Maybe it's the cold outside or cabin feaver, or a combination of the two, I dunno. I was reading some more about the Artic Railroading thread, and was also thinking about the CN note that the rail yard at Hay River,NWT was the farthest northern point in the North American Rail net. Several years back there was some discussion that centered around one of the Alaskan politicians then in Congress, and a study project for the feasibility of linking the ARR to a Canadian line so there would be a direct rail link into the lower US.
There was a site linked off the Alaska RR's home page (under Corporation, click on projects, then on the next page click on studies that will bring you to the third page at the bottom is a series of links under the heading:
"Alaska Canada Rail Link Phase 1 Feasibility Study - For information purposes only, not an official Alaska Railroad project " and the first link is to this external off ARR web site:
http://alaskacanadarail.com/report.html.
Following that link are three more links to various studies under phase 1 of the project.
An Executive Summary--A Research Summary--Followed by a Tourism Annex
Within the pdf files there are maps of the proposed lines that would tie both the ARR and the "White Pass" at its northern terninus (Whitehorse) to the proposed line linking with the CN and CP in British Columbia.
Seemed to be a pretty interesting body of reading for a cold winter night, and weekend.
Will never happen, just no need nor demand for a rail link and it may cost a few bucks too. This has been kicked around since the 1900's, there are 2 things we will never see in North America, no rail service from Canadaland to Alaska and no long distance high speed passenger trains, maybe from Toronto to Montreal, maybe.
tatans Will never happen, just no need nor demand for a rail link and it may cost a few bucks too. This has been kicked around since the 1900's, there are 2 things we will never see in North America, no rail service from Canadaland to Alaska and no long distance high speed passenger trains, maybe from Toronto to Montreal, maybe.
Tatans:
I would hope you are mistaken for one thing, and the other is "Never say Never." The subject study of this thread is pretty thorough and has some seemingly, pretty thorough research done on the potentials for a rail link . There was a reference made to the television show, "Ice Road Truckers" . I think it showed a lot of people who are not, and probably will never get into that far northern region.
Some of the things that are now taking place north of the Arctic Circle; in the areas of mineral exploration and mining that even a few short years ago would never have been considered as even an eventuality.
And if you read the links provided to the study, you'll notice that it does not even consider the exploration and proposals for the areas of the Northwest Territories, (ie. recently, the new CN Yard facility at Hay River and the Yellowknife area as a base for further Arctic activities. There is a lot going on up in that country that is bringing in new capital for new activities. The point is, the next few years should point to many changes, and many more potential possibilities in the Arctic environment.
There does seem to be some serious studies going on in Canada of the possibility of extending CN into the Yukon due to the coal and metals mining projects being developed up there, that could open the door to the AlCan link..
"I Often Dream of Trains"-From the Album of the Same Name by Robyn Hitchcock
The Alaska Railroad currently uses a barge link to connect with other railroads. If Alaska is connected to the rest of North America by land, does it become feasible to barge rail cars across the Bearing Sea to a Eurasian connection?
(1) Nothing against the poster, but f I had a dollar for every time we have seen this on here . . .
(2) Can one of the learned railroad people on here please explain to me what would be gained by an Alaskan rail link that would provide a benefit immeasurably better than steamship service? Links to a specific mine, on-line service, etc, I get that. But, I just do not know why anyone would invest that much for what appears to be essentially bridge traffic that can be provided by steamship?
Gabe
While you wait for a learned person to weigh in, I'll comment that I am as baffled as you are. Minerals want to go to tidewater.
RWM
Hi All
I'm not learned in the sense of which you speak.
I will say that there is a partially constructed ROW in Northwestern BC which is most likely to remain just that until such time as interior mining in that portion of the province becomes economically viable. That's unlikely to occur until such time as electrical power, construction, production and transportation costs are reduced to the degree necessary to make the ore (or other material) competitive in cost. Whenever that is...
BTW, there is Ottawa (federal) money on the table to extend power transmission lines into that part of the province. Approval also depends on provincial funding. This is not yet guaranteed. The transmission lines currently go as far north as Stewart BC. Given the rough terrain and the long distances (360 km+) involved thereafter, I wouldn't hold my breath.....
Charlie
Chilliwack, BC
Victrola1 The Alaska Railroad currently uses a barge link to connect with other railroads. If Alaska is connected to the rest of North America by land, does it become feasible to barge rail cars across the Bearing Sea to a Eurasian connection?
The closest railroads on the other side are all Broad gauge (Russian 5 foot gauge) so I would think shipping railcars wouldn't be practical..
carnej1 Victrola1 The Alaska Railroad currently uses a barge link to connect with other railroads. If Alaska is connected to the rest of North America by land, does it become feasible to barge rail cars across the Bearing Sea to a Eurasian connection? The closest railroads on the other side are all Broad gauge (Russian 5 foot gauge) so I would think shipping railcars wouldn't be practical..
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
Railway Man [snip] Minerals want to go to tidewater. RWM
Is that because - under recent and current economic conditions - the minerals have their highest and best use - and hence price - at overseas factories, instead of domestically, for metallurgical use (burning of coal) or smelting/ refining (for the ores) ?
Didn't used to be that way. The minerals would want to go to Pittsburgh and similar 'steel town' places for iron ore and metallurgical coal, and whatever their equivalents were for copper, gold, silver. Are there any other minerals in Alaska or NW Canada in quantities that would lend themselves to rail shipment - and hence could support that massive required investment ? Oil already goes by pipeline, coal we already have but closer, and I don't see the timber volume as being enough to justify a rail line - or am I missing something there ?
- Paul North.
The Alaska-Canada rail link will be a key compontent of a Bering Strait Crossing (Please don't hold your breath waiting for its construction, however)
Won't happen, unless Alberta (no Provincial Sales Tax) becomes our 51st State. The entrenched 'politicos' will see that the idea is sauashed. Also, the line would have to have passenger service, so that the "Native Americans/First Nation People" could return whence they came.
Maybe a hidden sales tax eh? Calgary already thinks it's part of the U.S. I heard a rumor Alberta is talking to Montana about joining Alberta, ( remember, Alberta makes about a quadrillion dollars a day on royalties) and they have the lowest royalty payment anywhere - - -they could pay for Montana in 2 weeks.
Won't happen, unless Alberta (no Provincial Sales Tax) becomes our 51st State. The entrenched politicos will see that the idea is sauashed. Also, the line would have to have passenger service, so that the Native Americans/First Nation People could return whence they came.
How many miles is the gap that would have to be built?
Modeling the "Fargo Area Rapid Transit" in O scale 3 rail.
As someone who drove the Alcan weekly for six years i can tell everyone it is a beautiful hostile area. There is untold mineral wealth waiting for development that may never come. It is known that Coal, Iron Ore, Uranium, Gold, Silver and other minerals already exist. The problem is transportation if it is developed. This has been a problem for as long as i can remember.
Would I like to see a RR connect the Alaska RR with CN, you betcha. I think if it ever happened in my lifetime I would be one of the first to book a passenger ticket.
There is something about BC Northern Alberta Yukon territory and Alaska that has a way of making one appreciate nature at its finest. Do I think it would be economically feasible to build a RR through the region Yes. If they could push the Alcan highway through in just over a year with conditions the way they were in WW II compared to today and with the equipment we have today it should be easy but expensive. Do I think it could eventually pay its way again yes. Once population growth follows and development of the minerals etc. begins I think it could be a very profitable venture. Whatever happened to the pioneer spirit of our forefathers has it died. Are we raising a country of wimps or what. I marveled at the Alcan everytime I drove it. And remember it is a year round artery.
Al - in - Stockton
Paul_D_North_JrRailway Man [snip] Minerals want to go to tidewater. RWM Is that because - under recent and current economic conditions - the minerals have their highest and best use - and hence price - at overseas factories, instead of domestically, for metallurgical use (burning of coal) or smelting/ refining (for the ores) ? Didn't used to be that way. The minerals would want to go to Pittsburgh and similar 'steel town' places for iron ore and metallurgical coal, and whatever their equivalents were for copper, gold, silver. Are there any other minerals in Alaska or NW Canada in quantities that would lend themselves to rail shipment - and hence could support that massive required investment ? Oil already goes by pipeline, coal we already have but closer, and I don't see the timber volume as being enough to justify a rail line - or am I missing something there ? - Paul North.
If I remember the October 2002 Trains article about the steel industry correctly, it seems like even then they traveled by water as much as possible.
"No soup for you!" - Yev Kassem (from Seinfeld)
Paul_D_North_Jr Railway Man [snip] Minerals want to go to tidewater. RWM Is that because - under recent and current economic conditions - the minerals have their highest and best use - and hence price - at overseas factories, instead of domestically, for metallurgical use (burning of coal) or smelting/ refining (for the ores) ? Didn't used to be that way. The minerals would want to go to Pittsburgh and similar 'steel town' places for iron ore and metallurgical coal, and whatever their equivalents were for copper, gold, silver. Are there any other minerals in Alaska or NW Canada in quantities that would lend themselves to rail shipment - and hence could support that massive required investment ? Oil already goes by pipeline, coal we already have but closer, and I don't see the timber volume as being enough to justify a rail line - or am I missing something there ? - Paul North.
Railwayman is correct, and it is also a purpose in this case/proposal as well; check page 4 of the Summary Report in the initial post. There is shown a flow chart for the area Ports.
The paths indicated are from the the interior (assume areas of mineral origin) to ports in Alaska, Youkon and British Columbia. The most problematic port seems to be Skagway, due to the tourist destination activities of that porty and its restrictions as to current physical boundaries of that port. The suggested solution is to create a new rail link to the port of Haines, Ak. and there to create the facility to handle bulk mineral activity and port facilities as deemed necessary at Haines.
It would seem that construction of the proposed construction of the rail link to the ARR( eventually to meet the extention of ARR) at Delta Junction. Thislink would facilitate the construction of a natural gas pipeline to the lower 48, not to mention rail freight to Alaska, as well. One of the proposed paths is roughly paralleling the ALCAN Hwy. Interestingly, the already existing BCR ROW to the area of Deese Lake,BC does not seem to play an early roll in the proposals.
Paul North has indicated that the conventional thinking of our formerly centralized Steel Industry was that raw materials went to a major tetminus (Wheeling-Pittsburgh, north of Wheeling,WVa. USSteel at Gary, In and Birmingham,Al ). Now the industry has dispursed to many locations around the country with the "mini'mill' concept to places like Osceola, Ar. Palestine,Tx and many other locations which might be destinations for minerals found in Northwest Canada and Alaska. Potential activities and their possibilities, not to mention new destination areas for the mineral production are still seeming to be worked out.
According to Mike Walker's SPV atlas of "Western Canada", you can get to Chipmunk, BC on CN (BCOL). Beyond that, to Jackson, the rail was laid, and the line graded all the way to Dease Lake. Without relevant topographical maps, I don't have a clue if it could be connected to the WP&Y. The other CN (PGE) line goes as far north as Fort Nelson, BC and CN (GSLR) reaches Hay River, NT. Beyond that, I don't have a clue. It would make an interesting "Master's" thesis or "Doctoral" dissertation, finding the best route.
I do think that the traffic could be found to make it a viable rail route, benificial to both countries. It might decrease the cost-of-living in the area where sales taxes are non-existant (except Ottawa's GST), but prices very high. Wow! Refrigerated "Moose Express" cars, heading for Chicago and Montreal! They could back-haul ice to keep the Polar bears on friga firma. Seriously, CNG and LP gas, as well as oil, are natural comodities, southbound.
As always, politics will be the deciding factor.
Hays -- say "Hello" to my cousin, Joan Hansen, in Chilliwack. Beware: she'll try to convert you, and not away from being a railfan!
Does anyone have a RR map of this area?
ericsp Paul_D_North_Jr Railway Man [snip] Minerals want to go to tidewater. RWM Is that because - under recent and current economic conditions - the minerals have their highest and best use - and hence price - at overseas factories, instead of domestically, for metallurgical use (burning of coal) or smelting/ refining (for the ores) ? Didn't used to be that way. The minerals would want to go to Pittsburgh and similar 'steel town' places for iron ore and metallurgical coal, and whatever their equivalents were for copper, gold, silver. Are there any other minerals in Alaska or NW Canada in quantities that would lend themselves to rail shipment - and hence could support that massive required investment ? Oil already goes by pipeline, coal we already have but closer, and I don't see the timber volume as being enough to justify a rail line - or am I missing something there ? - Paul North. If I remember the October 2002 Trains article about the steel industry correctly, it seems like even then they traveled by water as much as possible.
Without looking up that article, I'd concede a little and say 'somewhat' - but then it was mostly to river or lake waters, not to tidewater = salt water ==> export to overseas manufacturers, which is how I take RWM's comment. And even then, it was mainly as an intermediate 'link' in the transportation/ logistics chain, which often then involved a transfer back to rail for the final move to the consuming plant. The classic example is of course all of the Minnesota and Michigan iron ore mine output that went on the specialized ore carriers - for some reason properly referred to as 'boats', not 'ships', despite the nomenclature practice elsewhere - on the Great Lakes to the down-lake ports along the southern shores of Lakes Michigan and Erie (bypassing Chicago and its rairloads and congestion along the way, incidentally). There, the ore was either delivered directly to the using mill, or to places for unloading and reloading such as Cleveland, from whence it went back onto the rails to go to the steel mills, such as as Pittsburgh. Also, the Labrador-Quebec iron ore mines always have had to go onto ships there on the Gulf of St. Lawrence to get to anyplace. Going the other way, a lot of iron ore was imported over water from Venezuela and Chile, among others, and unloaded in Philadelphia and Baltimore, etc. But a few of the Bethlehem Steel Co. iron ore mines here in Pennsylvania were all-rail to the consuming plant. Elsewhere, it is of course case-by-case. I'm not aware of significant iron ore movements by barge on either the Mississippi or Ohio Rivers, or to the clearly inland steel plants such as CF&I at Pueblo, Colo., USS Geneva in Utah, etc.
Other raw materials for steel are mainly coal/ coke, and limestone. Those were mainly all-rail moves from more local sources, although I suppose that barges on the big interior rivers and maybe even occasional boats on the Great Lakes and coastal steamers did carry those commodities, too. But in those instances, I suspect the water moves were more to keep the railroads honest and competitive in their rates, rather than as an unavoidable or convenient principal link in the transport route, or for an overseas destination.
samfp1943 Paul_D_North_Jr Railway Man [snip] Minerals want to go to tidewater. RWM Is that because - under recent and current economic conditions - the minerals have their highest and best use - and hence price - at overseas factories, instead of domestically, for metallurgical use (burning of coal) or smelting/ refining (for the ores) ? Didn't used to be that way. The minerals would want to go to Pittsburgh and similar 'steel town' places for iron ore and metallurgical coal, and whatever their equivalents were for copper, gold, silver. Are there any other minerals in Alaska or NW Canada in quantities that would lend themselves to rail shipment - and hence could support that massive required investment ? Oil already goes by pipeline, coal we already have but closer, and I don't see the timber volume as being enough to justify a rail line - or am I missing something there ? - Paul North. Railwayman is correct, and it is also a purpose in this case/proposal as well; check page 4 of the Summary Report in the initial post. There is shown a flow chart for the area Ports. The paths indicated are from the the interior (assume areas of mineral origin) to ports in Alaska, Youkon and British Columbia. The most problematic port seems to be Skagway, due to the tourist destination activities of that porty and its restrictions as to current physical boundaries of that port. The suggested solution is to create a new rail link to the port of Haines, Ak. and there to create the facility to handle bulk mineral activity and port facilities as deemed necessary at Haines. It would seem that construction of the proposed construction of the rail link to the ARR( eventually to meet the extention of ARR) at Delta Junction. Thislink would facilitate the construction of a natural gas pipeline to the lower 48, not to mention rail freight to Alaska, as well. One of the proposed paths is roughly paralleling the ALCAN Hwy. Interestingly, the already existing BCR ROW to the area of Deese Lake,BC does not seem to play an early roll in the proposals. Paul North has indicated that the conventional thinking of our formerly centralized Steel Industry was that raw materials went to a major tetminus (Wheeling-Pittsburgh, north of Wheeling,WVa. USSteel at Gary, In and Birmingham,Al ). Now the industry has dispursed to many locations around the country with the "mini'mill' concept to places like Osceola, Ar. Palestine,Tx and many other locations which might be destinations for minerals found in Northwest Canada and Alaska. Potential activities and their possibilities, not to mention new destination areas for the mineral production are still seeming to be worked out.
People write some funny stuff in reports sometimes, influenced by politics, personal bias, inability to get along with other people, or just garden-variety incompetence. Haines would be a very poor choice compared to Skagway.
Mineral resources of the region that are of interest include coal, iron ore, copper, zinc, lead, silver, gold, cobalt, tungsten, molybdenum, and others. Timber resources are not of interest beyond the Alaska Range, and marginally economic even on the tidewater side of the range, e.g., the vast U.S. subsidies necessary to support pulping and timbering in the Tongass National Forest.
Look globally, Paul, not nationally. And don't overlook all the tidewater smelters and steel mills in the U.S., e.g., Sparrows Point, Selby, Tacoma, Trenton, Philadelphia, etc.
Boyd Does anyone have a RR map of this area?
Not a great map but it does show that it's a long way from the existing Canadian RR system to the White Pass & Yukon;
http://alaskacanadarail.com/documents/Map_Page_ACRL.pdf
So the black lines and thin grey lines must be proposed routes? I searched for an hour last night and the pickens are thin. I wonder if the Canadian govt or Alaska govt have proposed routes on a website?
Paul_D_North_Jrericsp Paul_D_North_Jr Railway Man [snip] Minerals want to go to tidewater. RWM Is that because - under recent and current economic conditions - the minerals have their highest and best use - and hence price - at overseas factories, instead of domestically, for metallurgical use (burning of coal) or smelting/ refining (for the ores) ? Didn't used to be that way. The minerals would want to go to Pittsburgh and similar 'steel town' places for iron ore and metallurgical coal, and whatever their equivalents were for copper, gold, silver. Are there any other minerals in Alaska or NW Canada in quantities that would lend themselves to rail shipment - and hence could support that massive required investment ? Oil already goes by pipeline, coal we already have but closer, and I don't see the timber volume as being enough to justify a rail line - or am I missing something there ? - Paul North. If I remember the October 2002 Trains article about the steel industry correctly, it seems like even then they traveled by water as much as possible. Without looking up that article, I'd concede a little and say 'somewhat' - but then it was mostly to river or lake waters, not to tidewater = salt water ==> export to overseas manufacturers, which is how I take RWM's comment. And even then, it was mainly as an intermediate 'link' in the transportation/ logistics chain, which often then involved a transfer back to rail for the final move to the consuming plant. The classic example is of course all of the Minnesota and Michigan iron ore mine output that went on the specialized ore carriers - for some reason properly referred to as 'boats', not 'ships', despite the nomenclature practice elsewhere - on the Great Lakes to the down-lake ports along the southern shores of Lakes Michigan and Erie (bypassing Chicago and its rairloads and congestion along the way, incidentally). There, the ore was either delivered directly to the using mill, or to places for unloading and reloading such as Cleveland, from whence it went back onto the rails to go to the steel mills, such as as Pittsburgh. Also, the Labrador-Quebec iron ore mines always have had to go onto ships there on the Gulf of St. Lawrence to get to anyplace. Going the other way, a lot of iron ore was imported over water from Venezuela and Chile, among others, and unloaded in Philadelphia and Baltimore, etc. But a few of the Bethlehem Steel Co. iron ore mines here in Pennsylvania were all-rail to the consuming plant. Elsewhere, it is of course case-by-case. I'm not aware of significant iron ore movements by barge on either the Mississippi or Ohio Rivers, or to the clearly inland steel plants such as CF&I at Pueblo, Colo., USS Geneva in Utah, etc. Other raw materials for steel are mainly coal/ coke, and limestone. Those were mainly all-rail moves from more local sources, although I suppose that barges on the big interior rivers and maybe even occasional boats on the Great Lakes and coastal steamers did carry those commodities, too. But in those instances, I suspect the water moves were more to keep the railroads honest and competitive in their rates, rather than as an unavoidable or convenient principal link in the transport route, or for an overseas destination. - Paul North.
My point was that is appears to me that minerals usually are shipped by ship whenever possible. If this rail link is built, any minerals shipped by rail would probably just travel to the nearest port on the railroad.
Boyd So the black lines and thin grey lines must be proposed routes? I searched for an hour last night and the pickens are thin. I wonder if the Canadian govt or Alaska govt have proposed routes on a website?
That Alaska Canada raillink site is the main resource online. It includes study groups from both governments..Those are the proposed routes but keep in mind there is no funded project to buld it..
Paul_D_North_Jr Didn't used to be that way. The minerals would want to go to Pittsburgh and similar 'steel town' places for iron ore and metallurgical coal, and whatever their equivalents were for copper, gold, silver. Are there any other minerals in Alaska or NW Canada in quantities that would lend themselves to rail shipment - and hence could support that massive required investment ? Oil already goes by pipeline, coal we already have but closer, and I don't see the timber volume as being enough to justify a rail line - or am I missing something there ? - Paul North.
IIRC there was an article in TRAINS a while back that said the "virgin" steel industry (steel made from iron ore and other minerals, not remelted scrap) only survives where water transportationof raw materials is possible. What I got from the article is that the former Bethlehem Steel facilities at Sparrows Point (Baltimore) and Burns Harbor (Chicago), among others, are survivors because raw materials can be brought by water; all the former steel mills in the Mahoning Valley and the Pittsburgh area have closed because the raw materials arrived by rail at higher cost. My understanding is that the competition from China and other low-wage countries is the driving force. Corrections are welcome if I've scrambled the facts.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.