areas it can freeze and thaw and create soft spot in the ballast section and through that section into the grade and sub-grade. Defects to the grade and sub-grade on a track structure are easy to band-aid constantly, but very hard to fix as the rehabilitation must take place from the sub-grade up, effectively rebuilding the entire track structure from scratch. Can you think $$$$$$$$$$ in mass quantities.
Ballast also provides drainage to keep the ties reasonably dry. I suspect that the coal dust plugs up the gaps between the stones in the ballast and thus prevents drainage, leading to tie rot. This may be the more important issue, but the dirty feathered guy would be a much better authority than I would.
Ballast works in part because the individual stones more or less lock into each other, forming a cohesive base under the rails.
I've heard of ballast that was extremely "sticky," allowing rather steep edges.
Pea gravel would make really bad ballast...
Coal dust, like any fine particulate (sand/mud are just as bad) reduces that "stickiness," meaning the ballast isn't able to maintain that cohesive base. That can make it hard to maintain an even track 'surface' and probably reduces the weight the track structure can support.
I'm sure Mudchicken will add a more detailed explanation...
Trains magazine has had a few articles about coal dust and how it is bad for the roadbed. What does coal dust do to the roadbed?
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.