Whitby, Scarborough and Boulby

[60044]

Back in the 70s a large trench was cut through the Snowdonia National Park for a pipeline of some description, and within a year or two it was impossible to detect where. By far the best solution if it is workable. Presumably it'll be a giant "Pressflo" system?

[third-rail]

Back in the 70s a large trench was cut through the Snowdonia National Park for a pipeline of some description, and within a year or two it was impossible to detect where. By far the best solution if it is workable. Presumably it'll be a giant "Pressflo" system?

is the potash not abrasive in a steel pipe ,not to mention the corrosive action also?

[richard]

60044: That is probably the Shell pipeline I was thinking of. Dinorwic would have been the 80s.

The pipe could be a tunnel with a conveyer system, but my understanding is that water contained in the potash (as a complex) helps to lubricate the pipe - keeping it flowing with minimal abrasion.

[PinzaC55]

Back in the 70s a large trench was cut through the Snowdonia National Park for a pipeline of some description, and within a year or two it was impossible to detect where. By far the best solution if it is workable. Presumably it'll be a giant "Pressflo" system?

The key phrase is "back in the 70's". That was before Global Warming, Environmentalism, and the pressing need to make sure that various species of daisies and the Greater Crested Peewit weren't disturbed.
Taking it out by train would have zero impact but if you think the pipeline option out in detail it would be enormously disruptive -need to negotiate digging rights on hundreds of private properties, access roads to dig trench, heavy earth moving equipment, deliveries of pipes, filling in trench.

[60044]

It may have been the 70s, but there was still a lot of fuss and a huge amount of care was taken to restore the ecology of the sites that the pipeline passed through. The fact that there have been no significant problems with it since it was constructed really shows how successful it was and it could be used as an example in this respect. In fact, most people don't realise how many pipelines there are transmitting petroleum products around the country - most airports and RAF fields are supplied in this way from their nearest refinery for example.

As a railway enthusiast you are naturally biased but one has to be realistic. Upgrading the EVL would not be minimal impact. To carry the 10 trains or so each way per day that the 3M tons a year target implies the line would have to undergo substantial reconstruction, with bridges refurbished or replaced, track relaid to take 25T axle loads, additional loops built and so on, plus a loading terminal constructed. That is going to be a major undertaking, and then people will have to live with intense and visible traffic as long as the mine is open. In contrast, a pipeline, once buried, will out of sight and out of mind, and as most of the trench it is laid in will be dug in open countryside its impact on most people will be reduced.

If I was a local resident I know which option I'd prefer!

[PinzaC55]

But the pipeline will have to cross roads and will attract large amounts of heavy plant and transport onto the winding Esk Valley roads. By contrast rail upgrades can be done using rail vehicles with materials brought in by rail.
I think there's just as much danger in overstating the the ugrades necessary to carry the freight trains as there is in understating the magnitude of what would be a (35 mile?) pipeline through scenic countryside.
Hopefully the local authorities will agree with me and see rail as the sensible option.

[60044]

At the moment the EVL must have an axle loading limit of ca. 22T to allow pacifics to work to and from Grosmont, but modern freight stock comes in at 25T axle loading. I reckon that as a minimum most of the branch would have to be relaid with heavy flat bottom rail and concrete sleepers, and several bridges rebuilt or replaced, plus additional passing loops added. The signalling bill alone for that will be substantial. Where bridges cross roads there's bound to be disruption.

Pipelines for various services are being laid all the time around the country and most of the work is carried out in open fields, where roads are encountered it doesn't take long to cross them, so I'm afraid I have to differ and maintain that would be a less disruptive approach.

[PinzaC55]

Well I Googled "Potash Pipeline" and I couldn't find any reference to a pipeline used to carry the raw product - the pipelines were all to carry brine away from the mines.
However York Potash has a reference to a possible pipeline here http://www.yorkpotash.co.uk/index.php?o ... &Itemid=16 but this refers to it taking the stuff to a "processing plant" which I would expect to have settling tanks to allow it to crystallise out of the solution. This would also entail large amounts of salt water to be disposed of so it could hardly be on a river. It doesn't refer to a shipment terminal which is what Middlesbrough would be.

[richard]

Brine works too - and would be particularly logical if dissolution mining is chosen (this is common for sodium chloride mining).

Brine in this context does not necessarily mean salt water but water with dissolved salts (primarily potash). Non-potash salts (e.g. sodium chloride but there would be others) could be separated out - perhaps even sold as a bi-product. The settling/evaporation tanks would do most of this separation for you (as happened naturally when these deposits were originally formed as the Zechstein Sea evaporated).

Under ideal circumstances, bulk train movements are cheap to operate, but a pipeline is even cheaper and it is unlikely there would be any trans-shipment problems (it is unlikely rail would go directly to the pit head).

[grinkle]

The potash guys were very clear; pipeline from pithead to Teesside. I took away that stone not refined fertilizer would be exported by ship; they see China as the main market. But as the Tees is tidal, I wouldn't see managed brine discharge as an issue.

[seacoaler]

Rock Salt for roads is also quite an important by product of Boulby and would also need moving in bulk , in fact quite a few of the 'potash trains' through Teesside are salt trains . I think much more salt is produced than Potash in tonnage terms. There are no spoil heaps at Boulby because all the 'waste' mined is saleable rock salt. The potash is many times more valuable though.
One thing these guys won't have any problem creating tunnels

[richard]

One thing these guys won't have any problem creating tunnels

No, but keeping them open is the problem!

Evaporites like salt & potash are relatively plastic and the mine is deep enough that the lithostatic pressure is very high (for a mine). This results in the walls periodically "spitting" chips of mineral, and they also have to mine sacrificial tunnels to locally reduce the pressure.

[52D]

Pity some of the remoter former NER stations hadnt retained their coal drops, these would have made an ideal place to reload salt lorries during the winter months with a little modification.

[cambois]

So it looks like the potash will not be rail traffic. But the road salt by-product (which is also produced by Boulby now) could be quite an important traffic, so road salt loading on the Tees somewhere for distribtion around the UK might be a real possibility. Some care needs to be put into this sort of traffic, it is well removed from the standard 40 hy-fits trains we used to use from Over & Wharton!

[PinzaC55]

So it looks like the potash will not be rail traffic. But the road salt by-product (which is also produced by Boulby now) could be quite an important traffic, so road salt loading on the Tees somewhere for distribtion around the UK might be a real possibility. Some care needs to be put into this sort of traffic, it is well removed from the standard 40 hy-fits trains we used to use from Over & Wharton!

As I said earlier my Google Search revealed not a single case where a pipeline was used to remove the raw Potash product so I can only assume this 35 mile pipeline will be the first?