New Coal Line in Montana

Trains Magazine General Discussion
1

Probably one of the most important article’s in the November Trains has to be the new coal line in Montana. From what the article states it is one of the largest rail laying projects in recent years and is for export coal for the most part. That will bring badly needed US dollars home to help prop up our own economy. The BNSF should make tons of money from delivering this coal to west coast ports for export. Maybe a new bulk loading facility will at last be built on Puget Sound for the coal instead of shipping through Roberts Bank or the Port of Los Angeles. The LA area is already congested with rail traffic and Puget Sound still has lots of room for expansion in the handling of deepwater ships. Even the Port of Everett could handle the largest bulk carriers and thats right next to the BNSF. I for one just hate to see our money flowing through a second country (Canada) when we can keep it right here. This will be very clean coal according to the article compared to the Wyoming variety. Have they looked at an all US rail dleivery system to export this coal.

Al - in - Stockton

2

  1. It’s a significant project but not nearly one of the largest rail projects in recent years, unless by “rail project” we consider only new route-miles instead of adding second, third, or fourth main track, or new terminal facilities.

  2. This mine is very long way from tidewater to be viable in export markets except as a swing producer. In that market it would be competing against Australian, South African, Colombian, and Venezuelan coal mines that are in many cases practically in sight of tidewater, to say nothing of Canadian mines that are about 800 miles closer to tidewater.

  3. There are a number of low-use west coast ports with potential for a bulk coal export facility. The cost must include, however, adding capacity to rail routes that get to those ports, if none is readily available. At some