i was just reading the september 2005 trains and it had an article on the Bnsf and up derailments caused partly by wet weather,snow more wet weather and a build up of coal dust in the ballast and on the ties causing it to distort and rip up. wouldn’t it in the long run be cheaper to adopt the practices of the CSX and pile the coal in the gondolas in one even pile rather than invert towards the middle and also spray it with a mist to minimise the dust blown off at speed. surely this would be cheaper than the constant repair of the tracks?
Without knowing all of the technical/engineering facts it would be hard to know what the best solution is. A more frequent cleaning of the ballast by BNSF, the lines owner, certainly wouldn’t hurt. I believe this lack of basic maintenance is what got the UP 's dander up.
This issue was mentioned in TRAINS and the change in loading techniques has been considered but the customers were unwilling to pay the extra expense involved for not loading as high and spraying the coal.
thans for the help guys
In a recent issue on upgrading the BNSF Transcon, it was mentiond that BNSF was putting down a layer of ashphalt between the subroadbed and ballast. I wonder if that practice would help this problem for new coal branches near the mines?
I remember reading that the NS was requiring its coal trains to be sprayed to contain the coal dust blown off trains destined for them. I think that at the time of the article there was some finger-pointing mentioned. UP was blaiming the BNSF for a lack of regular maintenance on the shared PRB trackage…Lets hope it doesn’t wind up a long winded court case…I have notice that our volumn of coal trains thru Parsons seems to be off its normal numbers… just a perception.
Does anyone know why the BNSF is putting down a layer of asphalt? I thought the idea was to get maximum drainage. A layer of asphalt does not make sense to me but I know next to nothing about track structures.
The asphalt actually helps on the drainage it allows water to drain without the dirt from underneath coming up.
I find this very interesting. My question is what choice do customers have, they are in a monoply, and I would think that if BNSF is giving trackage rights to UP, there would be a price agreement.
It was from the BNSF Reborn article in the Oct 2004 issue of Trains. There’s a picture and caption titled Pounding The Pavement on page 47. They’re using 6 inches of ashphalt as a sub-base to prevent dirt from working up into the ballast. There are other benefits for new track laying such as erosion control and better access for non-rail construction equipment. It doesn’t seem practical for existing track unless they have to rebuild from the sub-roadbed up.
I agree. As a matter of fact. The BN was there first.
Allan.
What do they spray the coal with? SOme type of nasty chemical to hold it all together or just a corn-based adhesive or what? ANybody know for sure? Do they do this for product-loss reasons (is there normally enough of a loss to be substantial?) or because of civil complaints?
The reason for the steps to keep coal dust from flying out of the car is that it plugs the ballast and screws up water drainage. I don’t know the composition of the product used to keep down the dust, but I suspect it is starch or a similar product. Anything cheap and of no hazard to the environment. Along with that, there is a method of trimming the top of the load to reduce dust.
I understand NS and CSX both require these steps be taking by the mines they serve. It is just a part of their requirements for proper loading. The expense is born by the mine and since most of the eastern mines are served by only one carrier, a mine has no real choice other than to comply with the loading rules.
On the PRB, if the BN required dust control on their trains and the UP did not, the cost of the dust control would come into play when the mines and the power utilities are deciding which railroad to use.
Jay