Coal lost

patrick · Unread post by **patrick** » Wed May 30, 2007 10:27 pm

It would appear to me that the SBS has lost the contract for the eastern coal as well as the western coal. For years the eastern coal has moved via csx from mines to essexville, but now we're recieving a series of laker boats... 2 in the past couple days loaded with coal from toledo. we have coal cars stored everywhere up here too.. both old and new cars.. so I'm thinking that a major contract has been lost.

BerkshireKid · Wed May 30, 2007 11:32 pm

Nope
Consumers is not expecting trains for a little while they are repairing some storm damage.
Hopefully it's just the repairs and not a loss of traffic.

The coal for western is on HESR right now.

patrick · Unread post by **patrick** » Thu May 31, 2007 5:43 am

I was told straight out.. no coal on the SBS/LSRC nemore.

BerkshireKid · Unread post by **BerkshireKid** » Thu May 31, 2007 7:02 am

Well that could be some good news for HESR possibly then.

SDavey · Unread post by **SDavey** » Sat Jun 02, 2007 8:08 pm

HESR has delivered coal to the SBS in Saginaw for fowarding to Essexville a few times in the last month or so, including tonight when the 5921, 1179 and 1162 brought a western train up from Saginaw. this dosent make any sense to me as the HESR could bring it up directly themselves.

patrick · Unread post by **patrick** » Sat Jun 02, 2007 8:34 pm

if HESR is giving it to sbs.. that might mean the HESR is having swing bridge troubles.

SDavey · Unread post by **SDavey** » Mon Jun 18, 2007 3:23 am

Update....

Western Coal is back on SBS again as I saw a string of loaded coal hoppers in the siding along Blackmar Road near Birch Run when I caught the freight coming back from Flint.

sd70accsxt700 · Mon Jun 18, 2007 10:03 am

Were they loads or empties beeing stored there.

J T · Unread post by **J T** » Mon Jun 18, 2007 12:24 pm

sd70accsxt700 wrote:Were they loads or empties beeing stored there.

SDavey wrote:Update....

Western Coal is back on SBS again as I saw a string of loaded coal hoppers

I sure hope they aren't lost. Can coal movements by ship really be THAT much more efficient?

Unread post by **AARR** » Mon Jun 18, 2007 1:00 pm

In most cases railroads cannot compete with ships.

BerkshireKid · Unread post by **BerkshireKid** » Mon Jun 18, 2007 1:02 pm

i wonder if coal is back to SBS b/c it was on HESR as of sunday i believe is when they took up a train and i thought i seen another in Durand last night but it was 00:30 and i was tired.

GLC 392 · Unread post by **GLC 392** » Mon Jun 18, 2007 1:03 pm

yup there was another loaded train in there dane.

J T · Unread post by **J T** » Mon Jun 18, 2007 1:16 pm

Don Simon wrote:In most cases railroads cannot compete with ships.

Care to elaborate, Don? The coal has to get to the ship by train, right? Offload, ship, unload...seems like it would be just more efficient to keep the train running on a more direct route to its destination rather than deal with the inconvenience of extra unloading and long shipping routes.

Unread post by **AARR** » Mon Jun 18, 2007 1:47 pm

Raildude's Dad has looked into this subject and on several occasions and posted reasons why. You're right about the offloading, transporting, etc. but probably due to the ships ability to haul immense loads, even when trucks must be involved for a short haul, ships win out almost every time over rail service. There's some MI utility plants with rail access that have eastern and/or western coal hauled by rail to a water port (Chicago, Toledo, etc.) and then a ship take the coal the rest of the way. The DTE plants in St. Clair come to mind.

J T · Unread post by **J T** » Mon Jun 18, 2007 1:52 pm

Don Simon wrote:Raildude's Dad has looked into this subject and on several occasions and posted reasons why. You're right about the offloading, transporting, etc. but probably due to the ships ability to haul immense loads, even when trucks must be involved for a short haul, ships win out almost every time over rail service. There's some MI utility plants with rail access that have eastern and/or western coal hauled by rail to a water port (Chicago, Toledo, etc.) and then a ship take the coal the rest of the way. The DTE plants in St. Clair come to mind.

Thanks, Don. I may have missed rdd's comments on this in the past (or perhaps my memory is slipping. I'm turning 40 next month and my memory sometimes feels like that of an 80 year old. haha)

LSRC · Unread post by **LSRC** » Mon Jun 18, 2007 2:06 pm

Not to stop the flow of the post but I was told by a Lake State employee that the coal contract is not lost, per say, it's just that something in the Consumers plant is broken. Thus coal trains can't be unloaded so they are having coal delivered by ship until the problem is fixed.

BerkshireKid · Unread post by **BerkshireKid** » Mon Jun 18, 2007 2:19 pm

If the plant is broke then why is HESR delivering coal from Durand up there off the CN???????????

Unread post by **AARR** » Mon Jun 18, 2007 2:26 pm

I know what you mean about forgetting stuff, JT. I just turned 44. I can recall bits and pieces of what RDD posted but not the whole thing. Perhaps he, or someone else, can enlighten both of us

Raildudes dad · Mon Jun 18, 2007 9:09 pm

Water rates are much cheaper than rail especially when two or more RR';s are involved. I'm really surprised that Consumers never put a dock in at Port Sheldon except the plant originally burned eastern coal and the rail rate the entire route was probably a wash back then compared to a transload in Toledo and also the lack of a deep water harbor in Pigeon Lake.

patrick · Unread post by **patrick** » Mon Jun 18, 2007 9:19 pm

according to what I heard.. its being unloaded at a different spot and trucked in, however, I saw a train headed into consumers 2 nights ago.. but they sounded like empties. LSRC has EMPTIES in blacmar siding.. and LOADS in birchrun siding as well.

RailRoadFan.com

B1G - The Big Train

Coal lost

Coal lost