Trains.com

Railroads Struggle to Deliver Coal to Utilities

15311 views
306 replies
1 rating 2 rating 3 rating 4 rating 5 rating
  • Member since
    May 2005
  • From: S.E. South Dakota
  • 13,569 posts
Posted by Murphy Siding on Thursday, June 29, 2006 8:11 PM
QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

QUOTE: Originally posted by Murphy Siding

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

Here's what I said -

"The question you either ignored or missed completely is that the JOINT LINE itself does not directly access every mine in the PRB. Most of the mines need build outs from the JOINT LINE to the mine to be able to access the JOINT LINE. Just because UP and BNSF built the JOINT LINE doesn't mean both UP and BNSF partnered up for each and every mine spur."

Here's what Tom posted -

"According to the article in Raifan and Railroad July issue on the PRB coal fields, there are 23 mines. Only 5 of them are not on the joint line. About 1/5 of them, and those 5 are not in the heavy production section of the PRB, so their percentage of the coal mined is not 20% of the basin output."

Well....if you read back on this thread, you'll read that 5 out of 23 mines in the PRB are not on the joint line. Those 5 are the smaller,less productive mines north of Gillette, I believe, on BNSF. If 18 out of 23 mines are on the joint line, that equals 78.83% of the mines are on the joint line. Since these 18 are the bigger mines, it's safe to say that at least 80% of the volume of coal goes onto the joint line. Another post mentions that mines on the joint line may ship on either BNSF or UP. Given the above,I'd say the chances that you are incorrect are somewhere near 80%.[;)]


If I have inferred that all the mines that connect to the Orin line have to ship either UP or BNSF but not both, then I would be incorrect. If that's the impression you got, then I should have foreseen the typical "trolling for errors" game you seem to enjoy and made sure I stated the thought ala legalese. For that, I profusely apologize [bow].

[:p]

[(-D][(-D] Lighten up man. You were suggesting (inferring) that some thing was 100% black or 100% white. I'm suggesting that it's somewhere in the 20-80% range. And remember-just because a fella is paranoid, it doesn't mean they're not out to get him.[;)]

Edited to add: Apology accepted. No hard feelings.[^]

Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.

  • Member since
    April 2003
  • 305,205 posts
Posted by Anonymous on Thursday, June 29, 2006 8:13 PM
QUOTE: Originally posted by edblysard

You mean just like confusing a neutral switching terminal with a open access short line?[:0]
Ed


And what is open access if not neutral?

One of these days, have your sugar daddy look up the word synonym and all the associated versions thereof for you. Maybe then you'll be less prone to be flush with your self gratifying hair splitting obsession.
  • Member since
    May 2005
  • From: S.E. South Dakota
  • 13,569 posts
Posted by Murphy Siding on Thursday, June 29, 2006 8:16 PM
QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

QUOTE: Originally posted by edblysard

You mean just like confusing a neutral switching terminal with a open access short line?[:0]
Ed


And what is open access if not neutral?

One of these days, have your sugar daddy look up the word synonym and all the associated versions thereof for you. Maybe then you'll be less prone to be flush with your self gratifying hair splitting obsession.

Dave-I think you're way out in left field on this one. Dave's railroad can't run a train in there, as it's not open access.[;)]

Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.

  • Member since
    February 2001
  • From: Poconos, PA
  • 3,948 posts
Posted by TomDiehl on Thursday, June 29, 2006 9:58 PM
QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

Here's what I said -

"The question you either ignored or missed completely is that the JOINT LINE itself does not directly access every mine in the PRB. Most of the mines need build outs from the JOINT LINE to the mine to be able to access the JOINT LINE. Just because UP and BNSF built the JOINT LINE doesn't mean both UP and BNSF partnered up for each and every mine spur."

Here's what Tom posted -

"According to the article in Raifan and Railroad July issue on the PRB coal fields, there are 23 mines. Only 5 of them are not on the joint line. About 1/5 of them, and those 5 are not in the heavy production section of the PRB, so their percentage of the coal mined is not 20% of the basin output."

Thanks Tom for confirming what I said![;)]

And Chad, if you really think the postings above from Ed, "Character", and Bert are an example of "social skills", well, here's to ya! [D)]


No, I said your claim wasn't a significant percentage of the PRB's coal output.
Smile, it makes people wonder what you're up to. Chief of Sanitation; Clowntown
  • Member since
    April 2003
  • 305,205 posts
Posted by Anonymous on Thursday, June 29, 2006 10:02 PM
QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

QUOTE: Originally posted by edblysard

You mean just like confusing a neutral switching terminal with a open access short line?[:0]
Ed


And what is open access if not neutral?

One of these days, have your sugar daddy look up the word synonym and all the associated versions thereof for you. Maybe then you'll be less prone to be flush with your self gratifying hair splitting obsession.


Open access isn't neutral, it is negative. The owner of the infrastructure is never adequately compensated for the capital expense and the entire structure is doomed to degrade just like the highways and the barge canals and airports. The railroads manage to run things and pay taxes on both their income and infrastructure (property or ad valorem taxes). The other modes simply soak up tax dollars. How is that of societal benefit? Further it violates several of the facotrs in the Transportation Policy your buddy Mike Sol holds so dear.

Open Access is backward thinking and is widely recognized as such...
  • Member since
    August 2004
  • From: The 17th hole at TPC
  • 2,283 posts
Posted by n012944 on Friday, June 30, 2006 2:46 PM
QUOTE: Originally posted by Murphy Siding

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

QUOTE: Originally posted by Murphy Siding

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

Here's what I said -

"The question you either ignored or missed completely is that the JOINT LINE itself does not directly access every mine in the PRB. Most of the mines need build outs from the JOINT LINE to the mine to be able to access the JOINT LINE. Just because UP and BNSF built the JOINT LINE doesn't mean both UP and BNSF partnered up for each and every mine spur."

Here's what Tom posted -

"According to the article in Raifan and Railroad July issue on the PRB coal fields, there are 23 mines. Only 5 of them are not on the joint line. About 1/5 of them, and those 5 are not in the heavy production section of the PRB, so their percentage of the coal mined is not 20% of the basin output."

Well....if you read back on this thread, you'll read that 5 out of 23 mines in the PRB are not on the joint line. Those 5 are the smaller,less productive mines north of Gillette, I believe, on BNSF. If 18 out of 23 mines are on the joint line, that equals 78.83% of the mines are on the joint line. Since these 18 are the bigger mines, it's safe to say that at least 80% of the volume of coal goes onto the joint line. Another post mentions that mines on the joint line may ship on either BNSF or UP. Given the above,I'd say the chances that you are incorrect are somewhere near 80%.[;)]


If I have inferred that all the mines that connect to the Orin line have to ship either UP or BNSF but not both, then I would be incorrect. If that's the impression you got, then I should have foreseen the typical "trolling for errors" game you seem to enjoy and made sure I stated the thought ala legalese. For that, I profusely apologize [bow].

[:p]

[(-D][(-D] Lighten up man. You were suggesting (inferring) that some thing was 100% black or 100% white. I'm suggesting that it's somewhere in the 20-80% range. And remember-just because a fella is paranoid, it doesn't mean they're not out to get him.[;)]

Edited to add: Apology accepted. No hard feelings.[^]


Typical FM, gets proved wrong, has to insult someone. Still hasn't changed.


Bert

An "expensive model collector"

  • Member since
    April 2003
  • 305,205 posts
Posted by Anonymous on Friday, June 30, 2006 8:21 PM
QUOTE: Originally posted by Murphy Siding

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

QUOTE: Originally posted by edblysard

You mean just like confusing a neutral switching terminal with a open access short line?[:0]
Ed


And what is open access if not neutral?

One of these days, have your sugar daddy look up the word synonym and all the associated versions thereof for you. Maybe then you'll be less prone to be flush with your self gratifying hair splitting obsession.

Dave-I think you're way out in left field on this one. Dave's railroad can't run a train in there, as it's not open access.[;)]


Obviously, I was using OA in the philosophical interpretation, since there is no de facto OA railroad in the USA. However, one of the advantages of OA is the introduction of neutrality to the operation of the infrastructure, which is in stark contrast to the traditional US railroad approach of closed access (aka owner of the infastructure is also the sole prima facie operator of the trains on that line as well).

Ed's railroad does not favor one Class I connection over the other, and the shippers on Ed's line apparently have rail service access to all the Class I connections to Ed's shortline, e.g. intramodal competition.

And OA is all about intramodal competition, right![^]

Besides, it's fun getting Ed all riled by superimposing the OA label on his line when he is a dyed in the wool yellow dog closed access supporter.[:D]

Join our Community!

Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.

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