[Date Prev][Date Next] [Chronological] [Thread] [Top]

Re: (erielack) Notes on the Types and sizes of Anthracite



Jim Guthrie wrote:
>  > What would be the most numerous size produced?  The size used for home
>> heating?   And that would be egg or stove?
> 
> Sizes were produced in large measure by the mining techniques. When you 
> mined the coal and then ran it through the breaker, you got a whole 
> range of sizes and to a great extent, you could not control that, unless 
> you **wanted** small sizes such as the Buckwheats.

 From Wikipedia

Classifications

The common American classification is as follows:[citation needed]

Lump, steamboat, egg and stove coals, the latter in two or three sizes, 
all three being above 1-1/2 in. size on round-hole screens.
Classification 	Minimum Size (inches) 	Maximum Size (inches)
Chestnut 	7/8 	                      1 1/2
Pea 	          9/16 	                        7/8
Buckwheat 3/8 	                             9/16
Rice 	           3/16 	                 3/8
Barley 	          3/32 	                         3/16

go to http://www.sizes.com/materls/anthracite.htm for more info on sizes
> 
> But smaller sizes went for less money per ton, so the railroads did not 
> like producing any more than necessary. Domestic users might like the 
> price, but didn;t like the dust and bother.
> 
> One of the issues that faced the industry was that the year round 
> industrial customers switched to bituminous because it was cheaper, but 
> could also use anthracite in the small sizes with bituminous if the 
> local authorities fined them for violating anti-nuisance and smoke 
> abatement laws (the anthracite railroads were the pioneers in imposing 
> what we now call environmental laws).
> 
> An example of a major year-round customer for the NYS&W and to a lesser 
> extent the DL&W in the 1880s and 90s were the elevated railroads in 
> Brooklyn and Manhattan respectively.  Obviously, those trains ran 
> 24/7/365. The business evaporated with electrification although central 
> steam and the Metropolitan Railway So. made up for some of it.
> 
>> Would it be safe to say that the large storage yards that most RR had for
>> stock piling coal during the summer months and then reloading it back 
>> into RR
>> cars for shipment in the fall and winter was of Stove or Egg?  It 
>> wouldn't
>> make any sense to separate coal at a breaker and then remix it with a 
>> different
>> size at a ground storage facility.  I 'm sure there were many of these at
>> various locations on all the Anthacite roads. East Dover and  Hampton, 
>> PA on the
>> Lackawanna come to mind.   Hampton, NJ on the CNJ would  be another.
> 
> The biggest in the NY area was the LV's at South Plainfield; the 
> smallest Dodge plant was the NYS&W's at Pompton.
> 
> You are correct that domestic sizes would be most of the storage yards 
> ---  both because to get the larger steam sizes there was alot of extra 
> domestic in the off season. But for the LV, DL&W and Erie -- and a 
> lesser extent the Reading and the D&H, sending anthracite to Buffalo in 
> the Great Lakes Shipping season evened out the business quite a bit.
> 
> The railroads also offered discounts for domestic sizes in the off 
> season, and many people who could afford to stock up did so. Unlike 
> bituminous, anthracite is generally not prone to spontaneous cumbustion 
> when stored for a long time.
> 
> Until the advent of the storage yards, railroads used their cars for 
> storage -- but that meant that mines would have to shut down for lack of 
> car service. Anthracite railroads were also loath to interchange cars -- 
> which was another impetous to dump at tidewater (and why the 
> Poughkeepsie bridge played a rather small role in the trade, despite the 
> hype of its promoters).
> 
> There were other reason for the storage yards -- not the least of which 
> was the railroads efforts to bust the UMW once and for all after the 
> strikes of 1900 and 1902. Hanging union leaders (as the P&R did) or 
> shooting strikes (as at Lattimer) did not go over vry well with the 
> public at large. The storage plants were far more benign.
> 
> Cheers,
> Jim
> 
>     The Erie Lackawanna Mailing List
>     http://EL-List.railfan.net/
>     To Unsubscribe: http://Lists.Railfan.net/erielackunsub.html
> 

	The Erie Lackawanna Mailing List
	http://EL-List.railfan.net/
	To Unsubscribe: http://Lists.Railfan.net/erielackunsub.html

------------------------------