Whitby, Scarborough and Boulby

[Colombo]

In the announcement in the Scarborough Evening News mention was made of using either a railway solution or a Bolt Pipe to transport the potash:

http://www.scarborougheveningnews.co.uk ... _1_3101593

Quote Chris Fraser, Chief Executive of Sirius Minerals:
"In terms of getting the product out there is no way you can use the road. It would need to be by bolt pipe or by rail, and that is all still to be explored"

From an internet search, I gather that a Bolt Pipe is a two phase flow system where solid material is transported by another fluid, it could be water or air for example. There would be problems of pipe wear and energy consumption, but presumably the potash could be transported down to rail level in the Esk Valley and then seperated from the fluid medium and loaded into wagons.

There is no reason, other than cost, why a tunnel could not be driven from the underground workings at Hawsker to the Esk Valley. Something like this is done to collect the gypsum produced at Ratcliffe Power Station by the flue gas desulphurisation unit. Reacting lime with sulphur dioxide produces calcium sulphate, which is Gypsum. The product is dropped down a hole into the old Gypsum mine and transported underground to British Gypsum at East Leake, where it is processed into plaster and plaster board.

Colombo

[PinzaC55]

In the announcement in the Scarborough Evening News mention was made of using either a railway solution or a Bolt Pipe to transport the potash:

http://www.scarborougheveningnews.co.uk ... _1_3101593

Quote Chris Fraser, Chief Executive of Sirius Minerals:
"In terms of getting the product out there is no way you can use the road. It would need to be by bolt pipe or by rail, and that is all still to be explored"

From an internet search, I gather that a Bolt Pipe is a two phase flow system where solid material is transported by another fluid, it could be water or air for example. There would be problems of pipe wear and energy consumption, but presumably the potash could be transported down to rail level in the Esk Valley and then seperated from the fluid medium and loaded into wagons.

There is no reason, other than cost, why a tunnel could not be driven from the underground workings at Hawsker to the Esk Valley. Something like this is done to collect the gypsum produced at Ratcliffe Power Station by the flue gas desulphurisation unit. Reacting lime with sulphur dioxide produces calcium sulphate, which is Gypsum. The product is dropped down a hole into the old Gypsum mine and transported underground to British Gypsum at East Leake, where it is processed into plaster and plaster board.

Colombo

Maybe so but Ratcliffe is hardly an Area Of Outstanding Natural beauty and I can hardly imagine the National Park Authority being overjoyed at having a loading facility somewhere on the Esk Valley line which is presumably what you mean? The railway solution would simply make better use of existing and disused infrastructure and would leave any ugly industrial buildings to where they won't be noticed - Middlesbrough (sorry to any Smogs reading this!).

[third-rail]

In the announcement in the Scarborough Evening News mention was made of using either a railway solution or a Bolt Pipe to transport the potash:

http://www.scarborougheveningnews.co.uk ... _1_3101593

Quote Chris Fraser, Chief Executive of Sirius Minerals:
"In terms of getting the product out there is no way you can use the road. It would need to be by bolt pipe or by rail, and that is all still to be explored"

From an internet search, I gather that a Bolt Pipe is a two phase flow system where solid material is transported by another fluid, it could be water or air for example. There would be problems of pipe wear and energy consumption, but presumably the potash could be transported down to rail level in the Esk Valley and then seperated from the fluid medium and loaded into wagons.

There is no reason, other than cost, why a tunnel could not be driven from the underground workings at Hawsker to the Esk Valley. Something like this is done to collect the gypsum produced at Ratcliffe Power Station by the flue gas desulphurisation unit. Reacting lime with sulphur dioxide produces calcium sulphate, which is Gypsum. The product is dropped down a hole into the old Gypsum mine and transported underground to British Gypsum at East Leake, where it is processed into plaster and plaster board.

Colombo

Maybe so but Ratcliffe is hardly an Area Of Outstanding Natural beauty and I can hardly imagine the National Park Authority being overjoyed at having a loading facility somewhere on the Esk Valley line which is presumably what you mean? The railway solution would simply make better use of existing and disused infrastructure and would leave any ugly industrial buildings to where they won't be noticed - Middlesbrough (sorry to any Smogs reading this!).

it could be possible to build an north to west curve and tunnel under the houses at the top of propect hill which would get rid of one reversal saving bottling up the station

[grinkle]

Given that the Esk Valley line runs almost as a light railway these days, might there not be some serious questions about the ability of the dozens of bridges to take the weight of potash trains?

[Coboman]

I don't see why Whitby harbour cannot be reopened to freight and it be shipped out of there? Is it only the bolshy council decide what happenes in the horbour, or another authority?

[grinkle]

Seriously and politely, have you ever been to Whitby? 100,000 tonnes a week is 15,000 tonnes per day: there is no way the roads of Whitby town could cope with the lorries that would be required to bring that dockside nor, I suspect, is there adequate dockside space anywhere in Whitby to cope with the transfer - certainly there isn't down-stream of the Swing Bridge, which would be essential - even assuming the draught is deep enough in the harbour at deep water for the size of ship required - it certainly wouldn't be at low-water.

[PinzaC55]

Given that the Esk Valley line runs almost as a light railway these days, might there not be some serious questions about the ability of the dozens of bridges to take the weight of potash trains?

Hardly a light railway. It carries light trains but the line was upgraded a few years ago and is perfectly capable of carrying heavy trains or how would Tornado have reached the NYMR?
In the event that some of the track or bridges weren't up to carrying potash trains standard practice would be followed - the company tell Network Rail what axleload of train they want to run, NR upgrade the line as required and then present the company with a very large bill.

[grinkle]

A large bill indeed. The railway crosses the river alone 17 times; not to mention a number of road overbridges.

[PinzaC55]

And the company paid £20 MILLION just for the Potash rights - ie bits of paper. They have as far as I can gather about 3 Potash mines in other countries so I hardly think they'll be short of a bob or two

[mr B]

Seriously and politely, have you ever been to Whitby? 100,000 tonnes a week is 15,000 tonnes per day: there is no way the roads of Whitby town could cope with the lorries that would be required to bring that dockside nor, I suspect, is there adequate dockside space anywhere in Whitby to cope with the transfer - certainly there isn't down-stream of the Swing Bridge, which would be essential - even assuming the draught is deep enough in the harbour at deep water for the size of ship required - it certainly wouldn't be at low-water.

most folk on here would get lost once past Grantham , anyway the debait for a upgrade to dual carageway from Middlesbrough-Whitby-Scarbrough-Hull has been going on for years maybe now is the time to re-think , letting the potash company foot the bill ... well if they want the stuff out ...

mr b

[PinzaC55]

Seriously and politely, have you ever been to Whitby? 100,000 tonnes a week is 15,000 tonnes per day: there is no way the roads of Whitby town could cope with the lorries that would be required to bring that dockside nor, I suspect, is there adequate dockside space anywhere in Whitby to cope with the transfer - certainly there isn't down-stream of the Swing Bridge, which would be essential - even assuming the draught is deep enough in the harbour at deep water for the size of ship required - it certainly wouldn't be at low-water.

most folk on here would get lost once past Grantham , anyway the debait for a upgrade to dual carageway from Middlesbrough-Whitby-Scarbrough-Hull has been going on for years maybe now is the time to re-think , letting the potash company foot the bill ... well if they want the stuff out ...

mr b

Surely you wouldn't rather see a dual carriageway ripped through the heart of the scenic coastline rather than reopened railways with a buoyant freight traffic, which as railway enthusiasts I thought we all wanted to see?
This could transform the rail facilities at Whitby from a dead end weedy branchline with four tiny trains a day into a real railway hub again.

[seacoaler]

I don't see why Whitby harbour cannot be reopened to freight and it be shipped out of there? Is it only the bolshy council decide what happenes in the horbour, or another authority?

Whitby harbours owned by the council. They actively chased new shipping freight hard when coil steel imports stopped a few years ago but ships have moved up in size (the 500 ton coaster is rare now) and the harbour capacity is too small to be economic. Possibly you could have a feeder ship service to Teesport but I think it would be too slow. Maybe they could have a small export shipping terminal at Whitby and a railway to Teesport.However Whitbys now dependent on the tourist pound (disneyfied )and I don't think big silos of Potash would be to welcome in the town.
Its all very exciting though about the railway being reinstated -somewhere ! Isn't Larpool viaduct similar to Saltburn viaduct that currently carries the Boulby Potash trains ?

[PinzaC55]

As a matter of interest according to Wikipedia the Boulby site supplies HALF ( 50% ) of the UK's total consumption of Potash. If this site matched Boulby it would mean the UK would be self sufficient or have a surplus.
I've also been told that Boulby generates 4 trainloads a day on weekdays, 3 loads of Potash and 1 load of Rock Salt. Apparently a typical rake is 10 wagons hauled by a Class 66.

[60041]

As a matter of interest according to Wikipedia the Boulby site supplies HALF ( 50% ) of the UK's total consumption of Potash. If this site matched Boulby it would mean the UK would be self sufficient or have a surplus.
I've also been told that Boulby generates 4 trainloads a day on weekdays, 3 loads of Potash and 1 load of Rock Salt. Apparently a typical rake is 10 wagons hauled by a Class 66.

They are talking about 15,000 tons per day, that is about 3 times what Boulby produces, so there would be enough to supply the UK needs and still leave a surplus of 10,000 tons per day for export. That is a huge amount of material to be shifted, if it all went out by rail it would mean about 15 loaded trains out and, of course, 15 empties back. At the very least, it will require the reinstatement of many of the passing loops, the re-doubling of Grosmont to Whitby and possibly the creation of an east to north curve at Battersby. It is difficult to see how the NYMR services to Whitby could be accomodated when there are 30 reversals needed at Prospect Hill every day. It will turn the Esk Valley line from a sleepy backwater into one of the busiest lines in the country.
Apparantly the worlds largest producer of potash is presently Canada, with a total annual output of 9M tonnes. This one mine at Hawsker is expected to produce 5M tonnes per year. The farm price of potash at the moment is about £340 per tonne, about double that of 2 years ago, so the potential income from this mine is vast; the few million to upgrade the line is tiny by comparison.

[seacoaler]

Is Hawsker the new mine location ?
I know it was the other option considered in early 1970s when Boulby was built . ( and plans were made to reinstate the Loftus to Whitby coast line to serve Hawsker , shame it never proceeded )