Date
1 - 20 of 37
Coal car loading on "home" roads...
Tony
Although your layout doesn't represent big coal consumers,
it doesn't mean there weren't many of them in the West. I
have seen (and I'm sure you have too) old films with long
strings of coal hoppers on Donner Pass in the 1950's, not
to mention Cajon Pass...
Tim O
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
Although your layout doesn't represent big coal consumers,
it doesn't mean there weren't many of them in the West. I
have seen (and I'm sure you have too) old films with long
strings of coal hoppers on Donner Pass in the 1950's, not
to mention Cajon Pass...
Tim O
But just to clarify, I remain a Western modeler and can only
operate even single coal hoppers--whatever their reporting marks.--on
my layout with the most agile, sinuous, and logic-defying of rationales.
Tony Thompson
roblmclear <rob.mclear2@...>
I might be wrong but weren't the hoppers on Cajon Pass limited to the coal traffic for Kaiser steel, as I understand this these were mostly by the Rio Grande. This is only from memory mind and I could be wrong, someone out there more knowledgable than me would know, Richard you out there!
Rob.
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
Rob.
--- In STMFC@..., Tim O'Connor <timboconnor@...> wrote:
Tony
Although your layout doesn't represent big coal consumers,
it doesn't mean there weren't many of them in the West. I
have seen (and I'm sure you have too) old films with long
strings of coal hoppers on Donner Pass in the 1950's, not
to mention Cajon Pass...
Tim OBut just to clarify, I remain a Western modeler and can only
operate even single coal hoppers--whatever their reporting marks.--on
my layout with the most agile, sinuous, and logic-defying of rationales.
Tony Thompson
Rob
Nope, not only for steel. Cement manufacturing also uses
a lot of coal -- for heat! And Fontana was not the only
steel plant in California.
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
Nope, not only for steel. Cement manufacturing also uses
a lot of coal -- for heat! And Fontana was not the only
steel plant in California.
At 7/8/2009 04:13 AM Wednesday, you wrote:
I might be wrong but weren't the hoppers on Cajon Pass limited to the coal traffic for Kaiser steel, as I understand this these were mostly by the Rio Grande. This is only from memory mind and I could be wrong, someone out there more knowledgable than me would know, Richard you out there!
Rob.
roblmclear <rob.mclear2@...>
Thanks Tim
I am now corrected, enlightened and educated, thanks, I love this list.
Rob.
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
I am now corrected, enlightened and educated, thanks, I love this list.
Rob.
--- In STMFC@..., Tim O'Connor <timboconnor@...> wrote:
Rob
Nope, not only for steel. Cement manufacturing also uses
a lot of coal -- for heat! And Fontana was not the only
steel plant in California.
At 7/8/2009 04:13 AM Wednesday, you wrote:I might be wrong but weren't the hoppers on Cajon Pass limited to the coal traffic for Kaiser steel, as I understand this these were mostly by the Rio Grande. This is only from memory mind and I could be wrong, someone out there more knowledgable than me would know, Richard you out there!
Rob.
Marty McGuirk
Something that occurs to me is that although both the N&W and C&O had large fleets of hoppers both of these railroads delivered large quantities of coal to export piers in the Hampton Roads area. So, the traffic pattern was mine-pier-mine, all on the home road.
I've always had a soft spot for the N&W, having spent many a boring midwatch at NOB watching hoppers roll through the loaders at Lambert's Point. So, like Mike Brock, I decided to model an N&W hopper for my 1950s New England railroad. After looking at thousands of pages and photos of reference I cannot find one shred of evidence that an N&W (or C&O, for that matter) hopper was ever on the New Haven or CV. Am I saying it was impossible or that it never happened? Of course not.
But consider this - a large number of New England coal-fired plants use Virginia coal - but it's brought in by barges loaded at Newport News and Lambert's Point so while the coal ends up there the cars stay on home rails.
There are, however, a noticeable percentage of PRR and B&O hoppers on my two pet railroads. Isn't it possible, or even probable, that although the C&O and N&W had large fleets of hoppers such a great percentage of those fleets were in essentially "captive" service they never made it offline?
Marty McGuirk
I've always had a soft spot for the N&W, having spent many a boring midwatch at NOB watching hoppers roll through the loaders at Lambert's Point. So, like Mike Brock, I decided to model an N&W hopper for my 1950s New England railroad. After looking at thousands of pages and photos of reference I cannot find one shred of evidence that an N&W (or C&O, for that matter) hopper was ever on the New Haven or CV. Am I saying it was impossible or that it never happened? Of course not.
But consider this - a large number of New England coal-fired plants use Virginia coal - but it's brought in by barges loaded at Newport News and Lambert's Point so while the coal ends up there the cars stay on home rails.
There are, however, a noticeable percentage of PRR and B&O hoppers on my two pet railroads. Isn't it possible, or even probable, that although the C&O and N&W had large fleets of hoppers such a great percentage of those fleets were in essentially "captive" service they never made it offline?
Marty McGuirk
There are, however, a noticeable percentage of PRR and B&O hoppers on my two pet railroads. Isn't it possible, or even probable, that although the C&O and N&W had large fleets of hoppers such a great percentage of those fleets were in essentially "captive" service they never made it offline?
Marty McGuirk
Marty, the hoppers probably spent 80-90% of their time on home rails.
I think this has already been pointed out. But that doesn't mean the
N&W and C&O cars were "uncommon" on other railroads. I've seen too
many photos of them offline. A great deal of coal moved by the RDG,
ERIE, DL&W, and CNJ also went to barges -- at Port Reading, NJ. But
that is power plant coal, not home heating coal.
Tim O'Connor
Mike Brock <brockm@...>
Marty McGuirk writes:
" Isn't it possible, or even probable, that although the C&O and N&W had large fleets of hoppers such a great percentage of those fleets were in essentially "captive" service they never made it offline?"
Marty, note my message of 7/8 at 11:24 PM. The answer depends upon what you mean by great percentage. Is 56% such a number? I'll summarize:
That yr [ 1948 see the Richard Prince book, Norfolk & Western Railway, pgs 240-241 ] we know N&W sent 63% of its
carried coal offline...i.e., not through Norfolk. One could argue that 63% of its hopper cars went off line but we don't really know what % going off line were 70 ton versus 50 ton cars. Assuming the type of cars were spread around the system uniformly [ and this might not be true ], then the 63% figure becomes more realistic. It also means that 37% were captive...at least for a short time [ that required to travel from Roanoke to Norfolk and back ]. The problem is that these coal trains were not unit trains. To complicate the heck out of the situation, coal mined in the Pocahontas region [ the eastern coal region ] frequently was sent west while coal mined in the western Williamson region went east. Loaded coal trains passed each other between Roanoke and Iaeger. Thus, hoppers returning from Norfolk might end up at a mine in the Pocahontas region picking up a load headed west. However, if a "captive" car was released another was likely captured.
So, during a specific time period, one could probably say that 37% of N&W hoppers were "captive" in the Roanoke-Norfolk run. However, as I mentioned before, 19% of N&W transported coal went north from Columbus, OH, on Pennsy or NYC tracks to Great Lakes ports. These also might be considered as "captives" in the sense that they were confined to those runs and would not be availble to show up on the CV...whatever that is <G>...or the UP. Hence...56% was "captive" [ at least from New England and Sherman Hill ].
Mike Brock
" Isn't it possible, or even probable, that although the C&O and N&W had large fleets of hoppers such a great percentage of those fleets were in essentially "captive" service they never made it offline?"
Marty, note my message of 7/8 at 11:24 PM. The answer depends upon what you mean by great percentage. Is 56% such a number? I'll summarize:
That yr [ 1948 see the Richard Prince book, Norfolk & Western Railway, pgs 240-241 ] we know N&W sent 63% of its
carried coal offline...i.e., not through Norfolk. One could argue that 63% of its hopper cars went off line but we don't really know what % going off line were 70 ton versus 50 ton cars. Assuming the type of cars were spread around the system uniformly [ and this might not be true ], then the 63% figure becomes more realistic. It also means that 37% were captive...at least for a short time [ that required to travel from Roanoke to Norfolk and back ]. The problem is that these coal trains were not unit trains. To complicate the heck out of the situation, coal mined in the Pocahontas region [ the eastern coal region ] frequently was sent west while coal mined in the western Williamson region went east. Loaded coal trains passed each other between Roanoke and Iaeger. Thus, hoppers returning from Norfolk might end up at a mine in the Pocahontas region picking up a load headed west. However, if a "captive" car was released another was likely captured.
So, during a specific time period, one could probably say that 37% of N&W hoppers were "captive" in the Roanoke-Norfolk run. However, as I mentioned before, 19% of N&W transported coal went north from Columbus, OH, on Pennsy or NYC tracks to Great Lakes ports. These also might be considered as "captives" in the sense that they were confined to those runs and would not be availble to show up on the CV...whatever that is <G>...or the UP. Hence...56% was "captive" [ at least from New England and Sherman Hill ].
Mike Brock
On Jul 9, 2009, at 9:56 AM, cvsne wrote:
IIRC, Mike pointed out early in this thread, that more N&W coal went to the lakes, via interchange, than went to tidewater. Hardly "all home road", but also fairly restricted.
In modeling WWII, I can model solid trains of N&W hoppers eastbound on the PRR from the Cumberland Valley branch and headed to the northeast, as reported by 1st person observers.
So, with hoppers, the ability to use specific roads, and even specific classes from those roads is both time and place dependent and is certainly more appropriate for the regional/local/interchange model of traffic than say, box cars ;^)
Regards
Bruce
Bruce F. Smith
Auburn, AL
http://www.vetmed.auburn.edu/index.pl/bruce_f._smith2
"Some days you are the bug, some days you are the windshield."
__
/ \
__<+--+>________________\__/___ ________________________________
|- ______/ O O \_______ -| | __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ |
| / 4999 PENNSYLVANIA 4999 \ | ||__||__||__||__||__||__||__||__||
|/_____________________________\|_|________________________________|
| O--O \0 0 0 0/ O--O | 0-0-0 0-0-0
Something that occurs to me is that although both the N&W and C&O had large fleets of hoppers both of these railroads delivered large quantities of coal to export piers in the Hampton Roads area. So, the traffic pattern was mine-pier-mine, all on the home road.Marty,
IIRC, Mike pointed out early in this thread, that more N&W coal went to the lakes, via interchange, than went to tidewater. Hardly "all home road", but also fairly restricted.
In modeling WWII, I can model solid trains of N&W hoppers eastbound on the PRR from the Cumberland Valley branch and headed to the northeast, as reported by 1st person observers.
So, with hoppers, the ability to use specific roads, and even specific classes from those roads is both time and place dependent and is certainly more appropriate for the regional/local/interchange model of traffic than say, box cars ;^)
Regards
Bruce
Bruce F. Smith
Auburn, AL
http://www.vetmed.auburn.edu/index.pl/bruce_f._smith2
"Some days you are the bug, some days you are the windshield."
__
/ \
__<+--+>________________\__/___ ________________________________
|- ______/ O O \_______ -| | __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ |
| / 4999 PENNSYLVANIA 4999 \ | ||__||__||__||__||__||__||__||__||
|/_____________________________\|_|________________________________|
| O--O \0 0 0 0/ O--O | 0-0-0 0-0-0
water.kresse@...
Captive Fleet doesn't equal Tidewater Bunker coal service only. Relative to the C&O, N&W and Virginian, all in 1909 were primarily concerned about getting coal to Tidewater, but the Virginian was closest to being captive coal fleet for running coal to Sewell's Point.
Soon, more coal was heading West . . . . and the C&O and N&W were in better shape to do that than the Virginian. The were steel plants along the C&O and N&W lines. Do we know how those N&W coal cars got into Armco or T-T Ceredos/Kenova river barge loading facilities yards? Is it off line if you used a terminal railroad to get there?
Al Kresse
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
Soon, more coal was heading West . . . . and the C&O and N&W were in better shape to do that than the Virginian. The were steel plants along the C&O and N&W lines. Do we know how those N&W coal cars got into Armco or T-T Ceredos/Kenova river barge loading facilities yards? Is it off line if you used a terminal railroad to get there?
Al Kresse
----- Original Message -----
From: "Mike Brock" <brockm@...>
To: STMFC@...
Sent: Thursday, July 9, 2009 12:02:03 PM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern
Subject: Re: [STMFC] Re: Coal car loading on "home" roads...
Marty McGuirk writes:
" Isn't it possible, or even probable, that although the C&O and N&W had
large fleets of hoppers such a great percentage of those fleets were in
essentially "captive" service they never made it offline?"
Marty, note my message of 7/8 at 11:24 PM. The answer depends upon what you
mean by great percentage. Is 56% such a number? I'll summarize:
That yr [ 1948 see the Richard Prince book, Norfolk & Western Railway, pgs
240-241 ] we know N&W sent 63% of its
carried coal offline...i.e., not through Norfolk. One could argue that 63%
of its hopper cars went off line but we don't really know what % going off
line were 70 ton versus 50 ton cars. Assuming the type of cars were spread
around the system uniformly [ and this might not be true ], then the 63%
figure becomes more realistic. It also means that 37% were captive...at
least for a short time [ that required to travel from Roanoke to Norfolk and
back ]. The problem is that these coal trains were not unit trains. To
complicate the heck out of the situation, coal mined in the Pocahontas
region [ the eastern coal region ] frequently was sent west while coal mined
in the western Williamson region went east. Loaded coal trains passed each
other between Roanoke and Iaeger. Thus, hoppers returning from Norfolk might
end up at a mine in the Pocahontas region picking up a load headed west.
However, if a "captive" car was released another was likely captured.
So, during a specific time period, one could probably say that 37% of N&W
hoppers were "captive" in the Roanoke-Norfolk run. However, as I mentioned
before, 19% of N&W transported coal went north from Columbus, OH, on Pennsy
or NYC tracks to Great Lakes ports. These also might be considered as
"captives" in the sense that they were confined to those runs and would not
be availble to show up on the CV...whatever that is <G>...or the UP.
Hence...56% was "captive" [ at least from New England and Sherman Hill ].
Mike Brock
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
From: "Mike Brock" <brockm@...>
To: STMFC@...
Sent: Thursday, July 9, 2009 12:02:03 PM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern
Subject: Re: [STMFC] Re: Coal car loading on "home" roads...
Marty McGuirk writes:
" Isn't it possible, or even probable, that although the C&O and N&W had
large fleets of hoppers such a great percentage of those fleets were in
essentially "captive" service they never made it offline?"
Marty, note my message of 7/8 at 11:24 PM. The answer depends upon what you
mean by great percentage. Is 56% such a number? I'll summarize:
That yr [ 1948 see the Richard Prince book, Norfolk & Western Railway, pgs
240-241 ] we know N&W sent 63% of its
carried coal offline...i.e., not through Norfolk. One could argue that 63%
of its hopper cars went off line but we don't really know what % going off
line were 70 ton versus 50 ton cars. Assuming the type of cars were spread
around the system uniformly [ and this might not be true ], then the 63%
figure becomes more realistic. It also means that 37% were captive...at
least for a short time [ that required to travel from Roanoke to Norfolk and
back ]. The problem is that these coal trains were not unit trains. To
complicate the heck out of the situation, coal mined in the Pocahontas
region [ the eastern coal region ] frequently was sent west while coal mined
in the western Williamson region went east. Loaded coal trains passed each
other between Roanoke and Iaeger. Thus, hoppers returning from Norfolk might
end up at a mine in the Pocahontas region picking up a load headed west.
However, if a "captive" car was released another was likely captured.
So, during a specific time period, one could probably say that 37% of N&W
hoppers were "captive" in the Roanoke-Norfolk run. However, as I mentioned
before, 19% of N&W transported coal went north from Columbus, OH, on Pennsy
or NYC tracks to Great Lakes ports. These also might be considered as
"captives" in the sense that they were confined to those runs and would not
be availble to show up on the CV...whatever that is <G>...or the UP.
Hence...56% was "captive" [ at least from New England and Sherman Hill ].
Mike Brock
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Marty McGuirk
Mike,
All valid points. One other piece of data that may (please note I said may!) affect the percentage numbers. The N&W didn't serve Norfolk, the N&P BL did. I have no idea if cars delivered to the N&P BL were considered to be "sent off line" by the N&W, but if they did that short trip to Lambert's Point would likely be reflected in your numbers.
Marty
All valid points. One other piece of data that may (please note I said may!) affect the percentage numbers. The N&W didn't serve Norfolk, the N&P BL did. I have no idea if cars delivered to the N&P BL were considered to be "sent off line" by the N&W, but if they did that short trip to Lambert's Point would likely be reflected in your numbers.
Marty
Gatwood, Elden J SAD
Marty;
I would add something I find a little odd.
In all my time growing up in Pgh, I always noted how few C&O and N&W hoppers
I saw on any road in the Pgh-area (I know because I looked for them), until
the N&W took over the P&WV in 1964. Yes, numbers of ex-C&O hoppers showed up
on the B&O after 1962, but they had also been re-stencilled for the B&O.
I also saw far more C&O gons than I saw C&O hoppers.
Go figure that one.
Elden Gatwood
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
I would add something I find a little odd.
In all my time growing up in Pgh, I always noted how few C&O and N&W hoppers
I saw on any road in the Pgh-area (I know because I looked for them), until
the N&W took over the P&WV in 1964. Yes, numbers of ex-C&O hoppers showed up
on the B&O after 1962, but they had also been re-stencilled for the B&O.
I also saw far more C&O gons than I saw C&O hoppers.
Go figure that one.
Elden Gatwood
-----Original Message-----
From: STMFC@... [mailto:STMFC@...] On Behalf Of cvsne
Sent: Thursday, July 09, 2009 10:56 AM
To: STMFC@...
Subject: [STMFC] Re: Coal car loading on "home" roads...
Something that occurs to me is that although both the N&W and C&O had large
fleets of hoppers both of these railroads delivered large quantities of coal
to export piers in the Hampton Roads area. So, the traffic pattern was
mine-pier-mine, all on the home road.
I've always had a soft spot for the N&W, having spent many a boring midwatch
at NOB watching hoppers roll through the loaders at Lambert's Point. So, like
Mike Brock, I decided to model an N&W hopper for my 1950s New England
railroad. After looking at thousands of pages and photos of reference I
cannot find one shred of evidence that an N&W (or C&O, for that matter)
hopper was ever on the New Haven or CV. Am I saying it was impossible or that
it never happened? Of course not.
But consider this - a large number of New England coal-fired plants use
Virginia coal - but it's brought in by barges loaded at Newport News and
Lambert's Point so while the coal ends up there the cars stay on home rails.
There are, however, a noticeable percentage of PRR and B&O hoppers on my two
pet railroads. Isn't it possible, or even probable, that although the C&O and
N&W had large fleets of hoppers such a great percentage of those fleets were
in essentially "captive" service they never made it offline?
Marty McGuirk
From: STMFC@... [mailto:STMFC@...] On Behalf Of cvsne
Sent: Thursday, July 09, 2009 10:56 AM
To: STMFC@...
Subject: [STMFC] Re: Coal car loading on "home" roads...
Something that occurs to me is that although both the N&W and C&O had large
fleets of hoppers both of these railroads delivered large quantities of coal
to export piers in the Hampton Roads area. So, the traffic pattern was
mine-pier-mine, all on the home road.
I've always had a soft spot for the N&W, having spent many a boring midwatch
at NOB watching hoppers roll through the loaders at Lambert's Point. So, like
Mike Brock, I decided to model an N&W hopper for my 1950s New England
railroad. After looking at thousands of pages and photos of reference I
cannot find one shred of evidence that an N&W (or C&O, for that matter)
hopper was ever on the New Haven or CV. Am I saying it was impossible or that
it never happened? Of course not.
But consider this - a large number of New England coal-fired plants use
Virginia coal - but it's brought in by barges loaded at Newport News and
Lambert's Point so while the coal ends up there the cars stay on home rails.
There are, however, a noticeable percentage of PRR and B&O hoppers on my two
pet railroads. Isn't it possible, or even probable, that although the C&O and
N&W had large fleets of hoppers such a great percentage of those fleets were
in essentially "captive" service they never made it offline?
Marty McGuirk
water.kresse@...
I have a 1935 map of Coal Fields Served by C&O Lines (= C&O, PM, and NKP) with the ERIE (trustee run) being shown as a secondary line. All were under the control of the Vans' out of Cleveland at that time.
What is interesting is that in 1935 at the C&Os main coal car assembly yards, Russell (Westbound coal) could handle 10,363 cars going out up double track to Toledo and the Midwest, and Clifton Forge (Eastbound coal) was set up to handle 5,523 cars . . . much going to NN. Plus more coal would flow in from the shrinking Hocking fields into Columbus also heading west, or north.
Al Kresse
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
What is interesting is that in 1935 at the C&Os main coal car assembly yards, Russell (Westbound coal) could handle 10,363 cars going out up double track to Toledo and the Midwest, and Clifton Forge (Eastbound coal) was set up to handle 5,523 cars . . . much going to NN. Plus more coal would flow in from the shrinking Hocking fields into Columbus also heading west, or north.
Al Kresse
----- Original Message -----
From: "Bruce Smith" <smithbf@...>
To: STMFC@...
Sent: Thursday, July 9, 2009 12:03:49 PM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern
Subject: Re: [STMFC] Re: Coal car loading on "home" roads...
On Jul 9, 2009, at 9:56 AM, cvsne wrote:
IIRC, Mike pointed out early in this thread, that more N&W coal went
to the lakes, via interchange, than went to tidewater. Hardly "all
home road", but also fairly restricted.
In modeling WWII, I can model solid trains of N&W hoppers eastbound
on the PRR from the Cumberland Valley branch and headed to the
northeast, as reported by 1st person observers.
So, with hoppers, the ability to use specific roads, and even
specific classes from those roads is both time and place dependent
and is certainly more appropriate for the regional/local/interchange
model of traffic than say, box cars ;^)
Regards
Bruce
Bruce F. Smith
Auburn, AL
http://www.vetmed.auburn.edu/index.pl/bruce_f._smith2
"Some days you are the bug, some days you are the windshield."
__
/ \
__<+--+>________________\__/___ ________________________________
|- ______/ O O \_______ -| | __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ |
| / 4999 PENNSYLVANIA 4999 \ | ||__||__||__||__||__||__||__||__||
|/_____________________________\|_|________________________________|
| O--O \0 0 0 0/ O--O | 0-0-0 0-0-0
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
From: "Bruce Smith" <smithbf@...>
To: STMFC@...
Sent: Thursday, July 9, 2009 12:03:49 PM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern
Subject: Re: [STMFC] Re: Coal car loading on "home" roads...
On Jul 9, 2009, at 9:56 AM, cvsne wrote:
Something that occurs to me is that although both the N&W and C&OMarty,
had large fleets of hoppers both of these railroads delivered large
quantities of coal to export piers in the Hampton Roads area. So,
the traffic pattern was mine-pier-mine, all on the home road.
IIRC, Mike pointed out early in this thread, that more N&W coal went
to the lakes, via interchange, than went to tidewater. Hardly "all
home road", but also fairly restricted.
In modeling WWII, I can model solid trains of N&W hoppers eastbound
on the PRR from the Cumberland Valley branch and headed to the
northeast, as reported by 1st person observers.
So, with hoppers, the ability to use specific roads, and even
specific classes from those roads is both time and place dependent
and is certainly more appropriate for the regional/local/interchange
model of traffic than say, box cars ;^)
Regards
Bruce
Bruce F. Smith
Auburn, AL
http://www.vetmed.auburn.edu/index.pl/bruce_f._smith2
"Some days you are the bug, some days you are the windshield."
__
/ \
__<+--+>________________\__/___ ________________________________
|- ______/ O O \_______ -| | __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ |
| / 4999 PENNSYLVANIA 4999 \ | ||__||__||__||__||__||__||__||__||
|/_____________________________\|_|________________________________|
| O--O \0 0 0 0/ O--O | 0-0-0 0-0-0
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
sparachuk <sparachuk@...>
After looking at thousands of pages and photos of reference I cannot find one shred of evidence that an N&W (or C&O, for that matter) hopper was ever on the New Haven or CV. Am I saying it was impossible or that it never happened? Of course not.
Marty McGuirk
Marty: Looking through books and films of the '50s in Ontario I am constantly seeing N&W hoppers, along with Lackawanna and RDG, D&H and so on. We didn't have any indigenous supplies of coal in Ontario so it was all imported. Some of it had to come up the CV and likely the NH through Maybrook.
For you western coal guys, I can testify that coal was indeed shipped in boxcars, at least in Western Canada. In Winnipeg in the winter of 1969 I had a job in a coal yard for one whole day. We took 100lb burlap bags of coal from boxcars and loaded them on the back of flatbed trucks for delivery to homes throughout Winnipeg. I was a still a teenager and fairly strong but it was a killer task. One old guy there who stood maybe five feet four and weighed 150 lbs himself could toss those bags up on those trucks like they were pillows. They said they admired my courage in trying to do the job but it would be better all around if I didn't come back the next day. I didn't put up much of a fight.
Stephan Parachuk
Toronto
Marty McGuirk
Marty: Looking through books and films of the '50s in Ontario I am constantly seeing N&W hoppers, along with Lackawanna and RDG, D&H and so on. We didn't have any indigenous supplies of coal in Ontario so it was all imported. Some of it had to come up the CV and likely the NH through Maybrook.
For you western coal guys, I can testify that coal was indeed shipped in boxcars, at least in Western Canada. In Winnipeg in the winter of 1969 I had a job in a coal yard for one whole day. We took 100lb burlap bags of coal from boxcars and loaded them on the back of flatbed trucks for delivery to homes throughout Winnipeg. I was a still a teenager and fairly strong but it was a killer task. One old guy there who stood maybe five feet four and weighed 150 lbs himself could toss those bags up on those trucks like they were pillows. They said they admired my courage in trying to do the job but it would be better all around if I didn't come back the next day. I didn't put up much of a fight.
Stephan Parachuk
Toronto
water.kresse@...
If you believe their coal marketing literature, the C&O coal going up to Philly, NYC, Boston, and further into New England typically went by boat and/or barge intercoastal-wise. Washington/Baltimore could see C&O coal cars.
Al Kresse
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
Al Kresse
----- Original Message -----
From: "sparachuk" <sparachuk@...>
To: STMFC@...
Sent: Thursday, July 9, 2009 10:51:41 PM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern
Subject: [STMFC] Re: Coal car loading on "home" roads...
After looking at thousands of pages and photos of reference I cannot find one shred of evidence that an N&W (or C&O, for that matter) hopper was ever on the New Haven or CV. Am I saying it was impossible or that it never happened? Of course not.
Marty McGuirk
Marty: Looking through books and films of the '50s in Ontario I am constantly seeing N&W hoppers, along with Lackawanna and RDG, D&H and so on. We didn't have any indigenous supplies of coal in Ontario so it was all imported. Some of it had to come up the CV and likely the NH through Maybrook.
For you western coal guys, I can testify that coal was indeed shipped in boxcars, at least in Western Canada. In Winnipeg in the winter of 1969 I had a job in a coal yard for one whole day. We took 100lb burlap bags of coal from boxcars and loaded them on the back of flatbed trucks for delivery to homes throughout Winnipeg. I was a still a teenager and fairly strong but it was a killer task. One old guy there who stood maybe five feet four and weighed 150 lbs himself could toss those bags up on those trucks like they were pillows. They said they admired my courage in trying to do the job but it would be better all around if I didn't come back the next day. I didn't put up much of a fight.
Stephan Parachuk
Toronto
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
From: "sparachuk" <sparachuk@...>
To: STMFC@...
Sent: Thursday, July 9, 2009 10:51:41 PM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern
Subject: [STMFC] Re: Coal car loading on "home" roads...
After looking at thousands of pages and photos of reference I cannot find one shred of evidence that an N&W (or C&O, for that matter) hopper was ever on the New Haven or CV. Am I saying it was impossible or that it never happened? Of course not.
Marty McGuirk
Marty: Looking through books and films of the '50s in Ontario I am constantly seeing N&W hoppers, along with Lackawanna and RDG, D&H and so on. We didn't have any indigenous supplies of coal in Ontario so it was all imported. Some of it had to come up the CV and likely the NH through Maybrook.
For you western coal guys, I can testify that coal was indeed shipped in boxcars, at least in Western Canada. In Winnipeg in the winter of 1969 I had a job in a coal yard for one whole day. We took 100lb burlap bags of coal from boxcars and loaded them on the back of flatbed trucks for delivery to homes throughout Winnipeg. I was a still a teenager and fairly strong but it was a killer task. One old guy there who stood maybe five feet four and weighed 150 lbs himself could toss those bags up on those trucks like they were pillows. They said they admired my courage in trying to do the job but it would be better all around if I didn't come back the next day. I didn't put up much of a fight.
Stephan Parachuk
Toronto
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Dave Nelson
Tim O'Connor wrote:
furnance and IIRC was the only west coast steel mill that reduced iron ore.
All the other mills started their process at the Open Hearth (needing pig
iron and/or scrap). Foundaries also needed coke but in California (at
least) petroleum coke was readilly available.
There were times when the world price for coal was high enough that Utah
mines could ship their coal to west coast ports for export. I think the
late 50's was one such period and I know coal was exported from the Port of
Oakland then.
Last, cement mills could use other fuel than coal but I've been told coal
ash is a useful adulterant to cement and so is preferred. I dunno about
southern CA but here in central CA the largest one, (originally named)
Kaiser Cement mill in Santa Clara Co has received a trainload of coal once
or twice a week since the 1920's.
Dave Nelson
RobFontana was the only west coast plant that coked coal for use in a blast
Nope, not only for steel. Cement manufacturing also uses a lot of
coal -- for heat! And Fontana was not the only steel plant in
California.
furnance and IIRC was the only west coast steel mill that reduced iron ore.
All the other mills started their process at the Open Hearth (needing pig
iron and/or scrap). Foundaries also needed coke but in California (at
least) petroleum coke was readilly available.
There were times when the world price for coal was high enough that Utah
mines could ship their coal to west coast ports for export. I think the
late 50's was one such period and I know coal was exported from the Port of
Oakland then.
Last, cement mills could use other fuel than coal but I've been told coal
ash is a useful adulterant to cement and so is preferred. I dunno about
southern CA but here in central CA the largest one, (originally named)
Kaiser Cement mill in Santa Clara Co has received a trainload of coal once
or twice a week since the 1920's.
Dave Nelson
Dave Nelson
water.kresse@... wrote:
Walter brings up an important point here -- the water movement of rail
originated coal shipments. What makes it important is not that it occurred
but that the ICC required the railroads to record such transfers as-if the
water movement occurred by railroad. So should you come across commodity
data in an annual report and/or ICC publication you need to know that
tons/carloads of coal delivered to another carrier (marked outbound) and
tons/carloads of coal received from another carrier (marked inbound)... that
said interchange could be using a barge, not a hopper. The same is true
for Iron Ore and possibly for all other commodities shipped this way (e.g.,
lumber from British Columbia to Los Angeles). This rule applied to all
coasts and the Great Lakes as well.
Water movement was cheap as well. IIRC there was a post on the old FCL that
spoke of delivering coal to a Lake Erie facility so it could be moved by
water a whole100 miles and then loaded again in hoppers.
All of this tends to muddy the waters when trying to understand traffic
flows... How much of that coal carried by the B&M was received at a wharf
vs. a rail connection? Very hard to say when all you have is the ICC data.
Dave Nelson
If you believe their coal marketing literature, the C&O coal going up
to Philly, NYC, Boston, and further into New England typically went
by boat and/or barge intercoastal-wise. Washington/Baltimore could
see C&O coal cars.
Al Kresse
Walter brings up an important point here -- the water movement of rail
originated coal shipments. What makes it important is not that it occurred
but that the ICC required the railroads to record such transfers as-if the
water movement occurred by railroad. So should you come across commodity
data in an annual report and/or ICC publication you need to know that
tons/carloads of coal delivered to another carrier (marked outbound) and
tons/carloads of coal received from another carrier (marked inbound)... that
said interchange could be using a barge, not a hopper. The same is true
for Iron Ore and possibly for all other commodities shipped this way (e.g.,
lumber from British Columbia to Los Angeles). This rule applied to all
coasts and the Great Lakes as well.
Water movement was cheap as well. IIRC there was a post on the old FCL that
spoke of delivering coal to a Lake Erie facility so it could be moved by
water a whole100 miles and then loaded again in hoppers.
All of this tends to muddy the waters when trying to understand traffic
flows... How much of that coal carried by the B&M was received at a wharf
vs. a rail connection? Very hard to say when all you have is the ICC data.
Dave Nelson
drgwrail
What seems to be overlooked in this discussion of coal movements by rail is that during the steam years over 25% of all coal mined was used for locomotive fuel (I have the figure around here somewhere). Another large percentage waas used for generating electrical power. Quite a few railroads, notably in New England, had no on line mines so all their loco fuel had to be from off line sources.
Another fact is hardly any anthracite coal was burned by the "Anthracite Raods" after about 1920. hence all the bituminous had to be braght in from connecting lines. And while it is true that a few raods sent their own cars off line to be laoded with loco coal, this was not common.
Moody's Steam Railraod Investment Manuals have a lot of interesting statistics on car loading perfromed on line and car loads received, listed by category. For instance, in the 1949 edition which I have on hand it shows the following car loads data:
Bitum Coal Rec'd Bit Coal Orginated Anth Coal Rec'd Anth Coal Orgin
D&H 61,186 0 26,196 76,255
DL&W 54,314 0 19,473 72,828
NH 36,324 0 20,734 0
B&0 220,532 532,424
CV 163,735 (tons) 0 96,332 (tons) 0
It is a pretty safe assumption that the anthracite loads were used for home heating plus some small industries. While these figures don't give the kind of detail we would like, such as how much was used for loco fuel, etc. they certainly indicate a large amount of interchange of coal loads plus movement of non-home road cars of coal.
Might also ponder where all the west bound N&W coal went...surely it was not all used in Columbus and Cleveland...it's western terminus points.
This is a huge subject......subject to many model railroader myths plus "surely it must have been" and 'logic says that" thinking. Tony Koester and I have long thaought that a good book on the bituminous coal industry is needed but the subject is so alrge and complex that it is almsot impossible to address it!
Chuck Yungkurth
Boulder CO
________________________________
From: Dave Nelson <Lake_Muskoka@...>
To: STMFC@...
Sent: Monday, July 13, 2009 9:56:39 AM
Subject: RE: [STMFC] Re: Coal car loading on "home" roads...
water.kresse@ comcast.net wrote:
originated coal shipments. What makes it important is not that it occurred
but that the ICC required the railroads to record such transfers as-if the
water movement occurred by railroad. So should you come across commodity
data in an annual report and/or ICC publication you need to know that
tons/carloads of coal delivered to another carrier (marked outbound) and
tons/carloads of coal received from another carrier (marked inbound)... that
said interchange could be using a barge, not a hopper. The same is true
for Iron Ore and possibly for all other commodities shipped this way (e.g.,
lumber from British Columbia to Los Angeles). This rule applied to all
coasts and the Great Lakes as well.
Water movement was cheap as well. IIRC there was a post on the old FCL that
spoke of delivering coal to a Lake Erie facility so it could be moved by
water a whole100 miles and then loaded again in hoppers.
All of this tends to muddy the waters when trying to understand traffic
flows... How much of that coal carried by the B&M was received at a wharf
vs. a rail connection? Very hard to say when all you have is the ICC data.
Dave Nelson
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Another fact is hardly any anthracite coal was burned by the "Anthracite Raods" after about 1920. hence all the bituminous had to be braght in from connecting lines. And while it is true that a few raods sent their own cars off line to be laoded with loco coal, this was not common.
Moody's Steam Railraod Investment Manuals have a lot of interesting statistics on car loading perfromed on line and car loads received, listed by category. For instance, in the 1949 edition which I have on hand it shows the following car loads data:
Bitum Coal Rec'd Bit Coal Orginated Anth Coal Rec'd Anth Coal Orgin
D&H 61,186 0 26,196 76,255
DL&W 54,314 0 19,473 72,828
NH 36,324 0 20,734 0
B&0 220,532 532,424
CV 163,735 (tons) 0 96,332 (tons) 0
It is a pretty safe assumption that the anthracite loads were used for home heating plus some small industries. While these figures don't give the kind of detail we would like, such as how much was used for loco fuel, etc. they certainly indicate a large amount of interchange of coal loads plus movement of non-home road cars of coal.
Might also ponder where all the west bound N&W coal went...surely it was not all used in Columbus and Cleveland...it's western terminus points.
This is a huge subject......subject to many model railroader myths plus "surely it must have been" and 'logic says that" thinking. Tony Koester and I have long thaought that a good book on the bituminous coal industry is needed but the subject is so alrge and complex that it is almsot impossible to address it!
Chuck Yungkurth
Boulder CO
________________________________
From: Dave Nelson <Lake_Muskoka@...>
To: STMFC@...
Sent: Monday, July 13, 2009 9:56:39 AM
Subject: RE: [STMFC] Re: Coal car loading on "home" roads...
water.kresse@ comcast.net wrote:
If you believe their coal marketing literature, the C&O coal going upWalter brings up an important point here -- the water movement of rail
to Philly, NYC, Boston, and further into New England typically went
by boat and/or barge intercoastal- wise. Washington/Baltimor e could
see C&O coal cars.
Al Kresse
originated coal shipments. What makes it important is not that it occurred
but that the ICC required the railroads to record such transfers as-if the
water movement occurred by railroad. So should you come across commodity
data in an annual report and/or ICC publication you need to know that
tons/carloads of coal delivered to another carrier (marked outbound) and
tons/carloads of coal received from another carrier (marked inbound)... that
said interchange could be using a barge, not a hopper. The same is true
for Iron Ore and possibly for all other commodities shipped this way (e.g.,
lumber from British Columbia to Los Angeles). This rule applied to all
coasts and the Great Lakes as well.
Water movement was cheap as well. IIRC there was a post on the old FCL that
spoke of delivering coal to a Lake Erie facility so it could be moved by
water a whole100 miles and then loaded again in hoppers.
All of this tends to muddy the waters when trying to understand traffic
flows... How much of that coal carried by the B&M was received at a wharf
vs. a rail connection? Very hard to say when all you have is the ICC data.
Dave Nelson
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
drgwrail
Please excuse my ever more dyslexic octogenarian typing. And yes, I should use spell check!
CY
________________________________
From: Charles R Yungkurth <drgwrail@...>
To: STMFC@...
Sent: Monday, July 13, 2009 10:52:41 AM
Subject: Re: [STMFC] Re: Coal car loading on "home" roads...
What seems to be overlooked in this discussion of coal movements by rail is that during the steam years over 25% of all coal mined was used for locomotive fuel (I have the figure around here somewhere). Another large percentage waas used for generating electrical power. Quite a few railroads, notably in New England, had no on line mines so all their loco fuel had to be from off line sources.
Another fact is hardly any anthracite coal was burned by the "Anthracite Raods" after about 1920. hence all the bituminous had to be braght in from connecting lines. And while it is true that a few raods sent their own cars off line to be laoded with loco coal, this was not common.
Moody's Steam Railraod Investment Manuals have a lot of interesting statistics on car loading perfromed on line and car loads received, listed by category. For instance, in the 1949 edition which I have on hand it shows the following car loads data:
Bitum Coal Rec'd Bit Coal Orginated Anth Coal Rec'd Anth Coal Orgin
D&H 61,186 0 26,196 76,255
DL&W 54,314 0 19,473 72,828
NH 36,324 0 20,734 0
B&0 220,532 532,424
CV 163,735 (tons) 0 96,332 (tons) 0
It is a pretty safe assumption that the anthracite loads were used for home heating plus some small industries. While these figures don't give the kind of detail we would like, such as how much was used for loco fuel, etc. they certainly indicate a large amount of interchange of coal loads plus movement of non-home road cars of coal.
Might also ponder where all the west bound N&W coal went...surely it was not all used in Columbus and Cleveland... it's western terminus points.
This is a huge subject..... .subject to many model railroader myths plus "surely it must have been" and 'logic says that" thinking. Tony Koester and I have long thaought that a good book on the bituminous coal industry is needed but the subject is so alrge and complex that it is almsot impossible to address it!
Chuck Yungkurth
Boulder CO
____________ _________ _________ __
From: Dave Nelson <Lake_Muskoka@ att.net>
To: STMFC@yahoogroups. com
Sent: Monday, July 13, 2009 9:56:39 AM
Subject: RE: [STMFC] Re: Coal car loading on "home" roads...
water.kresse@ comcast.net wrote:
originated coal shipments. What makes it important is not that it occurred
but that the ICC required the railroads to record such transfers as-if the
water movement occurred by railroad. So should you come across commodity
data in an annual report and/or ICC publication you need to know that
tons/carloads of coal delivered to another carrier (marked outbound) and
tons/carloads of coal received from another carrier (marked inbound)... that
said interchange could be using a barge, not a hopper. The same is true
for Iron Ore and possibly for all other commodities shipped this way (e.g.,
lumber from British Columbia to Los Angeles). This rule applied to all
coasts and the Great Lakes as well.
Water movement was cheap as well. IIRC there was a post on the old FCL that
spoke of delivering coal to a Lake Erie facility so it could be moved by
water a whole100 miles and then loaded again in hoppers.
All of this tends to muddy the waters when trying to understand traffic
flows... How much of that coal carried by the B&M was received at a wharf
vs. a rail connection? Very hard to say when all you have is the ICC data.
Dave Nelson
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
CY
________________________________
From: Charles R Yungkurth <drgwrail@...>
To: STMFC@...
Sent: Monday, July 13, 2009 10:52:41 AM
Subject: Re: [STMFC] Re: Coal car loading on "home" roads...
What seems to be overlooked in this discussion of coal movements by rail is that during the steam years over 25% of all coal mined was used for locomotive fuel (I have the figure around here somewhere). Another large percentage waas used for generating electrical power. Quite a few railroads, notably in New England, had no on line mines so all their loco fuel had to be from off line sources.
Another fact is hardly any anthracite coal was burned by the "Anthracite Raods" after about 1920. hence all the bituminous had to be braght in from connecting lines. And while it is true that a few raods sent their own cars off line to be laoded with loco coal, this was not common.
Moody's Steam Railraod Investment Manuals have a lot of interesting statistics on car loading perfromed on line and car loads received, listed by category. For instance, in the 1949 edition which I have on hand it shows the following car loads data:
Bitum Coal Rec'd Bit Coal Orginated Anth Coal Rec'd Anth Coal Orgin
D&H 61,186 0 26,196 76,255
DL&W 54,314 0 19,473 72,828
NH 36,324 0 20,734 0
B&0 220,532 532,424
CV 163,735 (tons) 0 96,332 (tons) 0
It is a pretty safe assumption that the anthracite loads were used for home heating plus some small industries. While these figures don't give the kind of detail we would like, such as how much was used for loco fuel, etc. they certainly indicate a large amount of interchange of coal loads plus movement of non-home road cars of coal.
Might also ponder where all the west bound N&W coal went...surely it was not all used in Columbus and Cleveland... it's western terminus points.
This is a huge subject..... .subject to many model railroader myths plus "surely it must have been" and 'logic says that" thinking. Tony Koester and I have long thaought that a good book on the bituminous coal industry is needed but the subject is so alrge and complex that it is almsot impossible to address it!
Chuck Yungkurth
Boulder CO
____________ _________ _________ __
From: Dave Nelson <Lake_Muskoka@ att.net>
To: STMFC@yahoogroups. com
Sent: Monday, July 13, 2009 9:56:39 AM
Subject: RE: [STMFC] Re: Coal car loading on "home" roads...
water.kresse@ comcast.net wrote:
If you believe their coal marketing literature, the C&O coal going upWalter brings up an important point here -- the water movement of rail
to Philly, NYC, Boston, and further into New England typically went
by boat and/or barge intercoastal- wise. Washington/Baltimor e could
see C&O coal cars.
Al Kresse
originated coal shipments. What makes it important is not that it occurred
but that the ICC required the railroads to record such transfers as-if the
water movement occurred by railroad. So should you come across commodity
data in an annual report and/or ICC publication you need to know that
tons/carloads of coal delivered to another carrier (marked outbound) and
tons/carloads of coal received from another carrier (marked inbound)... that
said interchange could be using a barge, not a hopper. The same is true
for Iron Ore and possibly for all other commodities shipped this way (e.g.,
lumber from British Columbia to Los Angeles). This rule applied to all
coasts and the Great Lakes as well.
Water movement was cheap as well. IIRC there was a post on the old FCL that
spoke of delivering coal to a Lake Erie facility so it could be moved by
water a whole100 miles and then loaded again in hoppers.
All of this tends to muddy the waters when trying to understand traffic
flows... How much of that coal carried by the B&M was received at a wharf
vs. a rail connection? Very hard to say when all you have is the ICC data.
Dave Nelson
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
water.kresse@...
Not unusual to see photos with N&W, Virginian, and L&N coal cars in the C&Os Presque Isle yard. Also, you would see both N&W and C&O coal cars at T-T barge loading facilities in Ceredos/Kenova/Huntington area and Armco Steel in Ashland, KY. C&O and Virginian had interchange points at Deep Water and West Gilbert.
We are guessing that the N&W coal cars came from Columbus via the C&O to Walbridge Yard/Toledo Terminal railroad?
Al Kresse
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
We are guessing that the N&W coal cars came from Columbus via the C&O to Walbridge Yard/Toledo Terminal railroad?
Al Kresse
----- Original Message -----
From: "Charles R Yungkurth" <drgwrail@...>
To: STMFC@...
Sent: Monday, July 13, 2009 12:52:41 PM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern
Subject: Re: [STMFC] Re: Coal car loading on "home" roads...
What seems to be overlooked in this discussion of coal movements by rail is that during the steam years over 25% of all coal mined was used for locomotive fuel (I have the figure around here somewhere). Another large percentage waas used for generating electrical power. Quite a few railroads, notably in New England, had no on line mines so all their loco fuel had to be from off line sources.
Another fact is hardly any anthracite coal was burned by the "Anthracite Raods" after about 1920. hence all the bituminous had to be braght in from connecting lines. And while it is true that a few raods sent their own cars off line to be laoded with loco coal, this was not common.
Moody's Steam Railraod Investment Manuals have a lot of interesting statistics on car loading perfromed on line and car loads received, listed by category. For instance, in the 1949 edition which I have on hand it shows the following car loads data:
Bitum Coal Rec'd Bit Coal Orginated Anth Coal Rec'd Anth Coal Orgin
D&H 61,186 0 26,196 76,255
DL&W 54,314 0 19,473 72,828
NH 36,324 0 20,734 0
B&0 220,532 532,424
CV 163,735 (tons) 0 96,332 (tons) 0
It is a pretty safe assumption that the anthracite loads were used for home heating plus some small industries. While these figures don't give the kind of detail we would like, such as how much was used for loco fuel, etc. they certainly indicate a large amount of interchange of coal loads plus movement of non-home road cars of coal.
Might also ponder where all the west bound N&W coal went...surely it was not all used in Columbus and Cleveland...it's western terminus points.
This is a huge subject......subject to many model railroader myths plus "surely it must have been" and 'logic says that" thinking. Tony Koester and I have long thaought that a good book on the bituminous coal industry is needed but the subject is so alrge and complex that it is almsot impossible to address it!
Chuck Yungkurth
Boulder CO
________________________________
From: Dave Nelson <Lake_Muskoka@...>
To: STMFC@...
Sent: Monday, July 13, 2009 9:56:39 AM
Subject: RE: [STMFC] Re: Coal car loading on "home" roads...
water.kresse@ comcast.net wrote:
originated coal shipments. What makes it important is not that it occurred
but that the ICC required the railroads to record such transfers as-if the
water movement occurred by railroad. So should you come across commodity
data in an annual report and/or ICC publication you need to know that
tons/carloads of coal delivered to another carrier (marked outbound) and
tons/carloads of coal received from another carrier (marked inbound)... that
said interchange could be using a barge, not a hopper. The same is true
for Iron Ore and possibly for all other commodities shipped this way (e.g.,
lumber from British Columbia to Los Angeles). This rule applied to all
coasts and the Great Lakes as well.
Water movement was cheap as well. IIRC there was a post on the old FCL that
spoke of delivering coal to a Lake Erie facility so it could be moved by
water a whole100 miles and then loaded again in hoppers.
All of this tends to muddy the waters when trying to understand traffic
flows... How much of that coal carried by the B&M was received at a wharf
vs. a rail connection? Very hard to say when all you have is the ICC data.
Dave Nelson
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
From: "Charles R Yungkurth" <drgwrail@...>
To: STMFC@...
Sent: Monday, July 13, 2009 12:52:41 PM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern
Subject: Re: [STMFC] Re: Coal car loading on "home" roads...
What seems to be overlooked in this discussion of coal movements by rail is that during the steam years over 25% of all coal mined was used for locomotive fuel (I have the figure around here somewhere). Another large percentage waas used for generating electrical power. Quite a few railroads, notably in New England, had no on line mines so all their loco fuel had to be from off line sources.
Another fact is hardly any anthracite coal was burned by the "Anthracite Raods" after about 1920. hence all the bituminous had to be braght in from connecting lines. And while it is true that a few raods sent their own cars off line to be laoded with loco coal, this was not common.
Moody's Steam Railraod Investment Manuals have a lot of interesting statistics on car loading perfromed on line and car loads received, listed by category. For instance, in the 1949 edition which I have on hand it shows the following car loads data:
Bitum Coal Rec'd Bit Coal Orginated Anth Coal Rec'd Anth Coal Orgin
D&H 61,186 0 26,196 76,255
DL&W 54,314 0 19,473 72,828
NH 36,324 0 20,734 0
B&0 220,532 532,424
CV 163,735 (tons) 0 96,332 (tons) 0
It is a pretty safe assumption that the anthracite loads were used for home heating plus some small industries. While these figures don't give the kind of detail we would like, such as how much was used for loco fuel, etc. they certainly indicate a large amount of interchange of coal loads plus movement of non-home road cars of coal.
Might also ponder where all the west bound N&W coal went...surely it was not all used in Columbus and Cleveland...it's western terminus points.
This is a huge subject......subject to many model railroader myths plus "surely it must have been" and 'logic says that" thinking. Tony Koester and I have long thaought that a good book on the bituminous coal industry is needed but the subject is so alrge and complex that it is almsot impossible to address it!
Chuck Yungkurth
Boulder CO
________________________________
From: Dave Nelson <Lake_Muskoka@...>
To: STMFC@...
Sent: Monday, July 13, 2009 9:56:39 AM
Subject: RE: [STMFC] Re: Coal car loading on "home" roads...
water.kresse@ comcast.net wrote:
If you believe their coal marketing literature, the C&O coal going upWalter brings up an important point here -- the water movement of rail
to Philly, NYC, Boston, and further into New England typically went
by boat and/or barge intercoastal- wise. Washington/Baltimor e could
see C&O coal cars.
Al Kresse
originated coal shipments. What makes it important is not that it occurred
but that the ICC required the railroads to record such transfers as-if the
water movement occurred by railroad. So should you come across commodity
data in an annual report and/or ICC publication you need to know that
tons/carloads of coal delivered to another carrier (marked outbound) and
tons/carloads of coal received from another carrier (marked inbound)... that
said interchange could be using a barge, not a hopper. The same is true
for Iron Ore and possibly for all other commodities shipped this way (e.g.,
lumber from British Columbia to Los Angeles). This rule applied to all
coasts and the Great Lakes as well.
Water movement was cheap as well. IIRC there was a post on the old FCL that
spoke of delivering coal to a Lake Erie facility so it could be moved by
water a whole100 miles and then loaded again in hoppers.
All of this tends to muddy the waters when trying to understand traffic
flows... How much of that coal carried by the B&M was received at a wharf
vs. a rail connection? Very hard to say when all you have is the ICC data.
Dave Nelson
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Armand Premo
Chuck,What did Moody's report for the Rutland? Armand Premo
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
----- Original Message -----
From: Charles R Yungkurth
To: STMFC@...
Sent: Monday, July 13, 2009 12:52 PM
Subject: Re: [STMFC] Re: Coal car loading on "home" roads...
What seems to be overlooked in this discussion of coal movements by rail is that during the steam years over 25% of all coal mined was used for locomotive fuel (I have the figure around here somewhere). Another large percentage waas used for generating electrical power. Quite a few railroads, notably in New England, had no on line mines so all their loco fuel had to be from off line sources.
Another fact is hardly any anthracite coal was burned by the "Anthracite Raods" after about 1920. hence all the bituminous had to be braght in from connecting lines. And while it is true that a few raods sent their own cars off line to be laoded with loco coal, this was not common.
Moody's Steam Railraod Investment Manuals have a lot of interesting statistics on car loading perfromed on line and car loads received, listed by category. For instance, in the 1949 edition which I have on hand it shows the following car loads data:
Bitum Coal Rec'd Bit Coal Orginated Anth Coal Rec'd Anth Coal Orgin
D&H 61,186 0 26,196 76,255
DL&W 54,314 0 19,473 72,828
NH 36,324 0 20,734 0
B&0 220,532 532,424
CV 163,735 (tons) 0 96,332 (tons) 0
It is a pretty safe assumption that the anthracite loads were used for home heating plus some small industries. While these figures don't give the kind of detail we would like, such as how much was used for loco fuel, etc. they certainly indicate a large amount of interchange of coal loads plus movement of non-home road cars of coal.
Might also ponder where all the west bound N&W coal went...surely it was not all used in Columbus and Cleveland...it's western terminus points.
This is a huge subject......subject to many model railroader myths plus "surely it must have been" and 'logic says that" thinking. Tony Koester and I have long thaought that a good book on the bituminous coal industry is needed but the subject is so alrge and complex that it is almsot impossible to address it!
Chuck Yungkurth
Boulder CO
________________________________
From: Dave Nelson <Lake_Muskoka@...>
To: STMFC@...
Sent: Monday, July 13, 2009 9:56:39 AM
Subject: RE: [STMFC] Re: Coal car loading on "home" roads...
water.kresse@ comcast.net wrote:
> If you believe their coal marketing literature, the C&O coal going up
> to Philly, NYC, Boston, and further into New England typically went
> by boat and/or barge intercoastal- wise. Washington/Baltimor e could
> see C&O coal cars.
>
>
>
> Al Kresse
Walter brings up an important point here -- the water movement of rail
originated coal shipments. What makes it important is not that it occurred
but that the ICC required the railroads to record such transfers as-if the
water movement occurred by railroad. So should you come across commodity
data in an annual report and/or ICC publication you need to know that
tons/carloads of coal delivered to another carrier (marked outbound) and
tons/carloads of coal received from another carrier (marked inbound)... that
said interchange could be using a barge, not a hopper. The same is true
for Iron Ore and possibly for all other commodities shipped this way (e.g.,
lumber from British Columbia to Los Angeles). This rule applied to all
coasts and the Great Lakes as well.
Water movement was cheap as well. IIRC there was a post on the old FCL that
spoke of delivering coal to a Lake Erie facility so it could be moved by
water a whole100 miles and then loaded again in hoppers.
All of this tends to muddy the waters when trying to understand traffic
flows... How much of that coal carried by the B&M was received at a wharf
vs. a rail connection? Very hard to say when all you have is the ICC data.
Dave Nelson
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 8.5.375 / Virus Database: 270.13.12/2233 - Release Date: 07/12/09 08:20:00
From: Charles R Yungkurth
To: STMFC@...
Sent: Monday, July 13, 2009 12:52 PM
Subject: Re: [STMFC] Re: Coal car loading on "home" roads...
What seems to be overlooked in this discussion of coal movements by rail is that during the steam years over 25% of all coal mined was used for locomotive fuel (I have the figure around here somewhere). Another large percentage waas used for generating electrical power. Quite a few railroads, notably in New England, had no on line mines so all their loco fuel had to be from off line sources.
Another fact is hardly any anthracite coal was burned by the "Anthracite Raods" after about 1920. hence all the bituminous had to be braght in from connecting lines. And while it is true that a few raods sent their own cars off line to be laoded with loco coal, this was not common.
Moody's Steam Railraod Investment Manuals have a lot of interesting statistics on car loading perfromed on line and car loads received, listed by category. For instance, in the 1949 edition which I have on hand it shows the following car loads data:
Bitum Coal Rec'd Bit Coal Orginated Anth Coal Rec'd Anth Coal Orgin
D&H 61,186 0 26,196 76,255
DL&W 54,314 0 19,473 72,828
NH 36,324 0 20,734 0
B&0 220,532 532,424
CV 163,735 (tons) 0 96,332 (tons) 0
It is a pretty safe assumption that the anthracite loads were used for home heating plus some small industries. While these figures don't give the kind of detail we would like, such as how much was used for loco fuel, etc. they certainly indicate a large amount of interchange of coal loads plus movement of non-home road cars of coal.
Might also ponder where all the west bound N&W coal went...surely it was not all used in Columbus and Cleveland...it's western terminus points.
This is a huge subject......subject to many model railroader myths plus "surely it must have been" and 'logic says that" thinking. Tony Koester and I have long thaought that a good book on the bituminous coal industry is needed but the subject is so alrge and complex that it is almsot impossible to address it!
Chuck Yungkurth
Boulder CO
________________________________
From: Dave Nelson <Lake_Muskoka@...>
To: STMFC@...
Sent: Monday, July 13, 2009 9:56:39 AM
Subject: RE: [STMFC] Re: Coal car loading on "home" roads...
water.kresse@ comcast.net wrote:
> If you believe their coal marketing literature, the C&O coal going up
> to Philly, NYC, Boston, and further into New England typically went
> by boat and/or barge intercoastal- wise. Washington/Baltimor e could
> see C&O coal cars.
>
>
>
> Al Kresse
Walter brings up an important point here -- the water movement of rail
originated coal shipments. What makes it important is not that it occurred
but that the ICC required the railroads to record such transfers as-if the
water movement occurred by railroad. So should you come across commodity
data in an annual report and/or ICC publication you need to know that
tons/carloads of coal delivered to another carrier (marked outbound) and
tons/carloads of coal received from another carrier (marked inbound)... that
said interchange could be using a barge, not a hopper. The same is true
for Iron Ore and possibly for all other commodities shipped this way (e.g.,
lumber from British Columbia to Los Angeles). This rule applied to all
coasts and the Great Lakes as well.
Water movement was cheap as well. IIRC there was a post on the old FCL that
spoke of delivering coal to a Lake Erie facility so it could be moved by
water a whole100 miles and then loaded again in hoppers.
All of this tends to muddy the waters when trying to understand traffic
flows... How much of that coal carried by the B&M was received at a wharf
vs. a rail connection? Very hard to say when all you have is the ICC data.
Dave Nelson
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 8.5.375 / Virus Database: 270.13.12/2233 - Release Date: 07/12/09 08:20:00