I keep reading about how coal business is going away for the railroads and how they will be hard pressed to replace the traffic, etc. Deja-Vu! How did the railroads deal with this last time it happened-right after WWII when the coal business went away?
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
The coal business did decline after WW2 but it was still substantial for some roads. The decline was primarily in the use of coal for home and structure heating as it was replaced by oil and natural gas. The various anthracite roads took a major hit in their revenues and NYO&W was abandoned. Steam coal for power plant generation and metallurgical (coking) coal did continue in substantial volume.
After WWII, power companies were building oil, gas and nuclear plants, until the 1970s oil crisis and Three Mile Island nuclear disaster. Coal came back for a while.
Murphy Siding I keep reading about how coal business is going away for the railroads and how they will be hard pressed to replace the traffic, etc.
Rio Grande Valley, CFI,CFII
longhorn1969How is the three track UP/BNSF shared line (Wyoming?) doing if coal is going away?
There was talk within the last year about lifting a section of track out in the coal fields and reusing the track materials on the Blair (NE) Subdivision double tracking project. There's about 10 or 12 miles of roadbed that's sat dorment for a few years when they put the project on hold. I really don't look for this to happen.
On another note, a while back my manager told me the railroad is hoping frac sand will take the place of coal. We are moving a lot right now, but with the politics involved in fracking, I'm not sure I'd want to bet the farm on it long term.
I guess either you go back to being a retailer vs wholesaler railroad or just downsize the assets and plant to reflect the declining traffic. I'd put my money on downsizing the assets and plant. The EHH plan.
Jeff
The answer to both questions, the then and the now, is that intermodal eventually made up for it on those railroads that could make money in that market. Also, the decline of coal after WWII was partially offset by tghe tremendous economies on some railroads of intelligent diesilization. Double stack came with the second coal decline. And imiports for the western railroads. And NAFTA traffic.
A positive sign to look for is when total US rail freight loads exceed the peak level of 2006. That year was still buttressed by rivers of coal loads coming from the Powder River Basin.
If railroads can get to the point where the are hauling more loads than 2006 even with the lower level of coal loads, they will have turned a corner.
Look for BNSF to lead the way in that regard.
Total number of loads don't tell the whole story. They make more off a load of coal than a container. You may not be able to exchange one unit for another on a 1 to 1 basis. It may be 2 or 3 to 1 if you want to make the same amount of revenue.
That may be why they like to emphasize operating ratio. If you take in less dollars overall, you have to squeeze out more pennies out of those dollars.
jeffhergertThere was talk within the last year about lifting a section of track out in the coal fields and reusing the track materials on the Blair (NE) Subdivision double tracking project.
Would it depend on how extensive the lift would be? Would they take just the rails, or rails and ties, or rails plus ties and tie plates, or rails and ties and tie plates and spikes and ballast, or....?
jeffhergert Total number of loads don't tell the whole story. They make more off a load of coal than a container. You may not be able to exchange one unit for another on a 1 to 1 basis. It may be 2 or 3 to 1 if you want to make the same amount of revenue. That may be why they like to emphasize operating ratio. If you take in less dollars overall, you have to squeeze out more pennies out of those dollars. Jeff
Murphy Siding jeffhergert Total number of loads don't tell the whole story. They make more off a load of coal than a container. You may not be able to exchange one unit for another on a 1 to 1 basis. It may be 2 or 3 to 1 if you want to make the same amount of revenue. That may be why they like to emphasize operating ratio. If you take in less dollars overall, you have to squeeze out more pennies out of those dollars. Jeff Would you have to factor in the fact that container trains would take less $ to run in the long run? Less weight, less horse power, less diesel fuel, less wear and tear? Do coal trains and container trains move at roughly the same speed?
Would you have to factor in the fact that container trains would take less $ to run in the long run? Less weight, less horse power, less diesel fuel, less wear and tear? Do coal trains and container trains move at roughly the same speed?
Not uphill they don't...
Some coal cars are speed restricted to 50 mph (at least on CN). Apart from that speed would only depend on how much power the train has, which on loaded unit trains is normally the bare minimum required to climb their route's ruling grade at around 15 mph.
One other thing to consider when calculating revenue is backhauls, intermodal has the potential to earn revenue in both directions, coal not so much.
Greetings from Alberta
-an Articulate Malcontent
SD70DudeOne other thing to consider when calculating revenue is backhauls, intermodal has the potential to earn revenue in both directions, coal not so much.
Murphy Siding SD70Dude One other thing to consider when calculating revenue is backhauls, intermodal has the potential to earn revenue in both directions, coal not so much. Like what kind of backhaul?
SD70Dude One other thing to consider when calculating revenue is backhauls, intermodal has the potential to earn revenue in both directions, coal not so much.
Like what kind of backhaul?
Exactly my point.
Coal, as with nearly all unit trains, is a revenue load in only one direction.
While there are "bare-table" moves of empty intermodal equipment they are few in number, and from what I have seen the majority of intermodal cars make most of their moves carrying a box.
Unit train rates are of course calculated to account for the empty return move, and this can make one-way intermodal rates appear smaller in comparison than they really are.
I think the real change that the Class I's will have difficulty with is in marketing and operation, intermodal requires dealing with non-captive shippers and sometimes complex equipment moves, well, at least more complex than back-and-forth, back-and-forth unit trains.
SD70DudeWhile there are "bare-table" moves of empty intermodal equipment they are few in number, and from what I have seen the majority of intermodal cars make most of their moves carrying a box. Unit train rates are of course calculated to account for the empty return move, and this can make one-way intermodal rates appear smaller in comparison than they really are.
This is a good point. A privately owned box moving empty counts as a "load". I know marine boxes moving west empty go for a really low rate. RR owned boxes move as "empties". I'm not sure what the billing looks like for those RR pool boxes - EMP, et. al. Anyone?
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
SD70DudeI think the real change that the Class I's will have difficulty with is in marketing and operation, intermodal requires dealing with non-captive shippers and sometimes complex equipment moves, well, at least more complex than back-and-forth, back-and-forth unit trains.
I would opine that this difficulty is reflected in the focus on OR.
The railroads have discovered that unit trains are fast and easy. With run-throughs they don't even have to change locomotives, and the computer can handle the HP hours.
Before unit trains became a major factor, virtually all railroading involved marketing and the operations necessary to make those movements. Many commodities moved in carload lots (even coal), and there is a cost to providing that service - a cost that is minimal for a unit train.
I think it's apparent that the railroads have generally worked to shed that carload business, in many cases willingly ceding it to trucks. The branch lines that served as the source for many of those carloads have either been abandoned, or given off to shortlines who turn those single cars into mini-unit trains from the standpoint of interchange.
I know, those cars will have to be sorted and routed at some point, but the Class 1 simply picks up or drops one group of cars at the interchange point - it no longer does the gathering and distribution, with the inherent costs.
One might wonder if the railroads would prefer to shed all individual carload business (ie, manifest trains), going purely for the unit train moneymakers.
Not to stir up a hornet's nest - but it occurs to me that in some respects, we are moving toward open access. The Class 1's still have exclusive access to their own "superhighways," but oftimes, in their effort to shed the individual car business, they give the shortlines access along those mainlines so they can provide that service.
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...
tree68 I would opine that this difficulty is reflected in the focus on OR. The railroads have discovered that unit trains are fast and easy. With run-throughs they don't even have to change locomotives, and the computer can handle the HP hours. Before unit trains became a major factor, virtually all railroading involved marketing and the operations necessary to make those movements. Many commodities moved in carload lots (even coal), and there is a cost to providing that service - a cost that is minimal for a unit train. I think it's apparent that the railroads have generally worked to shed that carload business, in many cases willingly ceding it to trucks. The branch lines that served as the source for many of those carloads have either been abandoned, or given off to shortlines who turn those single cars into mini-unit trains from the standpoint of interchange. I know, those cars will have to be sorted and routed at some point, but the Class 1 simply picks up or drops one group of cars at the interchange point - it no longer does the gathering and distribution, with the inherent costs. One might wonder if the railroads would prefer to shed all individual carload business (ie, manifest trains), going purely for the unit train moneymakers. Not to stir up a hornet's nest - but it occurs to me that in some respects, we are moving toward open access. The Class 1's still have exclusive access to their own "superhighways," but oftimes, in their effort to shed the individual car business, they give the shortlines access along those mainlines so they can provide that service.
........... let's see if this paragraph stuff works when i hit the reply button
...........local: a local tv station owned by a corporation (maybe 10 stations they own) just got bought out by another corporation......now we are talking about 100 stations.........'the gubmint' can do some awful things when REGULATING things but this was allowed and i hate that.......why...........well what if every TV station in the US was owned by one corporation......what kind of fair news would we get ..........look at the bias and slanted coverage we get now...............NO NETWORKS mentioned here so just take your pick and then BLAME the other side for being biased and ......... well, not telling the truth ............
Railroading, same......how can these branch lines do the job of railroading and be business models w/success? Surely they are not owned by folks who are filthy rich and just doing model railroading full scale and doing so for fun...........
well back to the original problem............are railroads the backbone of america......how did we get to be as great a country as we have been......i suggest we are losing it.......not gone, but if we let these money lovers.....there is no crime moral or legal on a business that is profitable........but this consolidation stuff is surely concerning..........don't get me started on finances and the bubble that burst recently 'cause da gubmint' made a new law that negated a former law that still should be in effect..............
oh, to stop it all, just one more remark, please excuse me..........these examples are hurting railroads and mentioned because of the hit RR's are taking .....How come a big bridge contract in California several years ago went to an 'outta country' bridge contractor.............oh, the US bidders could not compare to the price offer by the out of country bid........where were they getting their materials? = cheaper bid......what does that do to our American companies. ........we are losing, wise running, safe, economical, US railroads..........want a real good, I mean REAL good example of what i mean......consider when Krebs helped to smooth out the wrinkles when the SP/UP merger "blew-up" in the Houston area..................just sayin' endmrw
Coal exports are still pretty common, at least here in the western US. Load up a coal train in Utah, Wyoming, or Colorado, then ship it to the west coast to be loaded onto a boat bound to Asia. As domestic coal use slows down, expect the remaining coal mines to cling onto export shipments. However, the death of domestic coal will heavily hurt shortlines almost more than it will hurt Class 1 railroads. BNSF, NS, and UP will find new traffic in loads such as Intermodal, Oil, Frack Sand, Automobiles, etc. But what about the shortlines entirely focused on coal? My local regional railroad, Utah Railway; has basically been sitting on life support since they lost the last of their domestic coal contracts. Every quarter they keep operating without coal is another quarter in the red for them. Even if they got back their coal contract to run to Los Angeles Power's IPP plant in Delta, Utah; it would only be a brief reprise before Los Angeles converts the plant to run on natural gas to follow California clean air laws (I know thats confusing, Utah based plant run by Los Angeles and following California law... but that is the truth of the matter). The isolated coal lines such as the Black Mesa & Lake Powell, Navajo Mine Railroad, and the Deseret Power are almost guranteed to die a sudden death if their respective power plants or coal mines shut down. Every shortline or regional railroad dependent on coal should be the focus of railfans right now, since their days are numbered. Also not to get politics to involved in this... but I believe honestly presidential attempts to revive coal will only be a temporary stopgap. Every coal power plant operator knows that while one president for four or eight years might be pro-coal, its highly likely the next president after them will be strongly anti-coal. Even if the EPA continues to lift coal restrictions like they are now, it is likely local and state laws will be passed that will effectively put the stricter emissions rules back into place. Expect more and more power plants to convert to natural gas over the next decade; and domestic coal shipments to continue to decline.
The current rock-bottom price of natural gas (due to the fracking boom) has also been major factor in power company decisions.
PJS1Texas has seen the recent shuttering to two large coal plants – Big Brown in Fairfield, TX and Monticello in Mt. Pleasant, TX. But coal is still a significant factor in generating electricity in Texas and will remain so through 2040. Last year coal was used to generate 28 percent of the electricity in Texas and 33 percent for the U.S.
On April 3, Wisconsin Electric (WeEnergies, WE) closed it's 1.2GW coal-fired plant in Pleasant Prairie (Kenosha county) account "changing energy economics". The timing of the shutdown was due to the amount of coal on hand and enroute.https://www.wpr.org/pleasant-prairie-power-plant-ends-operation.
Wisconsin does a bit worse for the environment than Texas. According to WE, Wisconsin gets 48.1% of its energy from coal, 29.5 from natural gas, 13.6 from nuclear, 2.7% from oil, 2.6% from renewables, and 3.5% from 'other'.https://www.we-energies.com/home/we_keyfacts.htm
The Pleasant Praire closing is the 266th coal plant announced for retirement, according to WE https://www.wpr.org/we-energies-closing-coal-fired-plant-pleasant-prairie.
Because I live less than a mile from the Pleasant Prairie plant, I am selfishly glad to see it close, as it had been a source of much black dust, not to mention the mercury that was released. Of course, the residents near the Oak Creek plant (including the new Elm Road generating station), both of which will take the generating burden, are less than happy for the same reasons.
What I don't understand, is why back in the late 2000's, WE started a Billion-dollar expansion, building the Elm Road coal-powered generator. It went on-line in 2010, and now, less than eight years later, WE decides to close Pleasant Prairie, which actually had some nifty pollution-control devices recently installed https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pleasant_Prairie_Power_Plant.
Article from Casper, Wyoming newspaper regarding plant closings: https://trib.com/business/energy/wisconsin-coal-plant-customer-to-five-wyoming-mines-likely-to/article_17ab5828-e98b-5639-bbdf-3dc7a79648e7.html
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Back in the day, on average the CNW would deliver a 113-car train per day. They were nice jobs to catch: pick up the train at Yard 9 in Proviso (all ready air-tested), run to Pleasant Praire (52 miles), spot the train on three tracks, pick up the already coupled-and-tested empties, and run back to Proviso.
Interestingly, there are currently (as of 7-1-18) two empty coal trains sitting on the loop tracks at the WE Pleasant Prairie facility. Storage?
Mistaken planning? I still see some WE unit trains on the UP-West line, but not as many as I recollect five or so years ago.
charlie hebdoMistaken planning? I still see some WE unit trains on the UP-West line, but not as many as I recollect five or so years ago.
I don't think the utilities accounted for the elimination of the incadescent bulb and its replacement with LED's & CFL's all of which use a fraction of the amount of power that the old faithful incadescents. Add in the increased efficiency of virtually all electrically powered appliances and all of a sudden the overall power demand begins to decrease, sprinkle in the users that have signed up for Solar and Wind power installations on their property and the power demand dips further.
With the lead time required to move a power plant from a idea to a functioning plant - today's 'new' plants were envisioned 20-30 years ago before any of the 'new technologies' were seen as viable consumer products.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
BaltACDI don't think the utilities accounted for the elimination of the incadescent bulb and its replacement with LED's & CFL's all of which use a fraction of the amount of power that the old faithful incadescents.
Thank you, a true light bulb moment!
If you use that as a starting point, so many of the discussions around energy in both Canada and the US really take on a new meaning.
Bruce
So shovel the coal, let this rattler roll.
"A Train is a Place Going Somewhere" CP Rail Public Timetable
"O. S. Irricana"
. . . __ . ______
The market-driven switch to cheaper natural gas is the biggest factor. Combine that with conservation (more efficient usage, as Balt suggests) and the older, less-profitable coal fired plants are rapidly being retired or converted.
charlie hebdo The market-driven switch to cheaper natural gas is the biggest factor. Combine that with conservation (more efficient usage, as Balt suggests) and the older, less-profitable coal fired plants are rapidly being retired or converted.
Spot on! The price of natural gas has fallen from nearly $14 an MCF ten years ago to $2.97 an MCF at the Henry Hub last week. December 2018 futures for delivery at the Henry Hub were $3.01 an MCF last week. All the indicators suggest that the price of natural gas will remain low far into the future.
None of the coal fired electric generating plans in Texas, as far as I know, that have been or are on the list to be mothballed have been converted to natural gas. It is generally more cost effective to build a new gas fired plant, especially when the operating expenses are factored into the equations. Many of the newer gas plants can be run with 1/4 of the employees needed for a coal fired or older gas fired plant.
BaltACD I don't think the utilities accounted for the elimination of the incadescent bulb and its replacement with LED's & CFL's all of which use a fraction of the amount of power that the old faithful incadescents.
I don't think the utilities accounted for the elimination of the incadescent bulb and its replacement with LED's & CFL's all of which use a fraction of the amount of power that the old faithful incadescents.
I don't think lighting has been a major portion of the load since WW2, so the reduction in incandescant lighting has had a minor effect. Keep in mind that most new commercial buildings since WW2 were provided with fluorescents and many homes since then had been partially illuminated with fluorescents. I also think that the laws "banning" incandescent bulbs should have waited for the large scale production of LED bulbs as they are less of a waste disposal problem.
One problem with both LED's and fluorescents is color rendition as neither come close to the black body spectrum of an incandescent. There's a bit of hope for the LED's as it would be possible to put a ~500nm emitter to fill in the gap between the blue LED emission and the output of the fluorescent emission spectrum ("white" LED's are fluorescent lights, with a blue LED instead of mercury vapor).
Add in the increased efficiency of virtually all electrically powered appliances and all of a sudden the overall power demand begins to decrease, sprinkle in the users that have signed up for Solar and Wind power installations on their property and the power demand dips further.
One of the drivers for improved appliance efficiency is variable frequncy drive. Another is that an LED backlit LCD TV screen uses less power than a CRT.
Wind and Solar are succeeding in part from regulations that make sense for a small penetration of generation. The problem comes from generation that is needed when the sun don't and the wind don't blow - cost of the generation is amortized over a lot fewer hours (hence much more expensive) and consumes more fuel per kwhr than base load generation (inceasing expense). Search for "Solar Duck".
Lead times for nuclear plants in the US are probably around 20 years, primarily due to regulatory requirements. Shortest lead times would be for "small" gas turbine plants, which would also be the ones that would be best suited for making up for the times when the sun don't shine and the wind don't blow.
ccltrainsI am from West Virginia and am aware of the coal situation. Hillary said she was going to shut down all the coal mines but provide other jobs to the displaced miners. A McDonalds on every corner in coal country? We saw how that worked with Trump's huge win in WV. Last night in White Sulphur Springs he gave a very encouraging talk that mentioned coal. There is hope after all.
The dude just says stuff, most often without anything other than a misrepresented, cherry picked fact or two to back it up.
Coal isn't "coming back". It's dying a natural, economic death. Natural gas, primarily and renewables, secondarily are the cause.
NS coal Q1 2017 vs 2018. Down 4%.
There will be some fluctuation on the long ride down hill, but to the glory days are gone forever.
NS Coal units by year
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.