 |
Re: Eureka-Redding Rail Is A Pipe Dream=Cynic?
Author: BOB2
Date: 10-01-2012 - 07:46
I'm very impressed, but, did you actually get my point that in getting a coal train to Eureka, that getting to Eureka is the easy part, getting it to Redding across the norther Sierra would be almost impossible.
Maybe that was just my point, that none of the northern Sierra passages are that good. Though with a billion or so, we could get rid of swithcbacks via modern grading, cuts, and/or tunnels. But why would one spend that kind of money on a high gradient, indirect, more costly, high operating cost alernative routing for coal train?
I've actually handled 10,000 ton + trains on 2% + grades. Have you ever had to carry a knuckle? Now, I used to do that, and now I estimate the cost/benefits of freeways, transit, and rail projects. So I'm not exactly buying into any of this nonsense, via the McCloud, or not???
There is enough potential loading space just in Susiun Bay to potentially load a 100 trains a week, without having to do anything but add more double and triple tracking the lines that actually go to the coalfields already? That's a lot cheaper, on better routes, without the hassle of EIS/EIR, land acquisition, or difficult construction conditions.
Frankly, I don't see that level of coal demand, because I saw and worked with some of the original Alameda Corridor "coal train" estimates to the POLA-POLB in the late 80's. And, then I saw what happened to world coal markets after the fall of communism. And, now we have the collapse of the American export world coal market for industrial and power production, because natural gas is so much cheaper and cleaner. China and Russia still have plenty of "dirty" and some "clean" coal. And, while there may be some demand for very cheap and "cleaner"-less polluting- American coal in China, there is an awful lot of coal, much closer to these markets, even in closer American markets, like Alaska.
So my observation of the difficulties in crossing the Sierra's was wrong about this being an economically questionable proposition why?
Some of us are even more cynical about this, but can actually follow the arguments.
Maybe that was just my point, that none of the northern Sierra passages are that good. Though with a billion or so, we could get rid of swithcbacks via modern grading, cuts, and/or tunnels. But why would one spend that kind of money on a high gradient, indirect, more costly, high operating cost alernative routing for coal train?
I've actually handled 10,000 ton + trains on 2% + grades. Have you ever had to carry a knuckle? Now, I used to do that, and now I estimate the cost/benefits of freeways, transit, and rail projects. So I'm not exactly buying into any of this nonsense, via the McCloud, or not???
There is enough potential loading space just in Susiun Bay to potentially load a 100 trains a week, without having to do anything but add more double and triple tracking the lines that actually go to the coalfields already? That's a lot cheaper, on better routes, without the hassle of EIS/EIR, land acquisition, or difficult construction conditions.
Frankly, I don't see that level of coal demand, because I saw and worked with some of the original Alameda Corridor "coal train" estimates to the POLA-POLB in the late 80's. And, then I saw what happened to world coal markets after the fall of communism. And, now we have the collapse of the American export world coal market for industrial and power production, because natural gas is so much cheaper and cleaner. China and Russia still have plenty of "dirty" and some "clean" coal. And, while there may be some demand for very cheap and "cleaner"-less polluting- American coal in China, there is an awful lot of coal, much closer to these markets, even in closer American markets, like Alaska.
So my observation of the difficulties in crossing the Sierra's was wrong about this being an economically questionable proposition why?
Some of us are even more cynical about this, but can actually follow the arguments.
