Western Railroad Discussion > Use Stevens Pass For Westbound Coal?

The controversy concerning a new coal export facility in the
Bellingham, Washington area seems to be intensifying, with the mayor of Seattle now getting involved.

Is there any reason that westbound coal trains couldn't be routed over Stevens Pass to Everett, and then head north to the Bellingham area, instead of using other routes, such as the Columbia Gorge?

By using Stevens Pass, that would be a way to avoid having loaded coal trains pass through downtown Seattle.

Thanks

Doesn't the Steven Pass line go through the City of Seattle's watershed where the water for the city comes from?

The only issues with Stevens pass would be the cost of fuel getting it over the hill and line capacity.

As for the controversy with coal, the idiot shippers could deflate much of the argument if they just cover the loads. If they don't do that, they will get the outcome they deserve. Cheapskates.

TVW interviewed a fellow who studied coal dust problems for BNSF. As it happens, he retired and now runs a winery in the Columbia Gorge. He showed the reporter the amount of coal dust already in the ballast along the tracks in the Gorge. He grabbed a handful of ballast, sifted the rock out, and what was left was almost pure coal dust. And that's with a relatively limited number of coal trains running now.

While most coal is lost within a few hundred miles of the loading facility, a fair amount seems to be lost along the water areas where the winds are more turbulent. That's certainly the case in the gorge, and it would certainly be in populated places along the route to Cherry Point.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/05/12 21:12 by radar.

Our Canadian friends solved the coal dust problem many years ago.
Evidently they are not into litigation as a spectator or participation sport, they just want to get 'er done.

radar Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The only issues with Stevens pass would be the
> cost of fuel getting it over the hill and line
> capacity.
>
> As for the controversy with coal, the idiot
> shippers could deflate much of the argument if
> they just cover the loads. If they don't do that,
> they will get the outcome they deserve.
> Cheapskates.
>

The left is always happy to tell others how to spend their money, no matter how affordable. Do you not realize that US coal is competing with sources in several other countries, and in many cases at a geographic disadvantage? Costs matter.


> TVW interviewed a fellow who studied coal dust
> problems for BNSF. As it happens, he retired and
> now runs a winery in the Columbia Gorge. He
> showed the reporter the amount of coal dust
> already in the ballast along the tracks in the
> Gorge. He grabbed a handful of ballast, sifted
> the rock out, and what was left was almost pure
> coal dust. And that's with a relatively limited
> number of coal trains running now.
>
> While most coal is lost within a few hundred miles
> of the loading facility, a fair amount seems to be
> lost along the water areas where the winds are
> more turbulent. That's certainly the case in the
> gorge, and it would certainly be in populated
> places along the route to Cherry Point.


Witness the utter devastation of towns along the UP and BNSF from WY to the midwest. Oh, wait, not so much, eh?

While you are correct that coal dust is a potential problem if not adequately addressed, BNSF has been working on mitigation measures that to most reasonable people appear to sufficiently limit the problem.

PHall Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Doesn't the Steven Pass line go through the City
> of Seattle's watershed where the water for the
> city comes from?


No.

It's the former NP line over Stampede that goes through the Seattle watershed. That's the way the coal would probably go.

As for coal dust, there is a hearing scheduled before the Surface Transportation Board to review BNSF's proposed "safe harbor" coal dust control measures. BNSF wants to require the use of a sprayed-on surfactant to control dust. The shippers are resisting. BNSF has put a requirement to use one of six approved surfactants into its coal tariff. The STB hearing will determine the reasonableness of this.

Shippers contend the surfactant will cost "$100 million per year". Given that about 500 million tons of coal per year come out of Wyoming and Montana, that's 20 cents a ton. Coal currently sells for $35 to $40 per ton. Do the math.

The shippers/Railroads that transport the coal
out of the basin are the ones that set the price
per ton not the mine owners.


The University of Wyoming has stated the
latest cost per ton at the mine mouth is
five dollars per ton.


The issue of coal dust is a massive one and
the coatings do not last for the entire
trip from the mine to the utility from
what I have read and as result the dust is
pulled off in the slip stream of air created
when the train consist is operating at track speed.


The coal dust lessens as the load becomes
more compacted and falls below the hoppper cars
side and end walls in the open top hopper car
as it travels along the route to the end user.


The coal dust settles quite a ways a way from
the right of way and does build up. the coal
dust also settles into the stone ballast which
causes problems with drainage as the stone
ballast cannot drain as quickly from what
I know of the issue.

If they used covered hoppers to transport the
coal from the mine to the utility the dust
problem would only be evident at the mine or
utility power station but I do not see this
happening as most power plants have rotary
dumpers/car tipplers for unloading the coal.

If the power plants still used plow
conveyors for coal unloading and belly
dumping ore cars the use of covered hoppers would
be more than justified for transporting it as
the coal would nt be rained on and become frozen
from temperature extremes and snowfall and car
vibrators and heaters can still used effectively
to unload them with a "Car Hoe" if needed.

BUT as Western Bituminous Coal is such a low value
ore I do not see this happening either.

The "Iron Triangle" agreement was developed to increase capacity to accommodate the prospective coal (and other bulk growth) into and from the PNW. The concept was to run loaded bulk via the flattest route (Columbia Gorge) to destination, then take the empties back via the mountainous routes of either Stevens or Stampede. Stevens was assumed to be a day to day call - if capacity was available, an empty at Everett could use that route east. If not, then the empty would go via Auburn and Stampede to Pasco. Obviously, the Stevens route is much shorter and more efficient for traffic coming from north of Everett (both are 2.2% grades so power requirements are the same), but it is also the route that high priority doublestacks, Z trains and Amtrak take, so you don't want too many slower freights clogging up the route. So some days of the week, the empties might go via Stevens, but when the route gets busy, they will definitely go via Stampede.

Doubling heavy bulk trains over Stevens has been tried in the past (mostly grain trains) but the capacity they consume (track and locomotives) on a limited capacity route just doesn't make a lot of sense, particularly now that intermodal traffic has been heavily developed out of the SeaTac area. Additionally, container traffic cannot be rerouted via Stampede because the tunnel at the crest is not cleared for doublestack cars. So even the less timely westbound container moves have to use the Stevens route, taking away more capacity and further limiting the availability to use the route for empty bulk traffic.

As to coal dust issues, I live near both BNSF's Wichita Falls Sub and UP's Choctaw Sub which both see 3 to 5 coal loads per day. I have never noticed a build up of coal dust on either route, nor have I noticed clouds of coal dust boiling off of trains as they roll into stiff south winds (prevalent in spring and summer time here). So whatever the two RRs are doing seems to be working at limiting the impact of dust pollution. Seems to me that coal dust fears are just another avenue to try to stop the exporting and burning of coal by those that believe that those actions are detrimental to the environment. I wonder what objections will be raised by Seattle to increased oil trains now ramping up to Fidalgo and Cherry Point?

Stampede runs directly through the City of Tacoma watershed. The North Coast limited used to have locked bathrooms during the passage through the watershed.

shoretower Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> As for coal dust, there is a hearing scheduled
> before the Surface Transportation Board to review
> BNSF's proposed "safe harbor" coal dust control
> measures. BNSF wants to require the use of a
> sprayed-on surfactant to control dust. The
> shippers are resisting. BNSF has put a
> requirement to use one of six approved surfactants
> into its coal tariff. The STB hearing will
> determine the reasonableness of this.
>

BNSF says they already use surfactants, and yet the former BNSF expert showed physical evidence that it isn't enough a thousand miles from the mine. He also stated that surfactants are only partially effective.

I've been following the coal dust proceeding closely. The issues seem to be:

1) Coal dust is mainly a problem within a couple of hundred miles of the mine
2) The "fines" in the coal (the small stuff that causes dust) settle to the bottom during transit
3) Coal transload facilities have covered conveyers and storage piles. There are EPA standards for windblown dust from stationary facilities.
4) Since the problem is greatest near the mines, BNSF feels the use of surfactants is an acceptable control mechanism

It appears likely that the Board will rule in favor of BNSF.

I have several photos of coal trains with dust blowing off, but I've been to the PRB and, in fact, ridden coal trains all the way from the PRB to Minnesota on more than one occasion, and I never noticed a dust problem. So I would guess it's a product of loading practices, whether or not a surfactant is used, and the weather. BNSF says that coal fouling the ballast is only a problem on busy coal routes near the PRB.