Originally posted by railroad65 [ Living nearby to MP 186 of the UPRR Austin TX Sub Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Thursday, August 25, 2005 8:05 AM QUOTE: Originally posted by spbed USA is a day late & a dollar short this was reported in last month Trains magazine. [:o)][:p][:)] Originally posted by railroad65 [ The mailroom at USAToday probably just got the transportation writers mail to him and he more then likely just finsihed the Trains story, well now he has a story. [;)] Reply Edit coborn35 Member sinceJanuary 2005 From: Duluth,Minnesota,USA 4,015 posts Posted by coborn35 on Thursday, August 25, 2005 8:57 AM "Burlington Northern spokesman Richard Russack" OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!! They will not be happy about that!! Nope, those folks at the BNSF RAILWAY COMPANY will not be happy! Just kidding all, bu seriously, how is the Dakota,Minnesota, and Easterns bid to get into Powder River Going? Mechanical Department "No no that's fine shove that 20 pound set all around the yard... those shoes aren't hell and a half to change..." The Missabe Road: Safety First Reply dehusman Member sinceSeptember 2003 From: Omaha, NE 10,621 posts Posted by dehusman on Thursday, August 25, 2005 9:24 AM If the DME does, it will be a decade or so. Dave H. Dave H. Painted side goes up. My website : wnbranch.com Reply spbed Member sinceDecember 2001 From: Austin TX 4,941 posts Posted by spbed on Thursday, August 25, 2005 9:30 AM Yes I suspect they got a hold of the Trains article & just enlarged on it. However, now it is out there much more nationally then thru Trains so it should be interesting to see how BNSF reacts to it. [:o)][:p][:)] Originally posted by dthurman Originally posted by spbed Living nearby to MP 186 of the UPRR Austin TX Sub Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Thursday, August 25, 2005 10:57 AM I just got through readin an article in Electric Light & Power that points out that things are only going to get MUCH worse.... Over the next 10 years overall coal production in the U.S. needs to increase by 30% to keep up with the construction of the proposed coal plants. Since most of that coal will "need" to be clean PRB coal, you can see what will happen. Right now an average of 63 trains a day leave the PRB. Imagine increasing that number by, lets say, 50%? The article also pointed out that RR's are not adequately funded for either necessary maintenance or capital improvements. In order to keep up with the increases in coal production, a LOT of denaro is needed, and the RR's do not have it or the desire to spend it. Mark in Utah Reply Edit bobwilcox Member sinceDecember 2001 From: Crozet, VA 1,049 posts Posted by bobwilcox on Thursday, August 25, 2005 12:56 PM Entrepreneurs in VA are interested in building import coal facilities at Hampton Roads for low sulphur coal. You can read more from the Ricmond Times Dispatch at http://www.timesdispatch.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=RTD%2FMGArticle%2FRTD_BasicArticle&c=MGArticle&cid=1031784622246&path=!business&s=1045855934855 Bob Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Thursday, August 25, 2005 7:26 PM No mention of a possible resurrection of slurry pipelines. Slurry pipelines could deliver coal to rail heads farther out where the capacity constraints are less a problem. I'll bet it'd cost less to build slurry pipelines than new rail capacity. And that new prospective capacity is still funneled onto single corridors, so if another train derails on the PRB line in the future (I would guess a 99.99% probability), the new third or fourth track will still be taken out of service. Reply Edit jeaton Member sinceSeptember 2002 From: Rockton, IL 4,821 posts Posted by jeaton on Thursday, August 25, 2005 7:50 PM And the water for the slurry pipe line out of the PRB will come from? "We have met the enemy and he is us." Pogo Possum "We have met the anemone... and he is Russ." Bucky Katt "Prediction is very difficult, especially if it's about the future." Niels Bohr, Nobel laureate in physics Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Thursday, August 25, 2005 7:58 PM The most logical source is the grey water from coalbed methane projects. Reply Edit Murphy Siding Member sinceMay 2005 From: S.E. South Dakota 13,569 posts Posted by Murphy Siding on Thursday, August 25, 2005 9:20 PM futuremodal: You need to visit the PRB. There is no water. It is dryer than dry most of the time. The municipal water supply in Gillette is literally piped in from out of state. About 25 years ago, then Governor Bill Janklow of South Dakota had agreed to *sell * Missouri river water to interests to run a coal slurry pipeline to Arkansas. I don't remember the exact details, but the plan fell apart in the courts. (Might have had something to do with the fact that the water wasn't South Dakota's to sell? ). Now, with the upper Missouri Basin in the 3rd or 4th year of a drought,S.D. is fighting with the Army Corps of Engineers and every downstream state over water rights. Right now, a pipeline is being built from the Missouri River to supply drinking water to southeastern S.D. and northwestern Iowa. Bottom line is, there is no water for a coal slurry pipeline anywhere near The PRB. What is grey water from coalbed methane projects? And how would you get it to the PRB? Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar. Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Friday, August 26, 2005 9:08 AM PacifiCorp own a power plant just outside of Gillette, Wyodak, that uses an air-to-air cooling system simply because there is NO water available to rn a power plant. It's not as efficient, and costs more to build and operate. Lets face it, the ONLY long-term solution to improving service to the PRB area is the construction of a new line outside of the existing ROW. Double-tracked is pretty much a given. Reply Edit Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Friday, August 26, 2005 10:43 PM Murphy, Gray water (or grey water) is the saline water that must be disposed of before they can pump the methane out of the coalbed. There was (is) a big controversy over how to treat the water. I'll have to check, but there may be enough output to use in a slurry pipeline. If the slurry recycles the water back to the minehead, it can be used over and over. I guess eventually the black water would have to be treated. Mark in utah or miniwyo probably knows more about the amounts of grey water available from coalbed methane operations. Too bad the energy bill didn't include an outlay for building more track out of the PRB. Let's see now, how would that work under the current closed access system......? Oh, right, it won't. Reply Edit Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Friday, August 26, 2005 11:30 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by Mark_W._Hemphill QUOTE: Originally posted by mark_in_utah Lets face it, the ONLY long-term solution to improving service to the PRB area is the construction of a new line outside of the existing ROW. Double-tracked is pretty much a given. That is not a majority view among rail professionals. The PRB line is for the most part a single straight line corridor between Gillette and Orin, with spurs running out to the mines on both sides. The PRB coal seams, of course, do not follow similar straight corridor, but are spread over a large area of Eastern Wyoming and Southeast Montana. A second dispersed PRB line, perhaps running east-west, further east, or futher west of the Orin line to supplement the north-south Orin line would make perfect sense, since it would touch nearer to more coal deposits, rather than having the railroads and mines build more and longer spurs from a triple tracked Orin line itself. Don't know what those rail professionals envision when a single derailment takes out all three lines of a triple track, something that would not have as serious of an affect as what would be the fall back with a second dispersed line through the area. Reply Edit Murphy Siding Member sinceMay 2005 From: S.E. South Dakota 13,569 posts Posted by Murphy Siding on Saturday, August 27, 2005 6:59 AM futuremodal: The lay of the land would probably have a lot to do with it. Check out the area on Terraserver. It's very hilly. Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar. Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Saturday, August 27, 2005 11:57 AM QUOTE: Originally posted by Murphy Siding futuremodal: The lay of the land would probably have a lot to do with it. Check out the area on Terraserver. It's very hilly. The proposed DM&E project would enter the PRB from almost directly east via Edgemont, and run east to west to near the current Orin line. The DM&E line then will split both north and south, parallel to but a short distance away from the northern half of the Orin line: http://www.dmerail.com/PRB/Projectoverview%20Map.htm Well, would you look at that! DM&E is engaging in dispersed redundancy! The smartest thing BNSF could ever do at this point would be to join in ($$$) with DM&E on the section running from the Orin line to Edgemont, as well as the north and south segments. That is, if BNSF's management is comprised of a few forward thinkers, rather than being made up entirely of "rail professionals".[:D] Reply Edit jeaton Member sinceSeptember 2002 From: Rockton, IL 4,821 posts Posted by jeaton on Saturday, August 27, 2005 12:08 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal QUOTE: Originally posted by Murphy Siding futuremodal: The lay of the land would probably have a lot to do with it. Check out the area on Terraserver. It's very hilly. The smartest thing BNSF could ever do at this point would be to join in ($$$) with DM&E on the section running from the Orin line to Edgemont, as well as the north and south segments. That is, if BNSF's management is comprised of a few forward thinkers, rather than being made up entirely of "rail professionals".[:D] And you know for a fact that the BNSF has decided it will NOT do that? "We have met the enemy and he is us." Pogo Possum "We have met the anemone... and he is Russ." Bucky Katt "Prediction is very difficult, especially if it's about the future." Niels Bohr, Nobel laureate in physics Reply Murphy Siding Member sinceMay 2005 From: S.E. South Dakota 13,569 posts Posted by Murphy Siding on Saturday, August 27, 2005 3:37 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by Mark_W._Hemphill Lets face it, the ONLY long-term solution to improving service to the PRB area is the construction of a new line outside of the existing ROW. Double-tracked is pretty much a given. That is not a majority view among rail professionals. QUOTE: Originally posted by mark_in_utah Mark W Hemphill: Can you explain what you mean please? Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar. Reply Murphy Siding Member sinceMay 2005 From: S.E. South Dakota 13,569 posts Posted by Murphy Siding on Saturday, August 27, 2005 3:41 PM futuremodal: Whether theDM&E can, or will get to the PRB is another story in itself. Why would BNSF want to partner up with DM&E anyway? Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar. Reply Murphy Siding Member sinceMay 2005 From: S.E. South Dakota 13,569 posts Posted by Murphy Siding on Saturday, August 27, 2005 3:43 PM I edited this post, not so much so that I wouldn't look like a computer dummy,but so that people who skip over this post will wonder what the heck the post by futuremodal a little further down is all about.[:)] Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar. Reply CSXrules4eva Member sinceAugust 2004 From: Louisville, KY 1,345 posts Posted by CSXrules4eva on Saturday, August 27, 2005 4:04 PM I also heard that there is a problem on the Powder River Coal Basin with coal dust blowing off the tops of hoppers or gondolas and falling on the road bed, which can damage the track structure. This happens mainly when there is heavy precipitation present, rain, snow, ect. It then froms mud or a concreate like substance. I also found out that BNSF wasn't doing their part in maintaining the road bed. LORD HELP US ALL TO BE ORIGINAL AND NOT CRISPY!!! please? Sarah J.M. Warner conductor CSX Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Saturday, August 27, 2005 5:21 PM Murph - The DM&E extension is coming in from the east and running east to west to about the middle of the north-south Orin line. BNSF's eastbound coal trains are running up the Orin line to Gillette, then down through Newcastle and Edgemont to Alliance. By going in with DM&E on the segment from the Orin line to Edgemont, they can get some trains off the northern portion of the Orin line, freeing up capacity. (Hmmm, seems like everything is back to normal.) Reply Edit Murphy Siding Member sinceMay 2005 From: S.E. South Dakota 13,569 posts Posted by Murphy Siding on Saturday, August 27, 2005 6:02 PM Of course,BNSF would be helping to make sure that a fair amount of that coal leaves on the competitor's rail line. That will help free up some capacity too![;)]. I can't picture any railroads (or any other business for that matter) getting too excited about helping a competitor eat it's lunch for them? There were,and still are a whole slew of challenges the DM&E will have to overcome to reach the PRB. Opposition from BNSF and UP will be tremendous. Not to mention that big threat from coal slurry pipelines.[}:)] Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar. Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Saturday, August 27, 2005 10:19 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by CSXrules4eva I also heard that there is a problem on the Powder River Coal Basin with coal dust blowing off the tops of hoppers or gondolas and falling on the road bed, which can damage the track structure. This happens mainly when there is heavy precipitation present, rain, snow, ect. It then froms mud or a concreate like substance. I also found out that BNSF wasn't doing their part in maintaining the road bed. Last I knew, it was BNSF's part to do ALL of the maintenance. UP pays BNSF for their share. Reply Edit Valleyline Member sinceJanuary 2001 From: US 71 posts Posted by Valleyline on Sunday, August 28, 2005 7:43 AM Two years ago I railfanned the Orin line with two friends who happen to be retired railroaders. We found that we were walking through ankle deep coal dust 100' from the right of way in many places. Passing trains had huge clouds of dust blowing off the car tops. One of my friends, who was a track supervisor, speculated that it must be very costly for the railroads to keep all of that coal dust out of the ballast. Apparently they we're not spending as much as they should have been. While the PRB is arid, it was water that solidified the coal dust under the ballast and eventually led to undermining the track.. Reply bobwilcox Member sinceDecember 2001 From: Crozet, VA 1,049 posts Posted by bobwilcox on Sunday, August 28, 2005 2:03 PM NS coal trains at one time also had a lot of blowing coal but today the coal is treated to prevent much loss. Does anyone know when this changed and who m paid for treating the coal? Bob Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Sunday, August 28, 2005 3:29 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by Murphy Siding Of course,BNSF would be helping to make sure that a fair amount of that coal leaves on the competitor's rail line. That will help free up some capacity too![;)]. I can't picture any railroads (or any other business for that matter) getting too excited about helping a competitor eat it's lunch for them? There were,and still are a whole slew of challenges the DM&E will have to overcome to reach the PRB. Opposition from BNSF and UP will be tremendous. Not to mention that big threat from coal slurry pipelines.[}:)] Better to pay 50% of a joint line that serves your purpose than to spend 100% of a single line for the same results. BNSF would be better served to spend money on improving lines out of PRB than to spend money in opposition to DM&E. DM&E is basically handing BNSF a new improved way of taking coal from PRB to as far as Edgemont on a silver platter if BNSF wants it, and all BNSF has to do is pony up a certain % of $$ to receive this blessing. DM&E has no PCE, so there's no transcon threat to BNSF. In fact, DM&E hands off a good portion of Pacific Rim grain traffic to BNSF. DM&E's only potential threat in that vein is if they start cooperating with CP for westbound traffic, and that would be a more expensive routing. Reply Edit Murphy Siding Member sinceMay 2005 From: S.E. South Dakota 13,569 posts Posted by Murphy Siding on Sunday, August 28, 2005 8:56 PM You have a weird way of looking at the situation. Companies tend to compete with each other for business. Paying a % of the cost for a rail line so a competitor can come in and try to take away your business certainly would be a long shot! BNSF raised a fuss about DM&E using their tracks through Aberdeen, S.D. I'd give your idea a 1/ 1,000,000 chance. Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar. Reply 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
Living nearby to MP 186 of the UPRR Austin TX Sub
QUOTE: Originally posted by spbed USA is a day late & a dollar short this was reported in last month Trains magazine. [:o)][:p][:)] Originally posted by railroad65 [ The mailroom at USAToday probably just got the transportation writers mail to him and he more then likely just finsihed the Trains story, well now he has a story. [;)] Reply Edit coborn35 Member sinceJanuary 2005 From: Duluth,Minnesota,USA 4,015 posts Posted by coborn35 on Thursday, August 25, 2005 8:57 AM "Burlington Northern spokesman Richard Russack" OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!! They will not be happy about that!! Nope, those folks at the BNSF RAILWAY COMPANY will not be happy! Just kidding all, bu seriously, how is the Dakota,Minnesota, and Easterns bid to get into Powder River Going? Mechanical Department "No no that's fine shove that 20 pound set all around the yard... those shoes aren't hell and a half to change..." The Missabe Road: Safety First Reply dehusman Member sinceSeptember 2003 From: Omaha, NE 10,621 posts Posted by dehusman on Thursday, August 25, 2005 9:24 AM If the DME does, it will be a decade or so. Dave H. Dave H. Painted side goes up. My website : wnbranch.com Reply spbed Member sinceDecember 2001 From: Austin TX 4,941 posts Posted by spbed on Thursday, August 25, 2005 9:30 AM Yes I suspect they got a hold of the Trains article & just enlarged on it. However, now it is out there much more nationally then thru Trains so it should be interesting to see how BNSF reacts to it. [:o)][:p][:)] Originally posted by dthurman Originally posted by spbed Living nearby to MP 186 of the UPRR Austin TX Sub Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Thursday, August 25, 2005 10:57 AM I just got through readin an article in Electric Light & Power that points out that things are only going to get MUCH worse.... Over the next 10 years overall coal production in the U.S. needs to increase by 30% to keep up with the construction of the proposed coal plants. Since most of that coal will "need" to be clean PRB coal, you can see what will happen. Right now an average of 63 trains a day leave the PRB. Imagine increasing that number by, lets say, 50%? The article also pointed out that RR's are not adequately funded for either necessary maintenance or capital improvements. In order to keep up with the increases in coal production, a LOT of denaro is needed, and the RR's do not have it or the desire to spend it. Mark in Utah Reply Edit bobwilcox Member sinceDecember 2001 From: Crozet, VA 1,049 posts Posted by bobwilcox on Thursday, August 25, 2005 12:56 PM Entrepreneurs in VA are interested in building import coal facilities at Hampton Roads for low sulphur coal. You can read more from the Ricmond Times Dispatch at http://www.timesdispatch.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=RTD%2FMGArticle%2FRTD_BasicArticle&c=MGArticle&cid=1031784622246&path=!business&s=1045855934855 Bob Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Thursday, August 25, 2005 7:26 PM No mention of a possible resurrection of slurry pipelines. Slurry pipelines could deliver coal to rail heads farther out where the capacity constraints are less a problem. I'll bet it'd cost less to build slurry pipelines than new rail capacity. And that new prospective capacity is still funneled onto single corridors, so if another train derails on the PRB line in the future (I would guess a 99.99% probability), the new third or fourth track will still be taken out of service. Reply Edit jeaton Member sinceSeptember 2002 From: Rockton, IL 4,821 posts Posted by jeaton on Thursday, August 25, 2005 7:50 PM And the water for the slurry pipe line out of the PRB will come from? "We have met the enemy and he is us." Pogo Possum "We have met the anemone... and he is Russ." Bucky Katt "Prediction is very difficult, especially if it's about the future." Niels Bohr, Nobel laureate in physics Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Thursday, August 25, 2005 7:58 PM The most logical source is the grey water from coalbed methane projects. Reply Edit Murphy Siding Member sinceMay 2005 From: S.E. South Dakota 13,569 posts Posted by Murphy Siding on Thursday, August 25, 2005 9:20 PM futuremodal: You need to visit the PRB. There is no water. It is dryer than dry most of the time. The municipal water supply in Gillette is literally piped in from out of state. About 25 years ago, then Governor Bill Janklow of South Dakota had agreed to *sell * Missouri river water to interests to run a coal slurry pipeline to Arkansas. I don't remember the exact details, but the plan fell apart in the courts. (Might have had something to do with the fact that the water wasn't South Dakota's to sell? ). Now, with the upper Missouri Basin in the 3rd or 4th year of a drought,S.D. is fighting with the Army Corps of Engineers and every downstream state over water rights. Right now, a pipeline is being built from the Missouri River to supply drinking water to southeastern S.D. and northwestern Iowa. Bottom line is, there is no water for a coal slurry pipeline anywhere near The PRB. What is grey water from coalbed methane projects? And how would you get it to the PRB? Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar. Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Friday, August 26, 2005 9:08 AM PacifiCorp own a power plant just outside of Gillette, Wyodak, that uses an air-to-air cooling system simply because there is NO water available to rn a power plant. It's not as efficient, and costs more to build and operate. Lets face it, the ONLY long-term solution to improving service to the PRB area is the construction of a new line outside of the existing ROW. Double-tracked is pretty much a given. Reply Edit Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Friday, August 26, 2005 10:43 PM Murphy, Gray water (or grey water) is the saline water that must be disposed of before they can pump the methane out of the coalbed. There was (is) a big controversy over how to treat the water. I'll have to check, but there may be enough output to use in a slurry pipeline. If the slurry recycles the water back to the minehead, it can be used over and over. I guess eventually the black water would have to be treated. Mark in utah or miniwyo probably knows more about the amounts of grey water available from coalbed methane operations. Too bad the energy bill didn't include an outlay for building more track out of the PRB. Let's see now, how would that work under the current closed access system......? Oh, right, it won't. Reply Edit Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Friday, August 26, 2005 11:30 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by Mark_W._Hemphill QUOTE: Originally posted by mark_in_utah Lets face it, the ONLY long-term solution to improving service to the PRB area is the construction of a new line outside of the existing ROW. Double-tracked is pretty much a given. That is not a majority view among rail professionals. The PRB line is for the most part a single straight line corridor between Gillette and Orin, with spurs running out to the mines on both sides. The PRB coal seams, of course, do not follow similar straight corridor, but are spread over a large area of Eastern Wyoming and Southeast Montana. A second dispersed PRB line, perhaps running east-west, further east, or futher west of the Orin line to supplement the north-south Orin line would make perfect sense, since it would touch nearer to more coal deposits, rather than having the railroads and mines build more and longer spurs from a triple tracked Orin line itself. Don't know what those rail professionals envision when a single derailment takes out all three lines of a triple track, something that would not have as serious of an affect as what would be the fall back with a second dispersed line through the area. Reply Edit Murphy Siding Member sinceMay 2005 From: S.E. South Dakota 13,569 posts Posted by Murphy Siding on Saturday, August 27, 2005 6:59 AM futuremodal: The lay of the land would probably have a lot to do with it. Check out the area on Terraserver. It's very hilly. Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar. Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Saturday, August 27, 2005 11:57 AM QUOTE: Originally posted by Murphy Siding futuremodal: The lay of the land would probably have a lot to do with it. Check out the area on Terraserver. It's very hilly. The proposed DM&E project would enter the PRB from almost directly east via Edgemont, and run east to west to near the current Orin line. The DM&E line then will split both north and south, parallel to but a short distance away from the northern half of the Orin line: http://www.dmerail.com/PRB/Projectoverview%20Map.htm Well, would you look at that! DM&E is engaging in dispersed redundancy! The smartest thing BNSF could ever do at this point would be to join in ($$$) with DM&E on the section running from the Orin line to Edgemont, as well as the north and south segments. That is, if BNSF's management is comprised of a few forward thinkers, rather than being made up entirely of "rail professionals".[:D] Reply Edit jeaton Member sinceSeptember 2002 From: Rockton, IL 4,821 posts Posted by jeaton on Saturday, August 27, 2005 12:08 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal QUOTE: Originally posted by Murphy Siding futuremodal: The lay of the land would probably have a lot to do with it. Check out the area on Terraserver. It's very hilly. The smartest thing BNSF could ever do at this point would be to join in ($$$) with DM&E on the section running from the Orin line to Edgemont, as well as the north and south segments. That is, if BNSF's management is comprised of a few forward thinkers, rather than being made up entirely of "rail professionals".[:D] And you know for a fact that the BNSF has decided it will NOT do that? "We have met the enemy and he is us." Pogo Possum "We have met the anemone... and he is Russ." Bucky Katt "Prediction is very difficult, especially if it's about the future." Niels Bohr, Nobel laureate in physics Reply Murphy Siding Member sinceMay 2005 From: S.E. South Dakota 13,569 posts Posted by Murphy Siding on Saturday, August 27, 2005 3:37 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by Mark_W._Hemphill Lets face it, the ONLY long-term solution to improving service to the PRB area is the construction of a new line outside of the existing ROW. Double-tracked is pretty much a given. That is not a majority view among rail professionals. QUOTE: Originally posted by mark_in_utah Mark W Hemphill: Can you explain what you mean please? Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar. Reply Murphy Siding Member sinceMay 2005 From: S.E. South Dakota 13,569 posts Posted by Murphy Siding on Saturday, August 27, 2005 3:41 PM futuremodal: Whether theDM&E can, or will get to the PRB is another story in itself. Why would BNSF want to partner up with DM&E anyway? Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar. Reply Murphy Siding Member sinceMay 2005 From: S.E. South Dakota 13,569 posts Posted by Murphy Siding on Saturday, August 27, 2005 3:43 PM I edited this post, not so much so that I wouldn't look like a computer dummy,but so that people who skip over this post will wonder what the heck the post by futuremodal a little further down is all about.[:)] Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar. Reply CSXrules4eva Member sinceAugust 2004 From: Louisville, KY 1,345 posts Posted by CSXrules4eva on Saturday, August 27, 2005 4:04 PM I also heard that there is a problem on the Powder River Coal Basin with coal dust blowing off the tops of hoppers or gondolas and falling on the road bed, which can damage the track structure. This happens mainly when there is heavy precipitation present, rain, snow, ect. It then froms mud or a concreate like substance. I also found out that BNSF wasn't doing their part in maintaining the road bed. LORD HELP US ALL TO BE ORIGINAL AND NOT CRISPY!!! please? Sarah J.M. Warner conductor CSX Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Saturday, August 27, 2005 5:21 PM Murph - The DM&E extension is coming in from the east and running east to west to about the middle of the north-south Orin line. BNSF's eastbound coal trains are running up the Orin line to Gillette, then down through Newcastle and Edgemont to Alliance. By going in with DM&E on the segment from the Orin line to Edgemont, they can get some trains off the northern portion of the Orin line, freeing up capacity. (Hmmm, seems like everything is back to normal.) Reply Edit Murphy Siding Member sinceMay 2005 From: S.E. South Dakota 13,569 posts Posted by Murphy Siding on Saturday, August 27, 2005 6:02 PM Of course,BNSF would be helping to make sure that a fair amount of that coal leaves on the competitor's rail line. That will help free up some capacity too![;)]. I can't picture any railroads (or any other business for that matter) getting too excited about helping a competitor eat it's lunch for them? There were,and still are a whole slew of challenges the DM&E will have to overcome to reach the PRB. Opposition from BNSF and UP will be tremendous. Not to mention that big threat from coal slurry pipelines.[}:)] Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar. Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Saturday, August 27, 2005 10:19 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by CSXrules4eva I also heard that there is a problem on the Powder River Coal Basin with coal dust blowing off the tops of hoppers or gondolas and falling on the road bed, which can damage the track structure. This happens mainly when there is heavy precipitation present, rain, snow, ect. It then froms mud or a concreate like substance. I also found out that BNSF wasn't doing their part in maintaining the road bed. Last I knew, it was BNSF's part to do ALL of the maintenance. UP pays BNSF for their share. Reply Edit Valleyline Member sinceJanuary 2001 From: US 71 posts Posted by Valleyline on Sunday, August 28, 2005 7:43 AM Two years ago I railfanned the Orin line with two friends who happen to be retired railroaders. We found that we were walking through ankle deep coal dust 100' from the right of way in many places. Passing trains had huge clouds of dust blowing off the car tops. One of my friends, who was a track supervisor, speculated that it must be very costly for the railroads to keep all of that coal dust out of the ballast. Apparently they we're not spending as much as they should have been. While the PRB is arid, it was water that solidified the coal dust under the ballast and eventually led to undermining the track.. Reply bobwilcox Member sinceDecember 2001 From: Crozet, VA 1,049 posts Posted by bobwilcox on Sunday, August 28, 2005 2:03 PM NS coal trains at one time also had a lot of blowing coal but today the coal is treated to prevent much loss. Does anyone know when this changed and who m paid for treating the coal? Bob Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Sunday, August 28, 2005 3:29 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by Murphy Siding Of course,BNSF would be helping to make sure that a fair amount of that coal leaves on the competitor's rail line. That will help free up some capacity too![;)]. I can't picture any railroads (or any other business for that matter) getting too excited about helping a competitor eat it's lunch for them? There were,and still are a whole slew of challenges the DM&E will have to overcome to reach the PRB. Opposition from BNSF and UP will be tremendous. Not to mention that big threat from coal slurry pipelines.[}:)] Better to pay 50% of a joint line that serves your purpose than to spend 100% of a single line for the same results. BNSF would be better served to spend money on improving lines out of PRB than to spend money in opposition to DM&E. DM&E is basically handing BNSF a new improved way of taking coal from PRB to as far as Edgemont on a silver platter if BNSF wants it, and all BNSF has to do is pony up a certain % of $$ to receive this blessing. DM&E has no PCE, so there's no transcon threat to BNSF. In fact, DM&E hands off a good portion of Pacific Rim grain traffic to BNSF. DM&E's only potential threat in that vein is if they start cooperating with CP for westbound traffic, and that would be a more expensive routing. Reply Edit Murphy Siding Member sinceMay 2005 From: S.E. South Dakota 13,569 posts Posted by Murphy Siding on Sunday, August 28, 2005 8:56 PM You have a weird way of looking at the situation. Companies tend to compete with each other for business. Paying a % of the cost for a rail line so a competitor can come in and try to take away your business certainly would be a long shot! BNSF raised a fuss about DM&E using their tracks through Aberdeen, S.D. I'd give your idea a 1/ 1,000,000 chance. Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar. Reply 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
Originally posted by railroad65 [
Mechanical Department "No no that's fine shove that 20 pound set all around the yard... those shoes aren't hell and a half to change..."
The Missabe Road: Safety First
Dave H. Painted side goes up. My website : wnbranch.com
Originally posted by dthurman Originally posted by spbed Living nearby to MP 186 of the UPRR Austin TX Sub Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Thursday, August 25, 2005 10:57 AM I just got through readin an article in Electric Light & Power that points out that things are only going to get MUCH worse.... Over the next 10 years overall coal production in the U.S. needs to increase by 30% to keep up with the construction of the proposed coal plants. Since most of that coal will "need" to be clean PRB coal, you can see what will happen. Right now an average of 63 trains a day leave the PRB. Imagine increasing that number by, lets say, 50%? The article also pointed out that RR's are not adequately funded for either necessary maintenance or capital improvements. In order to keep up with the increases in coal production, a LOT of denaro is needed, and the RR's do not have it or the desire to spend it. Mark in Utah Reply Edit bobwilcox Member sinceDecember 2001 From: Crozet, VA 1,049 posts Posted by bobwilcox on Thursday, August 25, 2005 12:56 PM Entrepreneurs in VA are interested in building import coal facilities at Hampton Roads for low sulphur coal. You can read more from the Ricmond Times Dispatch at http://www.timesdispatch.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=RTD%2FMGArticle%2FRTD_BasicArticle&c=MGArticle&cid=1031784622246&path=!business&s=1045855934855 Bob Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Thursday, August 25, 2005 7:26 PM No mention of a possible resurrection of slurry pipelines. Slurry pipelines could deliver coal to rail heads farther out where the capacity constraints are less a problem. I'll bet it'd cost less to build slurry pipelines than new rail capacity. And that new prospective capacity is still funneled onto single corridors, so if another train derails on the PRB line in the future (I would guess a 99.99% probability), the new third or fourth track will still be taken out of service. Reply Edit jeaton Member sinceSeptember 2002 From: Rockton, IL 4,821 posts Posted by jeaton on Thursday, August 25, 2005 7:50 PM And the water for the slurry pipe line out of the PRB will come from? "We have met the enemy and he is us." Pogo Possum "We have met the anemone... and he is Russ." Bucky Katt "Prediction is very difficult, especially if it's about the future." Niels Bohr, Nobel laureate in physics Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Thursday, August 25, 2005 7:58 PM The most logical source is the grey water from coalbed methane projects. Reply Edit Murphy Siding Member sinceMay 2005 From: S.E. South Dakota 13,569 posts Posted by Murphy Siding on Thursday, August 25, 2005 9:20 PM futuremodal: You need to visit the PRB. There is no water. It is dryer than dry most of the time. The municipal water supply in Gillette is literally piped in from out of state. About 25 years ago, then Governor Bill Janklow of South Dakota had agreed to *sell * Missouri river water to interests to run a coal slurry pipeline to Arkansas. I don't remember the exact details, but the plan fell apart in the courts. (Might have had something to do with the fact that the water wasn't South Dakota's to sell? ). Now, with the upper Missouri Basin in the 3rd or 4th year of a drought,S.D. is fighting with the Army Corps of Engineers and every downstream state over water rights. Right now, a pipeline is being built from the Missouri River to supply drinking water to southeastern S.D. and northwestern Iowa. Bottom line is, there is no water for a coal slurry pipeline anywhere near The PRB. What is grey water from coalbed methane projects? And how would you get it to the PRB? Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar. Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Friday, August 26, 2005 9:08 AM PacifiCorp own a power plant just outside of Gillette, Wyodak, that uses an air-to-air cooling system simply because there is NO water available to rn a power plant. It's not as efficient, and costs more to build and operate. Lets face it, the ONLY long-term solution to improving service to the PRB area is the construction of a new line outside of the existing ROW. Double-tracked is pretty much a given. Reply Edit Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Friday, August 26, 2005 10:43 PM Murphy, Gray water (or grey water) is the saline water that must be disposed of before they can pump the methane out of the coalbed. There was (is) a big controversy over how to treat the water. I'll have to check, but there may be enough output to use in a slurry pipeline. If the slurry recycles the water back to the minehead, it can be used over and over. I guess eventually the black water would have to be treated. Mark in utah or miniwyo probably knows more about the amounts of grey water available from coalbed methane operations. Too bad the energy bill didn't include an outlay for building more track out of the PRB. Let's see now, how would that work under the current closed access system......? Oh, right, it won't. Reply Edit Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Friday, August 26, 2005 11:30 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by Mark_W._Hemphill QUOTE: Originally posted by mark_in_utah Lets face it, the ONLY long-term solution to improving service to the PRB area is the construction of a new line outside of the existing ROW. Double-tracked is pretty much a given. That is not a majority view among rail professionals. The PRB line is for the most part a single straight line corridor between Gillette and Orin, with spurs running out to the mines on both sides. The PRB coal seams, of course, do not follow similar straight corridor, but are spread over a large area of Eastern Wyoming and Southeast Montana. A second dispersed PRB line, perhaps running east-west, further east, or futher west of the Orin line to supplement the north-south Orin line would make perfect sense, since it would touch nearer to more coal deposits, rather than having the railroads and mines build more and longer spurs from a triple tracked Orin line itself. Don't know what those rail professionals envision when a single derailment takes out all three lines of a triple track, something that would not have as serious of an affect as what would be the fall back with a second dispersed line through the area. Reply Edit Murphy Siding Member sinceMay 2005 From: S.E. South Dakota 13,569 posts Posted by Murphy Siding on Saturday, August 27, 2005 6:59 AM futuremodal: The lay of the land would probably have a lot to do with it. Check out the area on Terraserver. It's very hilly. Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar. Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Saturday, August 27, 2005 11:57 AM QUOTE: Originally posted by Murphy Siding futuremodal: The lay of the land would probably have a lot to do with it. Check out the area on Terraserver. It's very hilly. The proposed DM&E project would enter the PRB from almost directly east via Edgemont, and run east to west to near the current Orin line. The DM&E line then will split both north and south, parallel to but a short distance away from the northern half of the Orin line: http://www.dmerail.com/PRB/Projectoverview%20Map.htm Well, would you look at that! DM&E is engaging in dispersed redundancy! The smartest thing BNSF could ever do at this point would be to join in ($$$) with DM&E on the section running from the Orin line to Edgemont, as well as the north and south segments. That is, if BNSF's management is comprised of a few forward thinkers, rather than being made up entirely of "rail professionals".[:D] Reply Edit jeaton Member sinceSeptember 2002 From: Rockton, IL 4,821 posts Posted by jeaton on Saturday, August 27, 2005 12:08 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal QUOTE: Originally posted by Murphy Siding futuremodal: The lay of the land would probably have a lot to do with it. Check out the area on Terraserver. It's very hilly. The smartest thing BNSF could ever do at this point would be to join in ($$$) with DM&E on the section running from the Orin line to Edgemont, as well as the north and south segments. That is, if BNSF's management is comprised of a few forward thinkers, rather than being made up entirely of "rail professionals".[:D] And you know for a fact that the BNSF has decided it will NOT do that? "We have met the enemy and he is us." Pogo Possum "We have met the anemone... and he is Russ." Bucky Katt "Prediction is very difficult, especially if it's about the future." Niels Bohr, Nobel laureate in physics Reply Murphy Siding Member sinceMay 2005 From: S.E. South Dakota 13,569 posts Posted by Murphy Siding on Saturday, August 27, 2005 3:37 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by Mark_W._Hemphill Lets face it, the ONLY long-term solution to improving service to the PRB area is the construction of a new line outside of the existing ROW. Double-tracked is pretty much a given. That is not a majority view among rail professionals. QUOTE: Originally posted by mark_in_utah Mark W Hemphill: Can you explain what you mean please? Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar. Reply Murphy Siding Member sinceMay 2005 From: S.E. South Dakota 13,569 posts Posted by Murphy Siding on Saturday, August 27, 2005 3:41 PM futuremodal: Whether theDM&E can, or will get to the PRB is another story in itself. Why would BNSF want to partner up with DM&E anyway? Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar. Reply Murphy Siding Member sinceMay 2005 From: S.E. South Dakota 13,569 posts Posted by Murphy Siding on Saturday, August 27, 2005 3:43 PM I edited this post, not so much so that I wouldn't look like a computer dummy,but so that people who skip over this post will wonder what the heck the post by futuremodal a little further down is all about.[:)] Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar. Reply CSXrules4eva Member sinceAugust 2004 From: Louisville, KY 1,345 posts Posted by CSXrules4eva on Saturday, August 27, 2005 4:04 PM I also heard that there is a problem on the Powder River Coal Basin with coal dust blowing off the tops of hoppers or gondolas and falling on the road bed, which can damage the track structure. This happens mainly when there is heavy precipitation present, rain, snow, ect. It then froms mud or a concreate like substance. I also found out that BNSF wasn't doing their part in maintaining the road bed. LORD HELP US ALL TO BE ORIGINAL AND NOT CRISPY!!! please? Sarah J.M. Warner conductor CSX Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Saturday, August 27, 2005 5:21 PM Murph - The DM&E extension is coming in from the east and running east to west to about the middle of the north-south Orin line. BNSF's eastbound coal trains are running up the Orin line to Gillette, then down through Newcastle and Edgemont to Alliance. By going in with DM&E on the segment from the Orin line to Edgemont, they can get some trains off the northern portion of the Orin line, freeing up capacity. (Hmmm, seems like everything is back to normal.) Reply Edit Murphy Siding Member sinceMay 2005 From: S.E. South Dakota 13,569 posts Posted by Murphy Siding on Saturday, August 27, 2005 6:02 PM Of course,BNSF would be helping to make sure that a fair amount of that coal leaves on the competitor's rail line. That will help free up some capacity too![;)]. I can't picture any railroads (or any other business for that matter) getting too excited about helping a competitor eat it's lunch for them? There were,and still are a whole slew of challenges the DM&E will have to overcome to reach the PRB. Opposition from BNSF and UP will be tremendous. Not to mention that big threat from coal slurry pipelines.[}:)] Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar. Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Saturday, August 27, 2005 10:19 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by CSXrules4eva I also heard that there is a problem on the Powder River Coal Basin with coal dust blowing off the tops of hoppers or gondolas and falling on the road bed, which can damage the track structure. This happens mainly when there is heavy precipitation present, rain, snow, ect. It then froms mud or a concreate like substance. I also found out that BNSF wasn't doing their part in maintaining the road bed. Last I knew, it was BNSF's part to do ALL of the maintenance. UP pays BNSF for their share. Reply Edit Valleyline Member sinceJanuary 2001 From: US 71 posts Posted by Valleyline on Sunday, August 28, 2005 7:43 AM Two years ago I railfanned the Orin line with two friends who happen to be retired railroaders. We found that we were walking through ankle deep coal dust 100' from the right of way in many places. Passing trains had huge clouds of dust blowing off the car tops. One of my friends, who was a track supervisor, speculated that it must be very costly for the railroads to keep all of that coal dust out of the ballast. Apparently they we're not spending as much as they should have been. While the PRB is arid, it was water that solidified the coal dust under the ballast and eventually led to undermining the track.. Reply bobwilcox Member sinceDecember 2001 From: Crozet, VA 1,049 posts Posted by bobwilcox on Sunday, August 28, 2005 2:03 PM NS coal trains at one time also had a lot of blowing coal but today the coal is treated to prevent much loss. Does anyone know when this changed and who m paid for treating the coal? Bob Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Sunday, August 28, 2005 3:29 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by Murphy Siding Of course,BNSF would be helping to make sure that a fair amount of that coal leaves on the competitor's rail line. That will help free up some capacity too![;)]. I can't picture any railroads (or any other business for that matter) getting too excited about helping a competitor eat it's lunch for them? There were,and still are a whole slew of challenges the DM&E will have to overcome to reach the PRB. Opposition from BNSF and UP will be tremendous. Not to mention that big threat from coal slurry pipelines.[}:)] Better to pay 50% of a joint line that serves your purpose than to spend 100% of a single line for the same results. BNSF would be better served to spend money on improving lines out of PRB than to spend money in opposition to DM&E. DM&E is basically handing BNSF a new improved way of taking coal from PRB to as far as Edgemont on a silver platter if BNSF wants it, and all BNSF has to do is pony up a certain % of $$ to receive this blessing. DM&E has no PCE, so there's no transcon threat to BNSF. In fact, DM&E hands off a good portion of Pacific Rim grain traffic to BNSF. DM&E's only potential threat in that vein is if they start cooperating with CP for westbound traffic, and that would be a more expensive routing. Reply Edit Murphy Siding Member sinceMay 2005 From: S.E. South Dakota 13,569 posts Posted by Murphy Siding on Sunday, August 28, 2005 8:56 PM You have a weird way of looking at the situation. Companies tend to compete with each other for business. Paying a % of the cost for a rail line so a competitor can come in and try to take away your business certainly would be a long shot! BNSF raised a fuss about DM&E using their tracks through Aberdeen, S.D. I'd give your idea a 1/ 1,000,000 chance. Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar. Reply 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
Originally posted by spbed Living nearby to MP 186 of the UPRR Austin TX Sub Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Thursday, August 25, 2005 10:57 AM I just got through readin an article in Electric Light & Power that points out that things are only going to get MUCH worse.... Over the next 10 years overall coal production in the U.S. needs to increase by 30% to keep up with the construction of the proposed coal plants. Since most of that coal will "need" to be clean PRB coal, you can see what will happen. Right now an average of 63 trains a day leave the PRB. Imagine increasing that number by, lets say, 50%? The article also pointed out that RR's are not adequately funded for either necessary maintenance or capital improvements. In order to keep up with the increases in coal production, a LOT of denaro is needed, and the RR's do not have it or the desire to spend it. Mark in Utah Reply Edit bobwilcox Member sinceDecember 2001 From: Crozet, VA 1,049 posts Posted by bobwilcox on Thursday, August 25, 2005 12:56 PM Entrepreneurs in VA are interested in building import coal facilities at Hampton Roads for low sulphur coal. You can read more from the Ricmond Times Dispatch at http://www.timesdispatch.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=RTD%2FMGArticle%2FRTD_BasicArticle&c=MGArticle&cid=1031784622246&path=!business&s=1045855934855 Bob Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Thursday, August 25, 2005 7:26 PM No mention of a possible resurrection of slurry pipelines. Slurry pipelines could deliver coal to rail heads farther out where the capacity constraints are less a problem. I'll bet it'd cost less to build slurry pipelines than new rail capacity. And that new prospective capacity is still funneled onto single corridors, so if another train derails on the PRB line in the future (I would guess a 99.99% probability), the new third or fourth track will still be taken out of service. Reply Edit jeaton Member sinceSeptember 2002 From: Rockton, IL 4,821 posts Posted by jeaton on Thursday, August 25, 2005 7:50 PM And the water for the slurry pipe line out of the PRB will come from? "We have met the enemy and he is us." Pogo Possum "We have met the anemone... and he is Russ." Bucky Katt "Prediction is very difficult, especially if it's about the future." Niels Bohr, Nobel laureate in physics Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Thursday, August 25, 2005 7:58 PM The most logical source is the grey water from coalbed methane projects. Reply Edit Murphy Siding Member sinceMay 2005 From: S.E. South Dakota 13,569 posts Posted by Murphy Siding on Thursday, August 25, 2005 9:20 PM futuremodal: You need to visit the PRB. There is no water. It is dryer than dry most of the time. The municipal water supply in Gillette is literally piped in from out of state. About 25 years ago, then Governor Bill Janklow of South Dakota had agreed to *sell * Missouri river water to interests to run a coal slurry pipeline to Arkansas. I don't remember the exact details, but the plan fell apart in the courts. (Might have had something to do with the fact that the water wasn't South Dakota's to sell? ). Now, with the upper Missouri Basin in the 3rd or 4th year of a drought,S.D. is fighting with the Army Corps of Engineers and every downstream state over water rights. Right now, a pipeline is being built from the Missouri River to supply drinking water to southeastern S.D. and northwestern Iowa. Bottom line is, there is no water for a coal slurry pipeline anywhere near The PRB. What is grey water from coalbed methane projects? And how would you get it to the PRB? Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar. Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Friday, August 26, 2005 9:08 AM PacifiCorp own a power plant just outside of Gillette, Wyodak, that uses an air-to-air cooling system simply because there is NO water available to rn a power plant. It's not as efficient, and costs more to build and operate. Lets face it, the ONLY long-term solution to improving service to the PRB area is the construction of a new line outside of the existing ROW. Double-tracked is pretty much a given. Reply Edit Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Friday, August 26, 2005 10:43 PM Murphy, Gray water (or grey water) is the saline water that must be disposed of before they can pump the methane out of the coalbed. There was (is) a big controversy over how to treat the water. I'll have to check, but there may be enough output to use in a slurry pipeline. If the slurry recycles the water back to the minehead, it can be used over and over. I guess eventually the black water would have to be treated. Mark in utah or miniwyo probably knows more about the amounts of grey water available from coalbed methane operations. Too bad the energy bill didn't include an outlay for building more track out of the PRB. Let's see now, how would that work under the current closed access system......? Oh, right, it won't. Reply Edit Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Friday, August 26, 2005 11:30 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by Mark_W._Hemphill QUOTE: Originally posted by mark_in_utah Lets face it, the ONLY long-term solution to improving service to the PRB area is the construction of a new line outside of the existing ROW. Double-tracked is pretty much a given. That is not a majority view among rail professionals. The PRB line is for the most part a single straight line corridor between Gillette and Orin, with spurs running out to the mines on both sides. The PRB coal seams, of course, do not follow similar straight corridor, but are spread over a large area of Eastern Wyoming and Southeast Montana. A second dispersed PRB line, perhaps running east-west, further east, or futher west of the Orin line to supplement the north-south Orin line would make perfect sense, since it would touch nearer to more coal deposits, rather than having the railroads and mines build more and longer spurs from a triple tracked Orin line itself. Don't know what those rail professionals envision when a single derailment takes out all three lines of a triple track, something that would not have as serious of an affect as what would be the fall back with a second dispersed line through the area. Reply Edit Murphy Siding Member sinceMay 2005 From: S.E. South Dakota 13,569 posts Posted by Murphy Siding on Saturday, August 27, 2005 6:59 AM futuremodal: The lay of the land would probably have a lot to do with it. Check out the area on Terraserver. It's very hilly. Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar. Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Saturday, August 27, 2005 11:57 AM QUOTE: Originally posted by Murphy Siding futuremodal: The lay of the land would probably have a lot to do with it. Check out the area on Terraserver. It's very hilly. The proposed DM&E project would enter the PRB from almost directly east via Edgemont, and run east to west to near the current Orin line. The DM&E line then will split both north and south, parallel to but a short distance away from the northern half of the Orin line: http://www.dmerail.com/PRB/Projectoverview%20Map.htm Well, would you look at that! DM&E is engaging in dispersed redundancy! The smartest thing BNSF could ever do at this point would be to join in ($$$) with DM&E on the section running from the Orin line to Edgemont, as well as the north and south segments. That is, if BNSF's management is comprised of a few forward thinkers, rather than being made up entirely of "rail professionals".[:D] Reply Edit jeaton Member sinceSeptember 2002 From: Rockton, IL 4,821 posts Posted by jeaton on Saturday, August 27, 2005 12:08 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal QUOTE: Originally posted by Murphy Siding futuremodal: The lay of the land would probably have a lot to do with it. Check out the area on Terraserver. It's very hilly. The smartest thing BNSF could ever do at this point would be to join in ($$$) with DM&E on the section running from the Orin line to Edgemont, as well as the north and south segments. That is, if BNSF's management is comprised of a few forward thinkers, rather than being made up entirely of "rail professionals".[:D] And you know for a fact that the BNSF has decided it will NOT do that? "We have met the enemy and he is us." Pogo Possum "We have met the anemone... and he is Russ." Bucky Katt "Prediction is very difficult, especially if it's about the future." Niels Bohr, Nobel laureate in physics Reply Murphy Siding Member sinceMay 2005 From: S.E. South Dakota 13,569 posts Posted by Murphy Siding on Saturday, August 27, 2005 3:37 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by Mark_W._Hemphill Lets face it, the ONLY long-term solution to improving service to the PRB area is the construction of a new line outside of the existing ROW. Double-tracked is pretty much a given. That is not a majority view among rail professionals.
"We have met the enemy and he is us." Pogo Possum "We have met the anemone... and he is Russ." Bucky Katt "Prediction is very difficult, especially if it's about the future." Niels Bohr, Nobel laureate in physics
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
QUOTE: Originally posted by Mark_W._Hemphill QUOTE: Originally posted by mark_in_utah Lets face it, the ONLY long-term solution to improving service to the PRB area is the construction of a new line outside of the existing ROW. Double-tracked is pretty much a given. That is not a majority view among rail professionals.
QUOTE: Originally posted by mark_in_utah Lets face it, the ONLY long-term solution to improving service to the PRB area is the construction of a new line outside of the existing ROW. Double-tracked is pretty much a given.
QUOTE: Originally posted by Murphy Siding futuremodal: The lay of the land would probably have a lot to do with it. Check out the area on Terraserver. It's very hilly.
QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal QUOTE: Originally posted by Murphy Siding futuremodal: The lay of the land would probably have a lot to do with it. Check out the area on Terraserver. It's very hilly. The smartest thing BNSF could ever do at this point would be to join in ($$$) with DM&E on the section running from the Orin line to Edgemont, as well as the north and south segments. That is, if BNSF's management is comprised of a few forward thinkers, rather than being made up entirely of "rail professionals".[:D]
QUOTE: Originally posted by Mark_W._Hemphill Lets face it, the ONLY long-term solution to improving service to the PRB area is the construction of a new line outside of the existing ROW. Double-tracked is pretty much a given.
QUOTE: Originally posted by mark_in_utah Mark W Hemphill: Can you explain what you mean please? Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar. Reply Murphy Siding Member sinceMay 2005 From: S.E. South Dakota 13,569 posts Posted by Murphy Siding on Saturday, August 27, 2005 3:41 PM futuremodal: Whether theDM&E can, or will get to the PRB is another story in itself. Why would BNSF want to partner up with DM&E anyway? Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar. Reply Murphy Siding Member sinceMay 2005 From: S.E. South Dakota 13,569 posts Posted by Murphy Siding on Saturday, August 27, 2005 3:43 PM I edited this post, not so much so that I wouldn't look like a computer dummy,but so that people who skip over this post will wonder what the heck the post by futuremodal a little further down is all about.[:)] Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar. Reply CSXrules4eva Member sinceAugust 2004 From: Louisville, KY 1,345 posts Posted by CSXrules4eva on Saturday, August 27, 2005 4:04 PM I also heard that there is a problem on the Powder River Coal Basin with coal dust blowing off the tops of hoppers or gondolas and falling on the road bed, which can damage the track structure. This happens mainly when there is heavy precipitation present, rain, snow, ect. It then froms mud or a concreate like substance. I also found out that BNSF wasn't doing their part in maintaining the road bed. LORD HELP US ALL TO BE ORIGINAL AND NOT CRISPY!!! please? Sarah J.M. Warner conductor CSX Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Saturday, August 27, 2005 5:21 PM Murph - The DM&E extension is coming in from the east and running east to west to about the middle of the north-south Orin line. BNSF's eastbound coal trains are running up the Orin line to Gillette, then down through Newcastle and Edgemont to Alliance. By going in with DM&E on the segment from the Orin line to Edgemont, they can get some trains off the northern portion of the Orin line, freeing up capacity. (Hmmm, seems like everything is back to normal.) Reply Edit Murphy Siding Member sinceMay 2005 From: S.E. South Dakota 13,569 posts Posted by Murphy Siding on Saturday, August 27, 2005 6:02 PM Of course,BNSF would be helping to make sure that a fair amount of that coal leaves on the competitor's rail line. That will help free up some capacity too![;)]. I can't picture any railroads (or any other business for that matter) getting too excited about helping a competitor eat it's lunch for them? There were,and still are a whole slew of challenges the DM&E will have to overcome to reach the PRB. Opposition from BNSF and UP will be tremendous. Not to mention that big threat from coal slurry pipelines.[}:)] Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar. Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Saturday, August 27, 2005 10:19 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by CSXrules4eva I also heard that there is a problem on the Powder River Coal Basin with coal dust blowing off the tops of hoppers or gondolas and falling on the road bed, which can damage the track structure. This happens mainly when there is heavy precipitation present, rain, snow, ect. It then froms mud or a concreate like substance. I also found out that BNSF wasn't doing their part in maintaining the road bed. Last I knew, it was BNSF's part to do ALL of the maintenance. UP pays BNSF for their share. Reply Edit Valleyline Member sinceJanuary 2001 From: US 71 posts Posted by Valleyline on Sunday, August 28, 2005 7:43 AM Two years ago I railfanned the Orin line with two friends who happen to be retired railroaders. We found that we were walking through ankle deep coal dust 100' from the right of way in many places. Passing trains had huge clouds of dust blowing off the car tops. One of my friends, who was a track supervisor, speculated that it must be very costly for the railroads to keep all of that coal dust out of the ballast. Apparently they we're not spending as much as they should have been. While the PRB is arid, it was water that solidified the coal dust under the ballast and eventually led to undermining the track.. Reply bobwilcox Member sinceDecember 2001 From: Crozet, VA 1,049 posts Posted by bobwilcox on Sunday, August 28, 2005 2:03 PM NS coal trains at one time also had a lot of blowing coal but today the coal is treated to prevent much loss. Does anyone know when this changed and who m paid for treating the coal? Bob Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Sunday, August 28, 2005 3:29 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by Murphy Siding Of course,BNSF would be helping to make sure that a fair amount of that coal leaves on the competitor's rail line. That will help free up some capacity too![;)]. I can't picture any railroads (or any other business for that matter) getting too excited about helping a competitor eat it's lunch for them? There were,and still are a whole slew of challenges the DM&E will have to overcome to reach the PRB. Opposition from BNSF and UP will be tremendous. Not to mention that big threat from coal slurry pipelines.[}:)] Better to pay 50% of a joint line that serves your purpose than to spend 100% of a single line for the same results. BNSF would be better served to spend money on improving lines out of PRB than to spend money in opposition to DM&E. DM&E is basically handing BNSF a new improved way of taking coal from PRB to as far as Edgemont on a silver platter if BNSF wants it, and all BNSF has to do is pony up a certain % of $$ to receive this blessing. DM&E has no PCE, so there's no transcon threat to BNSF. In fact, DM&E hands off a good portion of Pacific Rim grain traffic to BNSF. DM&E's only potential threat in that vein is if they start cooperating with CP for westbound traffic, and that would be a more expensive routing. Reply Edit Murphy Siding Member sinceMay 2005 From: S.E. South Dakota 13,569 posts Posted by Murphy Siding on Sunday, August 28, 2005 8:56 PM You have a weird way of looking at the situation. Companies tend to compete with each other for business. Paying a % of the cost for a rail line so a competitor can come in and try to take away your business certainly would be a long shot! BNSF raised a fuss about DM&E using their tracks through Aberdeen, S.D. I'd give your idea a 1/ 1,000,000 chance. Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar. Reply 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
QUOTE: Originally posted by CSXrules4eva I also heard that there is a problem on the Powder River Coal Basin with coal dust blowing off the tops of hoppers or gondolas and falling on the road bed, which can damage the track structure. This happens mainly when there is heavy precipitation present, rain, snow, ect. It then froms mud or a concreate like substance. I also found out that BNSF wasn't doing their part in maintaining the road bed.
QUOTE: Originally posted by Murphy Siding Of course,BNSF would be helping to make sure that a fair amount of that coal leaves on the competitor's rail line. That will help free up some capacity too![;)]. I can't picture any railroads (or any other business for that matter) getting too excited about helping a competitor eat it's lunch for them? There were,and still are a whole slew of challenges the DM&E will have to overcome to reach the PRB. Opposition from BNSF and UP will be tremendous. Not to mention that big threat from coal slurry pipelines.[}:)]
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.