RailRoadFan.com

Construction has started on a staging yard in Swanton OH for NS coal trains and other trains. According to the blades article, it will be 4 through tracks and 3 stub end tracks. It will link into the Swanton siding and farm land is being cleared. Residents do not seem to happy about it but business is business.

http://www.toledoblade.com/local/2016/0 ... -area.html

Nowhere does the August story say construction has started. Are you saying you have observed work at the site?

railohio wrote:Nowhere does the August story say construction has started. Are you saying you have observed work at the site?

Yes. There is heavy equipment on site, and land is currently being leveled in that area.

Will the coal being staged in Swanton be going to MI locations?

AARR wrote:Will the coal being staged in Swanton be going to MI locations?

Yes. Via boat at Sandusky docks is what I hear.

And they say coal is dying...

Eastern coal's usage is dropping dramatically. The others (western, etc.) are stagnant or increasing by a few percent.

Waddy wrote:And they say coal is dying...

CSX just announced a contract to haul 5 million ton of met coal for export to China.

Yet they closed Ashtabula... go figure.

For now, a staging yard to keep things out of Toledo. Someday, the NS version of North Baltimore.

That is my speculation. Just getting their foot in the door and some roots down.

They already have Airline in Toledo intermodal, what more do they need?

More likely some place to do the cycle train tests and keep trains off the mains waiting for crews or room at destination. CSX uses Collinwood for the same thing.

Wow, really people? I thought this was fairly straightforward. This is the DTE coal contract that CSX lost (effective the end of this year). NS has had it before and used to jam up the wagon works sidings and Nasby siding with coal trains in Toledo. They use those so much for other things now it would have been a disaster to lump in the coal traffic without a hold out *somewhere*. Hence the new yard at Swanton which *even NS* is saying is specifically for the coal train storage. That's why they're in a rush to get it done by year end (and it reasonably should be).

Michael

So will the coal be transloaded into ships (in Sandusky I think someone said) or will it be delivered to the DTE power plants by rail?

MDH wrote:Wow, really people? I thought this was fairly straightforward. This is the DTE coal contract that CSX lost (effective the end of this year). NS has had it before and used to jam up the wagon works sidings and Nasby siding with coal trains in Toledo. They use those so much for other things now it would have been a disaster to lump in the coal traffic without a hold out *somewhere*. Hence the new yard at Swanton which *even NS* is saying is specifically for the coal train storage. That's why they're in a rush to get it done by year end (and it reasonably should be).

Michael

AARR wrote:So will the coal be transloaded into ships (in Sandusky I think someone said) or will it be delivered to the DTE power plants by rail?

MDH wrote:Wow, really people? I thought this was fairly straightforward. This is the DTE coal contract that CSX lost (effective the end of this year). NS has had it before and used to jam up the wagon works sidings and Nasby siding with coal trains in Toledo. They use those so much for other things now it would have been a disaster to lump in the coal traffic without a hold out *somewhere*. Hence the new yard at Swanton which *even NS* is saying is specifically for the coal train storage. That's why they're in a rush to get it done by year end (and it reasonably should be).

Michael

Rail to plants - we're talking about Monroe, etc. (same ones they used to deliver by rail to). There's no planet where transloading them to boat *when they're coming by rail into NW Ohio* would make any financial sense.

Thanks, MDH. CSX was using CN's Lang Yard to stage their DTE coal trains. Considering the cost of building a new yard must be very high do you know if NS tried discussing with CN the same arrangement?

MDH wrote:

AARR wrote:So will the coal be transloaded into ships (in Sandusky I think someone said) or will it be delivered to the DTE power plants by rail?

MDH wrote:Wow, really people? I thought this was fairly straightforward. This is the DTE coal contract that CSX lost (effective the end of this year). NS has had it before and used to jam up the wagon works sidings and Nasby siding with coal trains in Toledo. They use those so much for other things now it would have been a disaster to lump in the coal traffic without a hold out *somewhere*. Hence the new yard at Swanton which *even NS* is saying is specifically for the coal train storage. That's why they're in a rush to get it done by year end (and it reasonably should be).

Michael

Rail to plants - we're talking about Monroe, etc. (same ones they used to deliver by rail to). There's no planet where transloading them to boat *when they're coming by rail into NW Ohio* would make any financial sense.

Shipping rates for coal are much cheaper on boats than rail. Several years a go a article was written in a railroad publication how coal was loaded at Toledo on boats for rail served generating plants in Michigan. This still takes place today. So don't disregard the idea this coal won't go to Sandusky.
Same thing happens with ballast for CSX. Railed to a port on the Canadian side of Lake Erie for the short boat ride across the Lake only to be unloaded back on to rail cars.

During a previous time CSX had the Detroit Edison business, it was not uncommon for Wyoming coal for DE Monroe to be delivered to CSX's Toledo Docks for loading onto a laker for the short trip up to Monroe. My understanding at the time was that this was done so that the PRB coal & Eastern coal could be blended as part of loading the ship so it would not have to be done at the power plant.

JoJames wrote:Shipping rates for coal are much cheaper on boats than rail. Several years a go a article was written in a railroad publication how coal was loaded at Toledo on boats for rail served generating plants in Michigan. This still takes place today. So don't disregard the idea this coal won't go to Sandusky.
Same thing happens with ballast for CSX. Railed to a port on the Canadian side of Lake Erie for the short boat ride across the Lake only to be unloaded back on to rail cars.

Can you find a link to that article? It just doesn't stand to reason it could be economical to transfer it to ship for a voyage of less than fifty miles.

The boat loading in Ohio for plants in Michigan is usually due to either mixing the coal in the process of loading the boat, or that the plant only has water access. LaFarge in Alpena, BC Cobb in Muskegon, etc all get coal by water.

The major coal transloading facility in Superior, WI uses the same methodology. With several different piles from different mines and grades, they can blend them in the process of loading the boat for the final customer.

As for simply transportation trans-lake rail-boat-rail without any blending, I have no idea.

Norm wrote:

JoJames wrote:Shipping rates for coal are much cheaper on boats than rail. Several years a go a article was written in a railroad publication how coal was loaded at Toledo on boats for rail served generating plants in Michigan. This still takes place today. So don't disregard the idea this coal won't go to Sandusky.
Same thing happens with ballast for CSX. Railed to a port on the Canadian side of Lake Erie for the short boat ride across the Lake only to be unloaded back on to rail cars.

Can you find a link to that article? It just doesn't stand to reason it could be economical to transfer it to ship for a voyage of less than fifty miles.

It was a CSX News article.