QUOTE: Originally posted by CSSHEGEWISCH Redundancy is an expensive option, especially since there is no guarantee that it would be used, which could make it a wasted investment, which in turn is something upon which large shareholders frown.
QUOTE: Originally posted by tomtrain The most economical distance isn't necessarily the straight line between two points. Have you seen the computer generated electricity transmission maps that determine the most efficient location patterns? Linear Algebra is what it was called when I studied it. Transportation entails many variables, too.
QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal Why would the railroad industry as a whole give blessing to the idea of one railroad transfering freight to a barge line and a trucking outfit rather than interchanging that freight with another railroad? "A house divided against itself cannot stand...."
QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal You did type...."but avoiding interchange is the primary reason for the move"..., didn't you?
QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal So my latter suspicions turn out to be true? Railroads would rather give traffic to "competitor(s)" of a different mode via a roundabout, convaluted routing than to interchange in a more logical routing intramodally with another rail competitor? Doesn't this strike rail observers as odd behaviour, given AAR press releases about "taking trucks off the highways and onto rails" et al? If railroads really see other railroads as their main competition, and not barge lines and truckers, doesn't that confirm my suspicions that barge lines and trucking companies are actually enablers of rail traffic rather than competitors for rail traffic? Greyhounds, do you want to weigh in on this?
QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal Greyhounds, do you want to weigh in on this?
QUOTE: Originally posted by beaulieu QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal Are you sure this is PRB coal, or even domestic coal? I recall that a few years back you could get low sulfer 11,000 Btu/Lb coal out of Indonesia and China for around $5.00/mt. Even if that price has doubled since then, it's still alot cheaper on a $$/Btu basis than even PRB coal. If it is from overseas, that would make more sense than that coal coming from the PRB via BNSF or UP to Superior, then by barge down to Kenosha (which I assume is also conected to rail via UP and/or BNSF). The only scenario I can see that fits that somewhat convaluted routing is if one of the PRB players doens't have a direct rail connection to the WE facility, and doesn't want to let it's competitor play "spin the bottleneck" aka shorthaul rate manipulation. The coal coming from Superior isn't a guess, it is directly from the MERC website via a link on the Boatnerd website. MERC exists because several of Detroit Edisons powerplants are located on the Detroit River and the St. Clair River and not connected to any Railroad. Therefore all coal to these plants must come from Great Lakes vessels. Any coal coming from Overseas would most likely have to be transshiped as most Oceangoing Bulkers are too large for the St. Lawrence Seaway. Coal from Colombia is commonly imported into the US but mainly goes to plants in Florida and via the Port of Norfolk. The cost to move it into the interior of the US is too high. To give you an example of an odd move of Lake Coal there is a shipment of Colorado coal coming into MERC next week via the UP. It will be loaded into the Laker Presque Isle at MERC and will move from there to CLM's Limestone Dock in another part of the harbor and be unloaded. All this to avoid interchanging the coal trains to BNSF for a move of less than one mile. MERC does have automated car-dumping equipment which CLM lacks,but avoiding interchange is the primary reason for the move.
QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal Are you sure this is PRB coal, or even domestic coal? I recall that a few years back you could get low sulfer 11,000 Btu/Lb coal out of Indonesia and China for around $5.00/mt. Even if that price has doubled since then, it's still alot cheaper on a $$/Btu basis than even PRB coal. If it is from overseas, that would make more sense than that coal coming from the PRB via BNSF or UP to Superior, then by barge down to Kenosha (which I assume is also conected to rail via UP and/or BNSF). The only scenario I can see that fits that somewhat convaluted routing is if one of the PRB players doens't have a direct rail connection to the WE facility, and doesn't want to let it's competitor play "spin the bottleneck" aka shorthaul rate manipulation.
QUOTE: Originally posted by zardoz beaulieu, you may be correct. I talked with my nephew today; he said the place where he is picking up the coal is empty now, with some due in a few days. He was only able to find out that the coal is DEFINITELY coming from Superior! Is there any way to get coal to Superior other than by train? And if it is coming to Superior by train, why is it being transloaded for the short trip from there to Kenosha? That seems very inefficient to me.
Carl
Railroader Emeritus (practiced railroading for 46 years--and in 2010 I finally got it right!)
CAACSCOCOM--I don't want to behave improperly, so I just won't behave at all. (SM)
QUOTE: Originally posted by kurtconi M.S. About 25% goes to Detroit Edison at St Clair MI .(Port Huron area) 25% to Monroe MI.(Lake Erie). 15% to Ontario Power Generation Nanticoke ON.. (Lake Eire) less than 5% to Lambton ON. (Sarnia ON.)..... Was scheduled to close next year, but not now. The rest goes to Consumers Power, WE, MN.Power and local industry. We only ship out about 20 million tons per year. All of the customers we ship to blend the PRB coal with Eastern//Southern Coal to get the best burn. The Eastern Coal tonage is about 5 to 1. If this thread is going to go wacky on us....let it die. Kurt.
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.