I realize that the coal shipped to the utility company would be considered a vendor. My question is, does anyone know where to find information about whether the coal companies are compliant. I am referring to Lodestar Energy.

-- Anonymous, January 12, 1999

Answers

Linda, Lodestar Energy is an affiliate of the Renco Group, a privately owned investment company. Privately owned companies are not required to file with the SEC, so you can't get any info there. The company's web site is at: http://www.lodestarenergy.com/home.htm

However, I personally found it to be one of the most tedious sites I've ever visited - you have to wade through pages of useless equipment pictures interspersed with bits of information here and there. They do use just-in-time delivery arrangements. For direct contact call: 606-255-4006 or fax 606-255-0191.

They are one of the top coal producers in the country, but I could find no reference to the Year 2000 on their site. Your best bet is to give them a call and see if they'll tell you anything. Good luck!

-- Anonymous, January 12, 1999

While we are waiting for realiable data to come in about coal and railroads I would like to fill the vacuum with my opinion on a worst case scenario on feeding the power plants.

If the digits really hit the fan then only critical materials will be on the rails: Gasoline, Propane, Coal, Food, etc. If the rail switches have to be done by hand then trains will be reduced in size and speed will be reduced to 5 to 15 mph. This will reduce rail load capacity by more than 50%. However, this should be enough to feed to power plants.

Perhaps the IT software will fail for the coal industry. This will not stop the show. In a worst case scenario the government will take control of the coal industry and if necessary put thousands to work in the coal yards. Coal will be moved, perhaps slowly, but it will move.

I do not know if modern diesal locomotives are compliant or if they are dependent on embedded systems. I would imagine that a train's breaking system is pretty sophisticated though. Any train buffs out there to add to this litany of opinion?

-- Anonymous, January 12, 1999

Steve,

You talk as those the trains can run manually. I've been led to believe they can't as they were totally automated in the 70ths. Are you sure the switchs can be operated manually?

Bill Watt

-- Anonymous, January 12, 1999

Bill,

It is my understanding that the manual, mechanical swithches have all be replace by automatic electromechanical switches that are controlled by digital communication.

I am not a railman or a switchman or even a competent model railroad buff. However, it is my underestanding that the present electromechanical switch can be disconnected and the rails can be moved by hand or crowbar or something.

The fact that the old hand switch is gone does not mean that the rails cannot be moved. Hope this helps.

Now, we need a real honest to God railman to bring us to enlightenment......"Raileo Raileo, wherefore art thou?

-- Anonymous, January 12, 1999

If you go to the Senate Web site-and sorry I don't have the address with me-there is a transcript from hearings where Union Pacific top management gave testimony to issues, obstacles and program of Y2K fixes, think this was in June/July/Aug. It was hearings into transporatation and there was also transcripts from shipping, port authorities etc. I printed off a hard copy and don't have with me-but should be easy to find.

Also -I read a 10,000 word transcript of an interview Rick Cowles gave to Christian Broadcast Network-very good and covered some of the issues related to Hydro power......I was glad to read that California (my state) is 60% hydropower...and Rick says the best for Y2K-however many new control issues. In SF we just had a preview Y2K power outage-it was no picnic.....couldn't find a cappucino in the entire City......I had to take the Ferry to Sausilto where they had power and working ATM machines. SF was basically closed for the day.

-- Anonymous, January 12, 1999

Warning: this is a long post. Perhaps I can answer some of your questions about the railroads, as I had over 15 years experience as a Tele/Opr. I manned a key interlocking tower for rail traffic between Chicago and Milwaukee until 1987, when the position was abolished. When people talk about reverting to "manual control" this is the type of operation they are referring to (whether they realize it or not). You must understand that there was a huge gulf between management and the labor unions and the new digital technology provided a means for management to achieve their long held goal: to eliminate the unions. They did this not by directly challenging the unions but by simply eliminating their ranks through job abolishments. For example, when I started in 1974 there were over 150 jobs based in Milwaukee and when I left in 1987, there were only 5 left. The interlocking tower I worked at was built in 1926, and housed a huge electromechanical interlocking machine which had levers to "lineup" the switches for a train to pass. The train dispatcher, which was a top dog position, issued train orders for the movement of trains to the operator who in turn hand delivered them to the passing trains by a hand held message fork. It was a wonderful 19th century job, and lots of rail buffs would drop in to watch. The tower was essential for the movement of trains account there's no steering wheel in the trains! For a train to change direction, it needs the rail switches to be thrown in the proper direction, or lineup. It is important to realize that the movement and conduct of train movement was covered by very specific and extensive rules. Most railroads across the US used the same rules, differing only in signal aspects and some minor provisons. It was determined by studies that a new worker needed about two years of experience before he really understood his job and how to avoid accidents. My tower was physically torn down, and the switches are now controled by remote control from a small metal building. The train dispatcher gives the authority for a train movement via the radio, or DTC system rules. The switch signals are sent via the public telephone system (in the past, railroads maintained their own private communications systems which were often of poor quality). I would like to clear up a misunderstanding about switches: the older interlocking type switches were dual type. They could be either be thrown by the interlocking machine which powered the motors to move them, or in case of failures, taken off power and manually thrown. To manually throw a switch, here's what you had to do. First, there was a sliding cover that had to be rotated aside, to expose a cavity where a cast iron crank would be inserted. You would then physically rotated the crank until the switch points moved into position. You must then walk the lineup to be absolutely certain that you properily lined up the switched so the train could go in the desired direction. When I first found out about y2k, I made it a point to observe whether all switches were changed to exclusively remote control and that manual operation was now impossible. My observations were that the key points, the yards and former interlocking plants have indeed changed, but there are still lots of dual use switches left. This shouldn't be surprising account it's big bucks to changeover. But consider each switch would have to be manned by someone, who would have to receive the proper routing directions somehow, and would be willing to stay out in the winter weather. Or, a train crew (which has also been slashed to a two man crew, with no caboose) would have to stop at each switch and do it themselves. You can imagine that this is not a speedy way to operate a railroad. My former workers tell me some real horror stories about how things are FUBAR, and the rails are really held together by diminishing ranks of oldtimers who remember the old ways and still have some pride in their work.

-- Anonymous, January 13, 1999

Where in hell are these "manual switch operators" going to get instructions?

The rails are the weakest link in the system.

-- Anonymous, January 13, 1999

Dear Sure,

Thanks for this post. This has been the most comprehensive and realistice post regarding this problem that I have seen. Would you be kind enough to continue to lead us out of the dark.

Let's assume that there was: electricity, all the trained manpower needed, and a means to send orders to the guys posted at the switches and on the trains.

Do you know if the rest of the country has this capability of converting to this diffucult type of manual operation?

Now lets assume that everything is done manually. Would you make an estimate of how much loss in efficiency there would be? Could, say, 50% of the trains get through? Would the trains have to decrease the number of cars? How much would they have to slow down?

When you operate slowly like this, does this require the need for large train yards or sidings? For example, if the size of the yards were too small, would this eliminate all hopes for a manual contingency plan?

We look forward to your best estimates.

-- Anonymous, January 13, 1999

In answer to your questions (which by the way, are exactly the kind of questions needed to be considered when a contingency plan is formed): In a so-called "manual" mode of operation, there doesn't necessarily need to be any loss of efficiency, if you measure success in terms of tons shipped. Again, I must repeat that the real motivating factor for management was to slash labor costs, boost their share prices, and incease their salaries. I remember getting into a pointed discussion with my Trainmaster about this when I examined my company's annual stock report (a lot of employees owned stock in the railroad). The number of contract employees vastly outnumbered management, but the total wage compensation paid to management was greater. I think the ratio was something on the order of 10 to 1, contract employees to management. What this means in terms of the upcoming y2k crisis is that a vast pool of new hires would be required to replace or supplement failed digital systems. Someone would have to train them, and station them at all the key points. Don't forget that a railroad is different from a factory in that your employees are geographically all over the map, not in one place. This was another motivating factor for management: they wanted centralized staffing so they could exert greater control. When I was in my tower, I was all by myself and listened to the train dispatcher over the open talk line. You need responsible people in this kind of organization. Rail workers were my loyal, and planned to work for their pensions even if it took 30 years! Actually, quite a few continued to work long after they qualified for retirement. So, the pre-digital system was capable of delivering the freight but at a higher labor cost. This is not the problem facing us today, however. Much of the pre- digital technology has been removed or supplemented, so an immediate return to the "good old days" simply isn't an option. I must stress that my work experience are from this era, and I really wish I had the money and carte blanche to examine the current situation. The main points are these: Have all the main switching yards been automated? Have all the interlocking towers been replaced? How many old timers are left? I have read blanket, sweeping statements that ALL switches are now computor controlled and I know from personal observation that this is not correct. If the key yards have been converted to computor control and the outside sources of power and telephone go down because of y2k, well then we are toast. There simply isn't enough time left to revert back.

-- Anonymous, January 13, 1999

Dear Sure:

Thanks much for your excellent experience and insight on what it would take to run the railroads manually. I hope some Federal "Planning Types" are reading these posts!

Bill Watt

-- Anonymous, January 13, 1999

Actually, that's one of my concerns, that Federal "Planning Types" are watching. Would you want to be "reassigned" i.e., drafted into manning a railroad post while society is disintegrating?

-- Anonymous, January 13, 1999

I think you all are putting the cart before the horse. Before you can put the coal on the train, you Have to Have the Coal. It is in the ground, under the ground. Miners go down an elevator shaft and use equipment to mine the coal.I am sure this equipment is computized. In order to go down this far into the earth, there are ventilation shafts, etc. all running by computer. It doesn't matter, just like planes that might be able to fly, insurance companies will not allow it. What do you think the miners would do, take a pick and shovel and dig it out in buckets? That is why I posted the question, "How can we find out if the comapny is complaint"

-- Anonymous, January 13, 1999

Here is a link that may help. But I couldn't find Y2K mentioned anywhere on their site. http://www.archcoal.com. They supply about 6% of the nations coal needs for power plants. Coal is mined underground by electrically powered continueous mining machines. Caol mined above ground is by giant drag lines and other unbelievably large equeptment that runs by computer. It is a cycle. it takes electricity to produce the materials needed to pruduce electricity. Transport it, load it into the plants, etc, etc, etc......

-- Anonymous, January 15, 1999

I've got a question for Sure M. Worried. I posted a link to your post about railroads not being able to operate manually at the "Gary North Is An Idiot" bulletin board. I asked others if they could verify what you said is true. A couple of people who claim to work in the rail industry have contradicted what you said. Please read my post and the responses:

http://www.smu.edu/cgi-bin/Nova/get/gn/463.html

Also read BNR's response to another question:

http://www.smu.edu/cgi-bin/Nova/get/gn/464/1.html

Do you have a response to their comments? I will read your response if you post it here, but I think it would be a good idea if you post a response in the other forum as well.

Thank you,

Robin S. Messing

-- Anonymous, January 18, 1999

Robin I read the posts and I think that they are very enlightning. I not so sure that "Gary North is a big fat Idiot", but he may be wrong about a few things. I do know that your post buttresses an argument for train problems, i.e. if switches have be thrown manually or communications are down, the quantity of rail freight will decrease dramatically.

I live in a small town in Texas that has been a railroad switching hub since 1895. The town is full of railroad people, some of them from way back. Alan is one of the current engineers on the Union Pacific. He spent years as the engineer on train hauling coal from Fort Worth to a local coal fired generator. When Union Pacific merged (with Southern Pacific?) a couple of years ago, the ensuing computer confusion caused quite of bit of trouble, both inside and outside the railroad company. Alan would normally pick up a load of coal in the Fort Worth yard and be on his way within hours. After the merger, he sometimes had to wait up to 5 days to get out of the yard. He would literally pick up his coal in hours and then be stuck in the yard for days waiting to be switched out! He was away from his family so much that he requested and received a transfer to another route. If you remember, that was the winter that coal reserves at generating facilities became dangerously low. The reason ... the Union Pacific had computer problems.

We should learn from this lesson. All the best.

-- Anonymous, January 18, 1999

Good grief, there is so much misinformation in this thread about railroad operations I don't even know where to begin. Let me start by saying that am a trainman on the BNSF, the second largest rail system in the country. I primarily work in Washington state but have also worked in Oregon, British Columbia, Minnesota, North & South Dakota, and Texas. Being from what is arguably the most hydroelectric producing region of the country I see very little coal in my home area and most of what I do see is high sulfur stuff on it's way to Canada for export to other countries. Rest assured, though, that I saw and moved plenty of it in the Minnesota and Texas areas.

First off, I have no idea where the notion that switches without the capability to be manually overriden comes from or why RRs would even want them. If such a switch actually exists, I have neither seen or even heard of one. The dual control switch described above sounds like an obsolete model and perhaps the author is confused by the appearance of the type more typically encountered today that have no wheels or cranks, just two levers. Dual control switches are just that and are probably the most commonly encountered switch on main lines. A dispatcher thousands of miles away can push a button to line it or it can be taken off power and manually thrown by a member of the train crew per dispatcher instructions should the switch fail or not respond to his commands. It's as simple as that and is probably done thousands of times a day throughout the country. Even if a RRs entire communications and signaling infrastructure collapsed it would still be possible to manually route trains where ever the rails lead and even if worst came to worst and switch absolutely could not be thrown, a maintenance employee could disconnect the control rods that run from the switch mechanism to the switch points and spike the switch for the desired route.

As for interlocking control towers, few remain. Their responsibilities have been transfered to the dispatchers as well. Just as with the dual control switches, in the event of system failure or malfunction automatic interlockings can be manually lined through, too, providing proper protection against approaching trains is provided. I've had the (dis)pleasure of doing this before and it is not an uncommon experience.

The newest locomotives are extremely computerized and do use dates in recording/relaying system operating information. I don't know if they are date sensitive or not but I suspect they will not be affected. The older ones, pre-90's models that still make up the majority of the nations fleet, use less sophisticated electronic modules that couldn't care less what the date is or what century they are in. They'll keep on running as long as there is diesel, lubricants, and parts to maintain them.

I'd venture to say that I think 50 percent operational capacity is a realistic figure and probably even on the low side. Railroaders are quite a resourceful lot and often take a good deal of pride in their ability to move the freight. I'm equally sure those coal mines, especially the open ones, will be able to keep producing coal. Even if they couldn't use their drag line shovels for some reason I'd bet they would be out there with Cat's and loading the coal cars with earthmovers. I also doubt insurance companies will have much to say about anything should things get to this point.

As far as the UP-SP debacle in Texas went, that was mostly NOT attributable to computer problems, but rather to the UP's arrogant, pigheaded approach to folding the recently purchased SP's operations into their own. I was working out of Temple,Tx during the summer and fall of '97 and was unfortunate enough to get tangled up in some of that mess while running on UP/SP track. The UP tried, obviously unsuccessfully, to pare back some SP operations and then steadfastly refused to either correct the problems or accept responsibility for them. Yeah, they tried to blame SP people and computer problems, but no one knowledgable about the situation bought either one.

-- Anonymous, January 19, 1999