Could be huge for PNW railroads. http://news.yahoo.com/analysis-coal-fight-looms-keystone-over-us-northwest-141300393--finance.html
I read in the Oregonian yesterday that the Portland city council, ever the green, voted to ban coal trains through Portland. You know, they think that that terrible coal dust is going to get into their lattes or maybe even land on some of the occupiers. :angry:
I really doubt their ability to ban coal trains. Railroads are first Federally regulated. If they try it, I'd be shocked to see either UP or BNSF lay down.
I know here in Spokane they don't want the extra trains. But BNSF has said with the increase in traffic, it will be about 20 to 40 trains a day, which seems really high to me. However these people don't see all the extra jobs and revenue it will create in the local area. For 20 trains, we'll say, that's 40 crews in each direction for Spokane, being we're a crew change point, one crew to bring it to Spokane, one to leave. For 40 crews, that's 80 people. That's 80 people that BNSF will probably have to hire, as they don't have crews on the payroll not doing anything. Also, with the increase in traffic, means more maintenance, both for track and equipment. So more people. But these are the same people that are crying there are no jobs, but whenever someone creates jobs, they bash the company for other reasons.
There isn't the infrastructure to support 20-40 trains through the PacNW. And I wouldn't be too sure that Portland doesn't have the power to ban such things. And there's not incentive to them not to since Port of Portland isn't one of the destination terminals.
Isn't the infrastructure? I'll need to see proof of that. Existing track, bridges, signalling, etc, are all quite adequate and more. The only question is can that many trains be dispatched without congestion? You can bet they have plans for siding extensions, double tracking and more to handle such numbers. What's really sad is nobody remembers the numbers of trains which ran years ago, before the change toward longer trains reduced frequencies. If Portland can possibly get away with banning such trains, then others can as well. It would take no time for commerce to come to a complete halt in complete chaos as every NIMBY out there jumped aboard. Then they'll ban petroluem products. Then anything they can define as "HAZMAT". Even ethanol. Then we can all sit on street corners, selling apples and pencils for food.
Nbc has a new show about that. . I said infrastructure, I meant congestion. The PacNW yahoo group was discussing this a month or so ago and there simply isn't space to expand the gorge all that much. There was talk about BNSF/UP directional running, but that's a pipe dream and stevens has that pesky tunnel that ruins everything. Let's not forget that prior to 2008, Stevens and the gorge were running near capacity and they've just re-instituted the Iron triangle to efficiently move the coal empties east.
I see the biggest bottle neck being the funnel, not the gorge. Being all trains to the PNW have to come through the funnel to Spokane, where they split to either head to Seattle or Portland.
Well, don't forget UP. They'll take some of this...not that they have capacity or a wider bank to expand into.
When I write about the traffic, I am looking at BNSF, UP and MRL. While this one article was specifically on Portland, the whole picture of this program includes western Washington as well. There is plenty of capacity on MRL itself and east of there. West of Spokane, there can be more done between there and the Tri-Cities. Yes, the Gorge would fill up and when that happens, things would push northward as before. Stevens is not at capacity and has not been for a a while with economics down. With container traffic still down, (in fact closing in on the 2008 low), that won't be a worry for a while. Stampede has plenty of space to go before it gets near plugging up. UP I'd bet would loop some stuff south and then up through Oregon. And yes, the Funnel will be a huge headache choke point as usual. One of the big mistakes brought by the Frisco management team, back in the 1980s. I've talked with BN dispatchers from back then. They were and still are far beyond upset, (I cannot repeat their fiery descriptives on a family board), with losing the GN east of Spokane, plus the SP&S between Spokane and the Tri-Cities.
Too bad there isn't a slightly more southern route, maybe one through say Avery Idaho, and points west?
Somehow I just can't see UP or BNSF not taking this extra revenue. UP may have some problems, but worse come to worst, BNSF can route loads one line, empties another. As it is, I tend not to take NIMBY types seriously. This traffic will last as long as the PRC wants to purchase it.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not suggesting the railroads or the ports for that matter will leave revenue on the table. All I'm saying is that the traffic projections are ridiculous and the railroad employees that I've seen post about it don't know where those trains will go. That intermodal traffic is coming back. UP or BNSF for that matter routing south to reno and then up through california would add what? A thousand miles to the trip?
All of the economic indicators I have seen show it down and slowly dropping through August. As another indication, there are about a dozen billion dollar, (and more), annual gross revenue US trucking firms. My wife's younger bother drives for one. Ever since June he has been hitting down times. By that I mean extended sitting between loads, well beyond his rest. Sometimes a day and a half and even longer, ("on the board"), waiting to be assigned a load, a deadhead move, etc.
They wouldn't necessarily need a lot of extra train crews to run extra trains. I don't know BNSF operating practices, but I'd guess they would double up the empty trains to move back out of the ports. 2 Locomotives and 80+ cars inbound loaded and 4 Locomotives (not all on line) and 160+ cars empty outbound.
I meant in the medium term, next few years, not the short term. Also, I wouldn't use trucking as a true indicator since the entire industry is being hit hard by fuel costs. All indications are it will never be the same.
Well, 2 locos won't move any of those trains anywhere out west and you need the siding capacity to handle 160 car trains.
Actually I am not talking short term. There is and has been a surplus of container ships versus loads. One factor that is worrying the economy in China and it is messing up their ship building industry. Another, the Chinese container shipping companies are well down. If we keep watching the ongoing trend, container shipping is sliding toward it's low of 2008, and isn't really far from reaching that point as of this month. This is a time of year when such things should have been been in upswing and by August hitting a high point for the coming Holiday shopping season. That has not happened at all this past summer. From what I am reading, this trend is not expected to get better any time soon. Other factors are hurting trucking far more than just fuel costs. Constant mandate after mandate on equipping trucks is driving those expenses up and up. The private owner/operator numbers are falling as government regs are driving them out. For those remaining, this is squeezing profit margins way down. Also hurting the industry via the above mandate-itis is they cannot get enough skilled drivers. Until this summer there had been a severe shortage of skilled drivers- In the above six figure range. Regs are getting so tight they cannot get enough people to the drivers seat, through the bureaucratic mess. The only thing keeping more trucks from being idle is smaller companies and owner/operators are quitting, which shifts those loads to other haulers. Constant reductions in how many hours, thus miles they can earn is shrinking paychecks, making that career less and less attractive. In the end, every bit of this will slug consumers with ever increased retail cost of goods. Meanwhile, about the only good sized potential for economic boost here and increased export traffic from North America is coal.
