Equipment Instructions for freight cars


Anthony Thompson <thompson@...>
 

I don't know how many on this list are familiar with Equipment Instructions letters but many railroads issued these in order to instruct employees on needed movements of COMPANY empties as well as handling of foreign empties above and beyond the Car Service Rules. I have discussed this in a post to my blog this weekend (at http://modelingthesp.blogspot.com/) and the sample document I constructed for SP's Coast Division in 1953 is posted at Google Docs with this link:

https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=explorer&chrome=true&srcid=0Bz_ctrHrDz4wODYyZDBmMGYtNDg5OS00MmE4LWFmYzItNDMzZWYzNGQ4ZmE3&hl=en&authkey=CJGf05MF

If anyone has comments or corrections to this document, or general comments on the subject, perhaps that wold be of interest to the list.

Tony Thompson Editor, Signature Press, Berkeley, CA
2906 Forest Ave., Berkeley, CA 94705 www.signaturepress.com
(510) 540-6538; fax, (510) 540-1937; e-mail, thompson@...
Publishers of books on railroad history


np328
 

I had posted a doc like this under "return mtys via" in the files. Looking back at it I am surprised what I missed earlier:
Provisions for hoppers of C&O - NW - VGN - LN – IC – CEI - CBQ - MOP

I've a pix of an Erie gon racked with pulpwood in Bemidji, MN circa 1953. I'd thought that was stretching it.

Never thought to have a VGN, C&O or LN hopper on-line in the Twin Cities – Duluth area I intend to model. There was a steel mill in Duluth that may have accounted for these. And yes, the date of the document is 1 day too far for this list so I'll stop here.
Jim Dick - St. Paul

--- In STMFC@..., Anthony Thompson <thompson@...> wrote:
I don't know how many on this list are familiar with Equipment
Instructions letters but many railroads issued these in order to
instruct employees on needed movements of COMPANY empties as well as
handling of foreign empties above and beyond the Car Service Rules. I have discussed this in a post to my blog this weekend (at http://modelingthesp.blogspot.com/)
and the sample document I constructed for SP's Coast Division in
1953 is posted at Google Docs with this link:
https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=explorer&chrome=true&srcid=0Bz_ctrHrDz4wODYyZDBmMGYtNDg5OS00MmE4LWFmYzItNDMzZWYzNGQ4ZmE3&hl=en&authkey=CJGf05MF

If anyone has comments or corrections to this document, or general
comments on the subject, perhaps that wold be of interest to the list.

Tony Thompson Editor, Signature Press, Berkeley, CA
2906 Forest Ave., Berkeley, CA 94705 www.signaturepress.com
(510) 540-6538; fax, (510) 540-1937; e-mail, thompson@...
Publishers of books on railroad history


soolinehistory <destorzek@...>
 

--- In STMFC@..., "np328" <jcdworkingonthenp@...> wrote:

I had posted a doc like this under "return mtys via" in the files. Looking back at it I am surprised what I missed earlier:
Provisions for hoppers of C&O - NW - VGN - LN – IC – CEI - CBQ - MOP

I've a pix of an Erie gon racked with pulpwood in Bemidji, MN circa 1953. I'd thought that was stretching it.

Never thought to have a VGN, C&O or LN hopper on-line in the Twin Cities – Duluth area I intend to model. There was a steel mill in Duluth that may have accounted for these. And yes, the date of the document is 1 day too far for this list so I'll stop here.
Jim Dick - St. Paul
I can't see it... water transport was soooo much cheaper than rail, that's the reason for no all rail ore movements, at least during the shipping season, and then only when the following shipping season opened late and stockpiles were running low.

The whole reason for locating a steel mill in Duluth was to take advantage of the backhaul on the ore boats to haul coal. I believe you'll find the Duluth mill had its own coal dock.

Dennis


np328
 

Dennis, I think your general observations are right on, and I offer no argument against them.
I am wondering if these very off-line cars, might not contain additives such as nickel or other ores or chemicals that might not justify boatload shipping, however would travel by rail. I'll need to read up on or check websites that deal with steel making.
And yes, I have several aerial photos of the steel mill in Duluth. It had much, all in abundance, coal docks also..Jim Dick

--- In STMFC@..., "soolinehistory" <destorzek@...> wrote:
In STMFC@..., "np328" <jcdworkingonthenp@> wrote:
I had posted a doc like this under "return mtys via" in the files. Looking back at it I am surprised what I missed earlier:
Provisions for hoppers of C&O - NW - VGN - LN – IC – CEI - CBQ - MOP
I've a pix of an Erie gon racked with pulpwood in Bemidji, MN circa 1953. I'd thought that was stretching it.
Never thought to have a VGN, C&O or LN hopper on-line in the Twin Cities – Duluth area I intend to model. There was a steel mill in Duluth that may have accounted for these. And yes, the date of the document is 1 day too far for this list so I'll stop here.
Jim Dick - St. Paul
I can't see it... water transport was soooo much cheaper than rail, that's the reason for no all rail ore movements, at least during the shipping season, and then only when the following shipping season opened late and stockpiles were running low.

The whole reason for locating a steel mill in Duluth was to take advantage of the backhaul on the ore boats to haul coal. I believe you'll find the Duluth mill had its own coal dock.
Dennis


soolinehistory <destorzek@...>
 

--- In STMFC@..., "np328" <jcdworkingonthenp@...> wrote:

Dennis, I think your general observations are right on, and I offer no argument against them.
I am wondering if these very off-line cars, might not contain additives such as nickel or other ores or chemicals that might not justify boatload shipping, however would travel by rail. I'll need to read up on or check websites that deal with steel making.
And yes, I have several aerial photos of the steel mill in Duluth. It had much, all in abundance, coal docks also..Jim Dick
I agree, Jim. Just pointing out that hauling coal to the steel mill in Duluth wasn't the traffic that brought these cars that far west.

However, I wonder about coal, or coke, to smaller operations. I'm getting out of my area of expertise here, but it seems to me that many of the smaller steel and malleable iron foundries of the period used cupola furnaces, where the melt came in contact with the fuel. Wouldn't that require certain grades of "metallurgical" coal? Perhaps Tony could shed some light on this. Were there "merchant" coke plants that made coke for sale to industries too small to own their own coke plant? I know Solvey (sp?) had a big plant in Milwaukee, but have no idea where the output was shipped. I also realize that at one time every little city in the mid-west had coal gasification plants, where coke was a byproduct, but I have no idea if this coke was considered suitable for all classes of foundry work.

The Great Lakes were essentially an extension of the Appalachian coal fields, because the same transportation network that brought coal and iron ore together in western Pennsylvania could be used to bring eastern coal to the head of the lakes, where it was reloaded into local road cars. However, at some point the cost of haulage via a lake port had to equal a direct rail route, and both would be competitive with local coals, due to different characteristics, such as better heat output, less ash, etc. The problem is, I've never seen a good discussion of exactly where that point might have been, and so it's hard to say for sure how far eastern hoppers were likely to roam.

Dennis


Anthony Thompson <thompson@...>
 

Dennis Storzek wrote:
However, I wonder about coal, or coke, to smaller operations. I'm getting out of my area of expertise here, but it seems to me that many of the smaller steel and malleable iron foundries of the period used cupola furnaces, where the melt came in contact with the fuel. Wouldn't that require certain grades of "metallurgical" coal? Perhaps Tony could shed some light on this.
Such furnaces required use of slag to control impurities in many cases, but coke is an ideal fuel for most.

Were there "merchant" coke plants that made coke for sale to industries too small to own their own coke plant? I know Solvey (sp?) had a big plant in Milwaukee, but have no idea where the output was shipped.
You're making the common mistake of confusing Solvay with Semet-Solvay. The latter made coke. They were owned by different parts of the Solvay family, and eventually became separate divisions of Allied Chemical.

Tony Thompson Editor, Signature Press, Berkeley, CA
2906 Forest Ave., Berkeley, CA 94705 www.signaturepress.com
(510) 540-6538; fax, (510) 540-1937; e-mail, thompson@...
Publishers of books on railroad history


soolinehistory <destorzek@...>
 

--- In STMFC@..., Anthony Thompson <thompson@...> wrote:

You're making the common mistake of confusing Solvay with
Semet-Solvay. The latter made coke. They were owned by different parts
of the Solvay family, and eventually became separate divisions of
Allied Chemical.
It appears that at one time it was the Milwaukee Solvay Coke Co. I can remember seeing them push red hot coke out of the battery.

Here is more info:

http://donsdepot.donrossgroup.net/dr058.htm

The area where the plant stood is now a Superfund site :-(

Just as an aside, take a look at those Bettendorf T section trucks modified to be motor trucks on No.1 and No.3.

Dennis


Anthony Thompson <thompson@...>
 

Dennis Storzek wrote:
It appears that at one time it was the Milwaukee Solvay Coke Co. I can remember seeing them push red hot coke out of the battery.
Here is more info:

http://donsdepot.donrossgroup.net/dr058.htm
It changed names from Milwaukee Coke and Gas Co. to Milwaukee Solvay Coke in 1942, long after both Solvay and Semet-Solvay had been sold to Allied Chemical. Since this Milwaukee plant later became part of Manganese Chemical Corp., it likely had nothing to do with the Solvay Division of Allied Chemical. That's assuming, of course, that the history stated on the "Don's Depot" web page is correct.

Tony Thompson Editor, Signature Press, Berkeley, CA
2906 Forest Ave., Berkeley, CA 94705 www.signaturepress.com
(510) 540-6538; fax, (510) 540-1937; e-mail, thompson@...
Publishers of books on railroad history


Tim O'Connor
 

Dennis Storzek wrote

-- ... it's hard to say for sure how far eastern hoppers were likely to roam.

I agree it's hard to say WHY eastern hoppers were found in California,
Montana, the Dakotas, Texas, Colorado, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Wyoming,
etc. But the fact that they were photographed in those locations makes
it easy to say how far they did roam.

I'm not sure why this stuff is still being debated. Railroads did try to
implement some orderly management of foreign cars (e.g. Tony's documented
SP handling instructions), but all evidence (including many Larry Jackman
anecdotes) seems to point to a definite degree of randomness when it came
to what actually happened on the ground. Jostling and ordering freight cars
cost money, real money, back in those days, and no one ever lost their job
for reloading a foreign car and sending it in the wrong direction. The very
existence of the special "please return our cars asap" instructions is
evidence that the normal rules weren't enough of a guarantee of a prompt
return of freight cars to their home road. So formal Car Service Directives
were created, and Tony's document proves there were informal directives too.

Tim O'Connor


soolinehistory <destorzek@...>
 

--- In STMFC@..., Tim O'Connor <timboconnor@...> wrote:

But the fact that they were photographed in those locations makes
it easy to say how far they did roam.

I'm not sure why this stuff is still being debated...
Tim,

It's not being debated, it's being discussed. Perhaps my statement about how far cars roam was a poor choice of words. We are all well aware that any car, owned by any road in the US, Mexico, or Canada, has the potential to be seen anywhere, so long as the car is legal for interchange. The frequency of sightings, however, may range from once-in-a-lifetime to far fewer.

We all realize that at some point in the past, an N&W hopper was likely incorrectly loaded with unobtainium ore and sent to the west coast over Sherman hill. The real discussion is about how likely repeat shipments would be.

If I remember the course of the discussion, someone mentioned VGN hoppers on interchange lists for someplace in southern Minnesota. Jim Dick then wondered if the steel mill in Duluth could have been the cause of them being so far from home rails, and I disagreed, citing the fact that the mill would have received its coal via lake freighter, which I think Jim agreed with. I then veered off with the question of how far a consignee had to be from the Great Lakes for a all rail move from the Appalachian coal fields to be competitive with rail-boat-rail, the second rail segment of course occurring in cars supplied by the local road. This is a question that interests me, since most of the places I'm interested in modeling are within 100 miles of a coal pier on either Lake Michigan or Lake Superior. So, do I even need any eastern hoppers? I don't know, and so far haven't found consist or interchange information to answer that question.

Here's a little factoid that doesn't answer my question, but relates to it. Since I have more than a passing interest in the interurban railway network that developed around Milwaukee, I also am rather familiar with the older power plants in the Milwaukee area, as until just before WWII the railway and power company were one and the same. The older power plants were also home to some of the rail equipment long after the interurban had been abandoned. Two of these plants provide an interesting contrast.

The Port Washington plant, in the Wisconsin city of the same name, appx. 24 miles north of Milwaukee is directly on the lake shore, and has a coal pier. While it had a rail connection (via about a mile of former interurban trackage) it was never to my knowledge used for coal. Thirty miles south, the Lakeside power plant, in Ft. Francis, just south of Milwaukee, was also directly on the lake shore. It never had a coal pier, and always received its coal via rail, maintaining a large coal storage yard several miles west of the plant along side the C&NW. Coal was reloaded into captive service cars and hauled to the plant on a private railway using vintage trolley locomotives until the plant was converted to natural gas about 1969 or so. The railroad was reactivated one last time during the winter of '72 or '73, to haul tank cars of oil, which the converted plant could use as an alternate fuel.

The question is, what were the economic factors that could make the same company choose different shipping solutions for two plants just thirty miles apart?

Dennis


Dave Nelson
 

-----Original Message-----
The question is, what were the economic factors that could make the same
company choose different shipping solutions for two plants just thirty miles
apart?

Dennis
------------------------------------

Perhaps they considered winter delivery by water too iffy.

Perhaps they acquired ownership of a coal mine that was sufficiently west as
to make the water route less than, say 100 miles (IIRC that's one example
previously mentioned on STMFC where the distance beyond which of shipment of
coal by water on the Great Lakes was cheaper than rail). US Steel owned
plenty of coal mines... railroads too (e.g., The Carbon County RR in Utah)
so its not entirely implausible the same sort of vertical integration
(popular in the era) occurred in this example.

Perhaps someone with an eye to confusing future generations of friends of
the freight car set up an elaborate joke. :o)


Dave Nelson


Tim O'Connor
 

Dennis

That one's easy -- It depends who bought dinner most recently for
the shipping manager! :-)

My brother in law was a pension fund manager for Wisconsin, and he
told me about the expensive dinners he'd be taken to by companies
who wanted to handle his trading. Basically they all offer the same
services, so the dinner is what matters! :-)

Tim O'

The question is, what were the economic factors that could make the same company
choose different shipping solutions for two plants just thirty miles apart?
Dennis


lstt100
 

Dennis, Tim and list,

American Steel & Wire at Steelton, MN, a suburb of Duluth received some of their coking coal via all-rail movement. Thus seeing a VGN, N&W or other eastern ownership hopper was possible. Steelton did not receive all of their coal via lake boats.

As far as wandering freight cars I'll offer the following sample of 1960 products of mines loaded from West Virginia to the following states by number of carloads
AL 5900
CA 100
CO 900
CT 15700
DE 4300
DC 7500
GA 400
IL 24500
IN 68700
IA 1500
KY 4300
ME 400
NH 3700
NJ 92100
NY 141600
NC 51100
OH 379400
PA 166600
RI 100
SC 8700
TN 1300
VT 1400
VA 425300
WA 400
WV 171600
WI 2700

I won't venture how many were in WM, N&W, VGN, C&O, B&O or other ownerships. During 1959 the Car Service Division of AAR showed only a 64.1 percent observance of the Car Service Rules. Thus, 35.9 percent of car loadings were in violation of the rules.

Dan Holbrook


Tim O'Connor
 

Excellent data, Dan! Thanks.

But nothing to Utah? That surprises me because of the Geneva steel works
near Provo where I saw many NS hoppers in 2001.

Quite an awesome flow of coal towards NY state too -- I'm guessing much
of that was towards Buffalo.

And nothing to Massachusetts, but lots to Connecticut and even some to
Vermont, New Hampshire and Maine.

Tim O'

-------------------------------------------

As far as wandering freight cars I'll offer the following sample of 1960 products of mines loaded from West Virginia to the following states by number of carloads

AL 5900
CA 100
CO 900
CT 15700
DE 4300
DC 7500
GA 400
IL 24500
IN 68700
IA 1500
KY 4300
ME 400
NH 3700
NJ 92100
NY 141600
NC 51100
OH 379400
PA 166600
RI 100
SC 8700
TN 1300
VT 1400
VA 425300
WA 400
WV 171600
WI 2700

I won't venture how many were in WM, N&W, VGN, C&O, B&O or other ownerships. During 1959 the Car Service Division of AAR showed only a 64.1 percent observance of the Car Service Rules. Thus, 35.9 percent of car loadings were in violation of the rules.

Dan Holbrook


killercarp
 

--- In STMFC@..., "soolinehistory" <destorzek@...> wrote:

The question is, what were the economic factors that could make the same company choose different shipping solutions for two plants just thirty miles apart?
I can offer some hypothesis.

Transportation is only one cost factor in managing inventory. A 550'-600' Great Lakes bulk carrier, such as would be common after 1900, would carry a cargo of around 12,000 tons of coal. While undoubtedly a lower price for transportation, this quantity would carry a higher cost of storing and carrying inventory.

Depending on the usage, space, and capital situation, the flexibility of purchaing in smaller, rail car multiple lots, might prove to be a lower total cost option for one of these plants.

Another assumption is that coal is an homogenous commodity. Even discounting metallurgical coals, steam coal comes in many variations of composition and size. Depending on the furnace, performance might be optimized with a particular coal or even a blend of several. The coal that comes in on the boat may not be suitable to a user's needs.

This last does not relate to these two plants, but more generally to smaller users. The boat-load of coal will go to either a large user, who would use the load themselves, or a distributor who would sell it. A distributor would obviously mark up the coal to a price point very close to what they think a customer would pay for product plus transportation in the open market. This means there was probably not a huge price difference for the smaller user or retailer of coal. Clever negotiation or spot buying might make the load of coal in that Virginian hopper more attractive to a buyer than a piece of that load hauled in on the laker. This could be straight price, payment terms, or even based on relationships between buyer and seller, or as Tim so eloquently put it, "buying dinner".

Tim VanMersbergen


Anthony Thompson <thompson@...>
 

Tim VanMersbergen wrote:
Another assumption is that coal is an homogenous commodity. Even discounting metallurgical coals, steam coal comes in many variations of composition and size. Depending on the furnace, performance might be optimized with a particular coal or even a blend of several. The coal that comes in on the boat may not be suitable to a user's needs.
Ah, but the boat need not be loaded with all one kind of coal. Just as iron ore was segregated by various chemistries, and shipped in different compartments of the ore boat, so could coal be loaded by type. If the customers at destination needed different coal types, which as you say is probable, this could be accommodated.

Tony Thompson Editor, Signature Press, Berkeley, CA
2906 Forest Ave., Berkeley, CA 94705 www.signaturepress.com
(510) 540-6538; fax, (510) 540-1937; e-mail, thompson@...
Publishers of books on railroad history


lnnrr <lnnrr@...>
 

As long as we are supposing answers to the question posed here, here
is another possibility. Bulk freighters on the Lakes draw serious
draft. In one location there may have been soft bottom easily
dredged for the coal dock and in the other location a stone bottom
very costly to clear to a good depth. The rail only location may
even have been planned to have a coal dock until the coal dock
contractor had his survey teams report and said "Are you sure you
can afford to do this?"
Chuck Peck

--- In STMFC@..., "soolinehistory" <destorzek@...> wrote:



--- In STMFC@..., Tim O'Connor <timboconnor@> wrote:

But the fact that they were photographed in those locations makes
it easy to say how far they did roam.

I'm not sure why this stuff is still being debated...
Tim,

It's not being debated, it's being discussed. Perhaps my statement about how far cars roam was a poor choice of words. We are all well aware that any car, owned by any road in the US, Mexico, or Canada, has the potential to be seen anywhere, so long as the car is legal for interchange. The frequency of sightings, however, may range from once-in-a-lifetime to far fewer.

We all realize that at some point in the past, an N&W hopper was likely incorrectly loaded with unobtainium ore and sent to the west coast over Sherman hill. The real discussion is about how likely repeat shipments would be.

If I remember the course of the discussion, someone mentioned VGN hoppers on interchange lists for someplace in southern Minnesota. Jim Dick then wondered if the steel mill in Duluth could have been the cause of them being so far from home rails, and I disagreed, citing the fact that the mill would have received its coal via lake freighter, which I think Jim agreed with. I then veered off with the question of how far a consignee had to be from the Great Lakes for a all rail move from the Appalachian coal fields to be competitive with rail-boat-rail, the second rail segment of course occurring in cars supplied by the local road. This is a question that interests me, since most of the places I'm interested in modeling are within 100 miles of a coal pier on either Lake Michigan or Lake Superior. So, do I even need any eastern hoppers? I don't know, and so far haven't found consist or interchange information to answer that question.

Here's a little factoid that doesn't answer my question, but relates to it. Since I have more than a passing interest in the interurban railway network that developed around Milwaukee, I also am rather familiar with the older power plants in the Milwaukee area, as until just before WWII the railway and power company were one and the same. The older power plants were also home to some of the rail equipment long after the interurban had been abandoned. Two of these plants provide an interesting contrast.

The Port Washington plant, in the Wisconsin city of the same name, appx. 24 miles north of Milwaukee is directly on the lake shore, and has a coal pier. While it had a rail connection (via about a mile of former interurban trackage) it was never to my knowledge used for coal. Thirty miles south, the Lakeside power plant, in Ft. Francis, just south of Milwaukee, was also directly on the lake shore. It never had a coal pier, and always received its coal via rail, maintaining a large coal storage yard several miles west of the plant along side the C&NW. Coal was reloaded into captive service cars and hauled to the plant on a private railway using vintage trolley locomotives until the plant was converted to natural gas about 1969 or so. The railroad was reactivated one last time during the winter of '72 or '73, to haul tank cars of oil, which the converted plant could use as an alternate fuel.

The question is, what were the economic factors that could make the same company choose different shipping solutions for two plants just thirty miles apart?

Dennis


soolinehistory <destorzek@...>
 

--- In STMFC@..., Tim O'Connor <timboconnor@...> wrote:

Excellent data, Dan! Thanks.

But nothing to Utah?
Yeah, No Minnesota, either, which is where the steel mill in question was located :-(

Interesting data, otherwise.


killercarp
 

This is true, a boat could be loaded with more than one type of coal.
Great Lakes bulk carriers rarely had more than three compartments and often only one hold. Even if that 12,000 ton vessel was divided in three grades, it would still be the equivalent of 80 steam era freight car loads of coal of a single type. This would potentially still be a rather large volume for a smaller user.
Shipping in this manner also adds cost in the requirement of segregating inventory at the dock or in multiple stops for the vessel. This increased cost would be passed along to the user, potentially making an all rail movement more competitive depending on the volume required.

Tim VanMersbergen

--- In STMFC@..., Anthony Thompson <thompson@...> wrote:

Tim VanMersbergen wrote:
Another assumption is that coal is an homogenous commodity. Even
discounting metallurgical coals, steam coal comes in many variations
of composition and size. Depending on the furnace, performance
might be optimized with a particular coal or even a blend of
several. The coal that comes in on the boat may not be suitable to
a user's needs.
Ah, but the boat need not be loaded with all one kind of coal.
Just as iron ore was segregated by various chemistries, and shipped in
different compartments of the ore boat, so could coal be loaded by
type. If the customers at destination needed different coal types,
which as you say is probable, this could be accommodated.

Tony Thompson Editor, Signature Press, Berkeley, CA
2906 Forest Ave., Berkeley, CA 94705 www.signaturepress.com
(510) 540-6538; fax, (510) 540-1937; e-mail, thompson@...
Publishers of books on railroad history


np328
 

Tim, I am sorry if you (and some others) are getting tired of these discussions. I realize I came into them later than some however I still find them interesting.
I am interested in these discussions so that I can have proper waybills (per Tony Thompson's recent presentations), and a realistic representation of traffic per my situation.
I think part/much of this is driven by the scars still carried from a model railroad club I was a member of at one time. One of the members justified his oddities in cars, locomotives and anything else by stating, (loudly,…always loudly) "Maybe they didn't do it that way, but ya know…they could have!" The statement still makes me cringe. I can't help think others come to this site to deal with scars inflicted in a like manner.

Dan, Holbrook - Yes… thank you for your information. Jim Dick

--- In STMFC@..., "soolinehistory" <destorzek@...> wrote:
C@..., Tim O'Connor <timboconnor@> wrote:
But the fact that they were photographed in those locations makes
It's not being debated, it's being discussed. Perhaps my statement about how far cars roam was a poor choice of words. We are all well aware that any car, owned by any road in the US, Mexico, or Canada, has the potential to be seen anywhere, so long as the car is legal for interchange. The frequency of sightings, however, may range from once-in-a-lifetime to far fewer.

If I remember the course of the discussion, Jim Dick mentioned VGN hoppers on interchange lists for Duluth, Minnesota. Jim then wondered if the steel mill in Duluth could have been the cause of them being so far from home rails, and I disagreed, citing the fact that the mill would have received its coal via Lake Freighter, which I think Jim agreed with.