https://www.railadvent.co.uk/2020/12/ne ... -2022.html



More at the link.

Sad to see this. I’m all for moving towards clean energy worldwide but it’s still sad to see this part of history fade away.

If 2021 is even close to a normal year, I’ll try to get over to the UK and out to Colorado for a last hurrah!

Meanwhile, Australia is eager to sell coal to anybody as China is reducing their orders and consumption. Here's a source, although a bit remote, and part of the same empire.

The last edition of Steam Railway magazine here in the UK had a piece commenting that West Coast Railways have been sourcing their coal supplies from Russia for some time. It rather helps that the owner of said company in also involved in the buying/selling of coal on a general basis, as you have to source your supplies very carefully.
Many years ago, some lines tried Polish coal which was fairly dire and produced an awful lot of smoke.
The problem with importing the stuff is that it is a prime target for having some form of "climate taxation" added to it when brought into the Country, and with the current goings on, they are going to be desperate to get extra revenue in from somewhere in the near future.....

Imho they do not deserve anything better since thinking about a coal/water consumption reduction of about 15% by applying a 4-orifice blastcap is not fashionable.
Kind regards

I cannot imagine there is much in the way of bootleg coal production in Great Britain, unlike some parts of the US. I've even seen people stopped along Interstate 81 here in Pennsylvania digging coal out of an exposed vein.

Not "Bootleg" but different rules certainly apply to mineral extraction in the Forest of Dean area...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freeminer

Fred Dibinah had an episode where he drove his steam tractor to a small family owned mine where he picked up some coal fresh from the source. Did the environmentalists manage to kill off even the little mom and pop producers in the UK?

.

I really don't know why this comes as a surprise to anyone here. I have been strongly suggesting for more than a few years that any group planning to restore or overhaul a steam locomotive strongly consider a conversion to burning some kind of bio-fuel, because environmental rules were going to get nothing but stricter as time goes on. And all I get back are accusations of being "unpatriotic" because - "American coal!" Is an "I told you so" really necessary?

This would probably be a tougher transition for Britain than it would be for the US. Mostly because Britain isn’t exactly a country known for producing a lot of oil. Fuel sources outside of coal for most British steam locomotives (especially the ones for the main companies) was basically only coal. I believe oil has been tested on multiple locomotives there during the days of steam but I can’t think of any dedicated conversion from coal to oil or biofuel for a British standard gauge steam locomotive

There's another factor at play in the UK, however: In addition to the decline of accessible/usable/cost-effective coal to mine, environmental issues, and the like, another thing that drove down the demand for coal long-term was the formation of the National Coal Board, a product of the post-WW2 nationalisation craze of Clement Attlee's Labour Party administration--along with the electric utilities, the railways, the steel industry, and the automakers, big consumers of coal directly and indirectly. After an initial burst of investment in the mines that actually increased national production, nationwide strikes by the National Union of Mineworkers in 1972 and 1984-85 had the effect of spearheading mass defection away from coal use, and in 1987 the remaining coal industry (down to only 15 open pits and no mines at the time) was privatised. In effect the NUM strikes did to their union what the air traffic controllers' strike did to the PATCO union in the 1980s in the USA--destroyed public sympathy.

In a sense, it could be said that nationalisation of the industry helped to do to British coal what it did to BR, British Leyland, BP, British Steel, British Airways, etc. Note that none are serious players in the world stage any more.

In response to Laepple's query about "bootleggers," there used to be a different form of "bootlegging"--"seacoalers" that hand harvested washed-up coal on the northeastern English /southeastern Scottish coasts that came from both ocean-dumped mine spoils and underwater seams. Some of that was destroyed by sheer economics (fewer houses heated by coal = fewer customers for your coal), and the rest of that by even minor mechanisation of the laborious harvest "cleaning out" available sea "stocks" quickly.

So, approximately what would that be in volume in terms of typically utilized ocean-going shipment methods?

Not as much unpatriotic as lacking in scientific understanding of the magnitude of the problem and indicating an inclination for short-term feel-good band aids for long-term complex challenges. If one accepts the premise that human activity is adversely impacting the livability of the earth, then it is a lot easier and emotionally appealing to ignore science and math and shut down the immaterial production of greenhouse gases emitted by heritage railways worldwide than to deal with global overpopulation, the globalization of our consumption-based US economy that has occurred since the seventies without any long-term strategic vision, the consequences of tariff-free trade with countries having little or no environmental protection laws, and the mass destruction of nature's greenhouse gas processing system, the forests.

Using the current North American standard of 286,000 lbs maximum gross weight for freight cars, and considering that a empty aluminum bathtub gondola weighs about 21-23 tons, the annual coal supply for all the British heritage railways works out to just under one modern North American trainload (we're running 220 car trains on a daily basis in my area).

I'm not a ship expert, but I suspect that amount of coal wouldn't completely fill a modern bulk carrier.

If my math and conversions are correct, that would be very close to a full load for a Seawaymax bulker like those in the Fednav fleet.

Problem is that the salties going into the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence Seaway system usually bring a load back out with them such as grain. So such a fleet isn't going to be offering a very attractive rate for a backhaul like they may if they're facing a 1,500 mile trip empty to their next load.