The impact of the possible decommissioning of Port Talbot blast furnaces and supply of coal to heritage railways from foreign countries.

[Dave S 56F]

Hi I thought I would just make my view be watched on rail U.K. forums with having ancestory to the Silkstone family my surname as they were coal mining barons which is why I'm a keen enthusiast of heritage steam locomotives and traction engines and mainline steam rail excursions the news announced on the 18 January about port Talbot steel wks could decommission the blast furnaces.
Aberpergwn coal mine in Neath as of 2016 was wanting to produce 40 million tonnes of coal for 20 years at about £2 million tonnes a year and thus also affects 3000 personel workers at the blast furnaces.

All I ask is other members views on rail UK forums does this have a effect on heritage steam traction and steam railways and the effect of the coal supply to heritage railways in the U.K. to tell the story of the steam locomotive and steam railway travel events and mainline steam travel? And does the coal from the coal mine in South Wales supply steam coal to some of our heritage railway branch lines as all of our deep coal mines have been closed due to the net zero policy the E.U. have made a law to try combat climate change and all fossil fuels as already alot of our heritage rail lines and mainline T.O.C. import coal due to this has we were already aware this was due to happen dies it affect the supply for locomotives in the name of science and industry museums to tell the story of how Britain created the industrial revolution in Ironbridge by creating the steam engine?

Due to britain saying we don't need to mine coal as its cheaper to import it for concrete casting and steel production and going net zero as of 2025 to not use steam powered electricity turbines also though some people who live far in the dales cumbrian lake district and Scottish Highlands and some smaller foundries need supply's of coal as some of these villages are isolated and need alternate fuel to heat their homes as gas or electricity can not always be supplied to the remote areas known as off gridders do we still have a demand also to still import coal thus for these kinds of reasons I've stated above.

Anyone who works on heritage railways Driving steam locos or who does foundry work or works in the construction industry or uses coal to heat your homes and steam locorailway enthusiasts and supporters what are your views on this new turn of events in U.K. steel making?

 

[Fragezeichnen]

As far as I am aware the last colliery supplying steam coal was Ffos-y-Fran. Since it shutdown coal is supplied from a variety of foreign sources. Some railways also use manufactured 'solid fuel' derived from coal as opposed to raw mined coal. So I do not think the Aberpergwn shutdown will be relevant to the heritage movement.

 

[D Williams]

It isn't whether or not the country needs to mine coal. Coal is seen as the great polluter and is being phased out by legislation probably much sooner than we like to think. It is the "elephant in the room" for all heritage businesses where steam, either rail, stationary or marine, forms a major element of the operation. Whilst there will be much hand wringing and sympathetic noises from the political classes the use of coal will be consigned to history and most heritage railway steam locomotives will see out their days in a museum or on a plinth. It may well be that some narrow gauge and miniature railways will survive if artificial coal can still be sourced ( who would be a coal merchant?) and burned in a manner to minimise emissions but, given the level of eco-zealotry and the likelihood that an ultra woke labour government is waiting in the wings I wouldn't be spending time and money on any big steam engine projects. We have seen the best of it and following generations ( assuming nobody presses the self-destruct button) will be intrigued by what made a generation of men ( mostly) keep steam railways in operation for fifty years or more after they had no practical use.

 

[telstarbox]

What does ultra woke mean please - and it was Boris who signed us up to Net Zero.

 

[railfan99]

...the use of coal will be consigned to history and most heritage railway steam locomotives will see out their days in a museum or on a plinth...

Emissions from coal-fired heritage railways and similar 'museum pieces' are infinitesimal. Surely sensible politicians will make exemptions, although the experience in my distant nation regrettably concurs with your comment that Labor (our spelling) governments are ultra woke. Stupidity on steroids (as was Boris Johnson if he indeed signed up UK/England to net zero).

Funny how emissions are rarely if ever measured from the construction of gigantic raptor-killing wind turbines along with solar panels that reduce availability of prime agricultural land, both of which are often made in mainland communist China. They have a limited life.

Coal, nuclear and natural gas power stations can produce electricity 24/7. Solar cannot, and wind may not.

 

[Alanko]

It isn't whether or not the country needs to mine coal. Coal is seen as the great polluter and is being phased out by legislation probably much sooner than we like to think. It is the "elephant in the room" for all heritage businesses where steam, either rail, stationary or marine, forms a major element of the operation. Whilst there will be much hand wringing and sympathetic noises from the political classes the use of coal will be consigned to history and most heritage railway steam locomotives will see out their days in a museum or on a plinth. It may well be that some narrow gauge and miniature railways will survive if artificial coal can still be sourced ( who would be a coal merchant?) and burned in a manner to minimise emissions but, given the level of eco-zealotry and the likelihood that an ultra woke labour government is waiting in the wings I wouldn't be spending time and money on any big steam engine projects. We have seen the best of it and following generations ( assuming nobody presses the self-destruct button) will be intrigued by what made a generation of men ( mostly) keep steam railways in operation for fifty years or more after they had no practical use.

Straight from the Daily Mail comments section. Your space bar also appears to be defective.

 

[Vespa]

We have something like 300 years worth of coal underground and dependence on foreign energy sources exposes you to external risks as the Ukrainian crisis have shown as we imported coal from Russia.

Had we switched to diesel trains in WW2 our transport infrastructure would be crippled, not enough diesel imports and electric overheads would be vulnerable to enemy bombing and power station outages.

Something to consider, especially after 80 years of peace we are facing a threat of another major war in the East.

Shutting down coal fired power stations is a massive mistake, we're putting all our eggs in one basket with gas generation, gas generates 38% of our energy needs, coal 1%.

Heritage railways is victim of environmental politics.

Laws of unintended consequences.

 

[Magdalia]

I look at this from an economist's perspective.

I think it unlikely that preserved railways will be banned from burning coal, but they do have risks of continuity of supply. When it gets to the position where preserved railways are one of only a few activities permitted to burn coal, then the cost is likely to become eye wateringly expensive. This is because coal is a bulk commodity where extraction and transport both need to be in large quantities to be economically viable.

But there is an obvious solution, which is to invest in a stockpile of coal now, while it is still relatively easy and inexpensive, compared to what things can be expected to be like in future. My advice to steam traction enthusiasts would be to stop pouring money into dubious restoration and replica projects, and instead use the money to buy coal and store it securely.

There may even be a cheap source if Port Talbot has a stockpile of coal left over when it switches off the blast furnaces.

 

[david l]

I look at this from an economist's perspective.

I think it unlikely that preserved railways will be banned from burning coal, but they do have risks of continuity of supply. When it gets to the position where preserved railways are one of only a few activities permitted to burn coal, then the cost is likely to become eye wateringly expensive. This is because coal is a bulk commodity where extraction and transport both need to be in large quantities to be economically viable.

But there is an obvious solution, which is to invest in a stockpile of coal now, while it is still relatively easy and inexpensive, compared to what things can be expected to be like in future. My advice to steam traction enthusiasts would be to stop pouring money into dubious restoration and replica projects, and instead use the money to buy coal and store it securely.

There may even be a cheap source if Port Talbot has a stockpile of coal left over when it switches off the blast furnaces.

Your suggestion to stockpile coal is an interesting one. My understanding is that 'lump' coal which is what a heritage railway requires, starts to deteriorate quite quickly 'on the floor' and is a different type of coal to the pulverised coal that power stations/blast furnaces require. The estimated use of approx 36000 tons per annum for 'all' heritage rail use is minimal, and produces (HRA figures) 0.002% of UK emissions. The bigger problem is the carbon emission in carting the 36000 tons from wherever it is available.................notwithstanding the fact that there are many hundreds year of supplies under us......but that is not available for a number of reasons, some logical, some to satisfy the politicians.

 

[eldomtom2]

We have had this conversation several times before. What will actually happen seems to be that heritage railways will switch to burning biomass.

 

[gingerheid]

It may be worth heritage railways combining resources and setting up their own supply chain. 36000 tons pa is not a lot, but in fact in terms of the sort of smaller general cargo ships that go to places like Kings Lynn it would be more than enough!

 

[Titfield]

It may be worth heritage railways combining resources and setting up their own supply chain. 36000 tons pa is not a lot, but in fact in terms of the sort of smaller general cargo ships that go to places like Kings Lynn it would be more than enough!

There is some buying of coal by heritage railways forming a purchasing co-operative. I understand that this has resulted in some form of bulk buying discount though the usage is not sufficiently large to attract a "big" discount".

There is some investigation and trialling of a form of synthetic or e coal which appears promising.

 

[Fragezeichnen]

We have something like 300 years worth of coal underground and dependence on foreign energy sources exposes you to external risks as the Ukrainian crisis have shown as we imported coal from Russia.

Had we switched to diesel trains in WW2 our transport infrastructure would be crippled, not enough diesel imports and electric overheads would be vulnerable to enemy bombing and power station outages.

Something to consider, especially after 80 years of peace we are facing a threat of another major war in the East.

Shutting down coal fired power stations is a massive mistake, we're putting all our eggs in one basket with gas generation, gas generates 38% of our energy needs, coal 1%.

Heritage railways is victim of environmental politics.

Laws of unintended consequences.

Having dismissed oil, gas and any form of electrical generation as suitable power sources for Rail, as part of essential preparations for some kind of Doomsday scenario, I struggle to see what your actual conclusion is.
Are you calling for the creation of a Strategic Steam Reserve?

No railway has yet shut due to lack of coal. How exactly are they "a victim of environmental policies"?

 

[Bevan Price]

I suspect that some locos may be converted to oil-firing., even if some expensive modifications are needed.

 

[Vespa]

No railway has yet shut due to lack of coal. How exactly are they "a victim of environmental policies"?

Net Zero

 

[railfan99]

There is some buying of coal by heritage railways forming a purchasing co-operative. I understand that this has resulted in some form of bulk buying discount though the usage is not sufficiently large to attract a "big" discount"..

I asked a year or so ago, and was informed that coal merchants in the UK tend to 'blend' the product from a variety of nations.

Where does most of the coal used by UK heritage railways originate? Poland? Kazakhstan?

I'd doubt any would come from the NSW Hunter Valley in Australia given the huge distance for a bulk ship to traverse.

 

[GWVillager]

What does ultra woke mean please - and it was Boris who signed us up to Net Zero.

It was Theresa May.

 

[zwk500]

We have something like 300 years worth of coal underground and dependence on foreign energy sources exposes you to external risks as the Ukrainian crisis have shown as we imported coal from Russia.

Something to consider, especially after 80 years of peace we are facing a threat of another major war in the East.

Shutting down coal fired power stations is a massive mistake, we're putting all our eggs in one basket with gas generation, gas generates 38% of our energy needs, coal 1%.

As energy sources and resources change, so does policy and appropriate response. The solution to too much gas generation is cleaner energy (wind, wave, solar, tide, nuclear) not coal.

Had we switched to diesel trains in WW2 our transport infrastructure would be crippled, not enough diesel imports and electric overheads would be vulnerable to enemy bombing and power station outages

Bombing OLE would have been even harder than bombing tracks, and the effect of German bombing on British rail tracks was pretty ineffective at the end of it all. Even a Stuka would have had a hard time hitting a gantry, and they were so vulnerable on the climb out they tended not to last more than a handful of missions in contested airspace. The RAF fought the entire Battle of Britain on imported US aviation fuel (in 1940, when the US still didn't really want to get dragged in), so by 1944 when the US entered it's "Angry Phase" and preparations were in place to invade France (the time when the rail system was under most demand) it's entirely possible the convoys could have kept the railways running. Damage to power stations was a danger anyway in the War, the railways had plenty of Multiple-Aspect signalling requiring a supply by the 30s, electrification would not have substantively altered the vulnerability to the supply points being knocked out.

Heritage railways is victim of environmental politics.

The net contribution of heritage railways in the environmental debate is so small that I imagine they will be given a specific exemption, in the same way I can see the vast majority of cars being mandated to have some type of electric propulsion but exemptions will exist for classic or vintage cars which will be such a small number it doesn't affect the climate change issue.

 

[3RDGEN]

I asked a year or so ago, and was informed that coal merchants in the UK tend to 'blend' the product from a variety of nations.

Where does most of the coal used by UK heritage railways originate? Poland? Kazakhstan?

I'd doubt any would come from the NSW Hunter Valley in Australia given the huge distance for a bulk ship to traverse.

This article from Steam Railway gives some info on coal and possible future options; "https://www.steamrailway.co.uk/read/issue-539/trial-by-fire".

The Russian and Kazakhstan supplies have stopped due to the war and now the preserved railways are using Columbian coal as the best suited but prices have risen significantly. Problem is as domestic coal usage is stopped there is less reason to import it so the preserved railways find supplies harder to get and prices ever increasing hence the work on alternatives.

I suspect that some locos may be converted to oil-firing., even if some expensive modifications are needed.

NYMR are restoring 3672 - "Dame Vera Lynn" as oil fired, apparently that loco type ran oil fired in war time.

 

[Mike Machin]

It's probably getting close to the point in time where most working locomotives are converted to oil firing. Most of younger generation and their families just want to see, hear and rid on a choo-choo and indeed many youngsters have no concept of the idea of coal.

The GWR converted several of their locomotives to oil firing in the late 1940s and certainly on heritage lines oil firing would have no detrimental effect on operating and the on-going problems of coal supply would be eliminated. In the USA, at least one heritage railway is running their steam locomotives on used cooking oil - a win-win situation. Doing something similar in the UK would bring enormously favourable publicity and would bring steam railways to the attention of general public and generate goodwill and show the heritage railway sector in a very positive light on environmental matters.

It's time to consign the everyday use of coal in locomotives to the pages of history.

 

[eldomtom2]

Oil firing will eventually have the same supply issues - and certainly already has the same PR issues - as coal firing. Biomass seems the way forward to me.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

There may even be a cheap source if Port Talbot has a stockpile of coal left over when it switches off the blast furnaces.

I hadn't thought of that. Good point.

 

[zwk500]

I hadn't thought of that. Good point.

Although Tata will probably want to get rid of the coal for relatively low costs, it may be less keen to faff about with multiple different buyers. Ideally it would all go to one customer, preferably one Tata (or their train operating company) have a relationship with.
No heritage railway is likely to be able to finance the transport of a trainload of coal upfront, especially in current economic conditions. Tata won't store it, or move it to store, as they will be obliged to clean up the site as part of moving to the new furnaces (green agenda and all that). So you'd need to find a coal handler with sufficient finance to organise for a new environmentally-approved store of coal, which they are then happy to maintain for heritage railways to chip away at a lorry or two at a time. Personally, I can't see any residual coal at the steelworks going anywhere other than a Power Station or export.

 

[ChiefPlanner]

Although Tata will probably want to get rid of the coal for relatively low costs, it may be less keen to faff about with multiple different buyers. Ideally it would all go to one customer, preferably one Tata (or their train operating company) have a relationship with.
No heritage railway is likely to be able to finance the transport of a trainload of coal upfront, especially in current economic conditions. Tata won't store it, or move it to store, as they will be obliged to clean up the site as part of moving to the new furnaces (green agenda and all that). So you'd need to find a coal handler with sufficient finance to organise for a new environmentally-approved store of coal, which they are then happy to maintain for heritage railways to chip away at a lorry or two at a time. Personally, I can't see any residual coal at the steelworks going anywhere other than a Power Station or export.

It looks like the Cwmbargoed shipments to Port Talbot was small coal - not the desired lump / cobble coal. It could be made into briquettes as was done in past days. Just makes it more difficult. (and costly)

There are still , a very few small coal mines in existance however. Even in South Wales.

 

[Enthusiast]

It's time to consign the everyday use of coal in locomotives to the pages of history.

But it already is consigned to history and has been for more than fifty years (in the same way as carting stuff around using the canal network is). The idea of heritage railways (and restored canals and canal vessels) is to display that history so that people can see it as it was. Providing steam locomotives "stuffed and mounted" or running them on cooking oil is not displaying that history as it was because coal was an intrinsic part of their operation.

Biomass seems the way forward to me.

OK to burn freshly felled trees (processed at very energy hungry plants) and ship it 5,000 miles, then? OK to use a fuel that provides only about 60% of the energy than an equivalent mass of coal and which produces as much, if not more CO2 than that same equivalent?

Drax has managed to bamboozle the government into accepting that felling, processing and transporting around 7m tons of freshly felled timber from the USA and Canada to be burnt in Yorkshire is somehow "greener" than burning coal. So complete is that confidence trick that the carbon emissions from those processes are not included in the UK's total (which is fairly insignificant in global terms anyway). I doubt heritage railways will get away with a similar deceit (or be granted vast sums of money to support the process).

 

[Dai Corner]

There are still , a very few small coal mines in existance however. Even in South Wales.

As I said last time this subject came up, I'd like to see a preserved coal mine or two to supply the preserved steam industry/hobby. I have no idea how practical it would be though.

 

[ChiefPlanner]

As I said last time this subject came up, I'd like to see a preserved coal mine or two to supply the preserved steam industry/hobby. I have no idea how practical it would be though.

Have a look at the enjoyable Welsh Coal Mines Forum. Lots of intelligent discussions there.

My father was a Colliery Manager with 44 years of West Wales experience. (hence a bit of an interest in coal !) - the real killer in financing a small coal operation is insurance (which is what did for the Ammanford area Bettws New Mine) - labour secondly , but provided the renumeration is OK , that should be achievable.

Reading the forum , there has been a small uptick in of all places , the Forest of Dean........

 

[D Williams]

Outside pressures cannot be ignored. How long before coal deliveries to heritage sites are blocked by virtue-signalling idiots gluing themselves to the road? Telling them it's a minute amount of global usage cuts no ice, as far as they are concerned coal is on a level with nuclear waste. The authorisation to burn coal is one thing. Getting it in suitable form / quality and at an affordable price is quite another. The existing cost has forced heritage railways to increase ticket prices to the limit of what will be afforded by the general public.

 

[zwk500]

Reading the forum , there has been a small uptick in of all places , the Forest of Dean........

Isn't there some ancient Royal charter of rights relating to the Forest of Dean and various resources that might be related?

Outside pressures cannot be ignored. How long before coal deliveries to heritage sites are blocked by virtue-signalling idiots gluing themselves to the road? Telling them it's a minute amount of global usage cuts no ice, as far as they are concerned coal is on a level with nuclear waste. The authorisation to burn coal is one thing. Getting it in suitable form / quality and at an affordable price is quite another. The existing cost has forced heritage railways to increase ticket prices to the limit of what will be afforded by the general public.

If they were going to be protesting coal use by heritage railways, they'd be doing it already. However it's just not an attractive target because the media won't send anybody out to the country lanes of the shires for 4 people stopping 1 lorry. Especially when all you can see in the picture is some leafy trees and a small country cottage-station building. Whereas a power plant or Refinery creates a much more dramatic front page.

 

[GWVillager]

It's probably getting close to the point in time where most working locomotives are converted to oil firing. Most of younger generation and their families just want to see, hear and rid on a choo-choo and indeed many youngsters have no concept of the idea of coal.

The GWR converted several of their locomotives to oil firing in the late 1940s and certainly on heritage lines oil firing would have no detrimental effect on operating and the on-going problems of coal supply would be eliminated. In the USA, at least one heritage railway is running their steam locomotives on used cooking oil - a win-win situation. Doing something similar in the UK would bring enormously favourable publicity and would bring steam railways to the attention of general public and generate goodwill and show the heritage railway sector in a very positive light on environmental matters.

It's time to consign the everyday use of coal in locomotives to the pages of history.

I disagree. Coal is widely known about, amongst children too, and I am relatively certain that enough passengers are appreciative of the coal to make it worthwhile. The modifications to locomotives to enable oil usage would also require capital spending the railways don’t have.

Outside pressures cannot be ignored. How long before coal deliveries to heritage sites are blocked by virtue-signalling idiots gluing themselves to the road? Telling them it's a minute amount of global usage cuts no ice, as far as they are concerned coal is on a level with nuclear waste. The authorisation to burn coal is one thing. Getting it in suitable form / quality and at an affordable price is quite another. The existing cost has forced heritage railways to increase ticket prices to the limit of what will be afforded by the general public.

I think you have quite an unrealistic view of environmental protesters! They, as mentioned upthread, tend to focus on big, high profile targets, as they recognise that they have no ability to materially stop any destructive behaviour on a meaningful scale. Heritage railways would be logistically difficult to blockade, be unlikely to attract much public/media attention and are, of course, not at all part of the problem. The vast, vast majority of protesters take all of this into account.

The long and short of it is that:
1. Heritage railways are responsible for no meaningful emissions (this is not to say there is no progress to be made environmentally, my experience shows that they are poor with recycling and plastic consumption, but at their scale there is nothing fundamental about them that is incompatible with a sustainable future).
2. Heritage railways do not need to fear direct disruption from environmental protests if they continue as they do. They can use coal, if they can find it.