Connect Alaska to lower 48?

Boyd wrote:

Has there been much talk about a connection to the lower 48? Isn't there one or two narrow gauge lines in Alaska?

Alaska has two very active railroads: 

Alaska Railroad, 470 route miles, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alaska_Railroad

White Pass & Yukon Railway, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Pass_and_Yukon_Route

There are active, state-funded feasibility studies for a rail connection between the Alaska Railroad and the Lower 48.

RWM

....Guessing the line from Alaska would be connected to existing lines in Canada and the appropriate line{s}, down in the USA. Of course some additional lines {new}, may have to be integrated into the system.

Products to haul would most likely be similar to general merchandise hauled here in the 48.

I suppose it would be a combined project between Canada and the USA.

....Distance....I don't know, but I'd bet someone on here can come up with a close figure.  How about it Dale....

tatans wrote:

How would Alaska be connected to the rest of the U.S. ? ? Wouldn't it have to go through a country to the north called Canada?   What would be the benefit to Canada? also permission to run a foreign railway across Canada may not be permitted eh?  Or maybe, just maybe, Canada may be plotting to run a railway corridor from Canada to Mexico down the middle of the U.S. I wonder if that would be permitted by the U.S. government. What products shipped from Alaska to the motherland would constitute such an enormous and expensive cost/ (fisheads?) there is already a pipeline to Valdez, I hope they aren't going to start shipping oil by trains again are they? and what will the lower 48 ship to Alaska by train? coal? new cars? fur coats? All exciting questions eh???

There are several viable routes all of which, as you point, out, traverse Yukon Territory and British Columbia.  The Alaska endpoint is Delta Junction, near Fairbanks; the connection with the continental rail system is considering points such as Fort Nelson, Hazelton, Minaret, and Mackenzie, B.C., which are all CN system. An all-U.S. route is not viable as Alaska is disconnected; besides, a coastal route that followed the Alaska Panhandle is utterly infeasible unless virtually the entire length was in tunnel, much of it suboceanic. 

Canada and the U.S. are very much partners in this and many other endeavors and commercially, politically, and socially they are as closely linked as two nations have ever been.  Differences exist but for practical purposes they are far smaller than the alarmists, nativists, and ideologues would have us believe.

Traffic sources considered in the feasibility studies are centered on mineral resources in inland Alaska and Canada.  Shipping crude oil by rail from Alaska to the continental U.S. is not one of them, however; as ocean transportation is vastly less expensive.  Besides, Prudhoe Bay's oil output is rapidly declining and potential new sources are not expected to come close to replenishing its output at its peak.  Another large potential traffic source is pipe and construction materials to construct a large-diameter natural gas pipeline from Alaska and northwestern Canadian fields to the continental U.S., a $21 billion or so endeavor.

Any economic development of this sort would be an immense cash infusion into Alaska and northwestern Canada, whether that is a "benefit" I suppose depends on who you are and what you want Canada or the U.S. to be.

Total new mileage is between 1,300 and 1,600 depending on route selection and development scenario chosen.  It's meaningless to be more specific than that at this point as final route selection will vary idepending upon many factors such as environmental considerations, traffic projections, geologic considerations, economic considerations, funding plans, and final engineering decisions.

This link takes to you the feasibility report.

http://alaskacanadarail.com/

RWM

Modelcar wrote:

....Distance....I don't know, but I'd bet someone on here can come up with a close figure.  How about it Dale....

Hi Quentin,

It would be over 1,000 miles from CN (ex BCR) in Fort Nelson, BC, to the end of Alaska Railroad. State and Federal funding would likely cover the 200 to 300 mile US portion if the Canadian portion was built. I believe a large majority of the people along the Canadian section would be in favor of the connection. I really can't see anyone in this Country, or in yours, that would be willing to cover the cost of the Canadian section. $5 billion ? It will only be built if American taxpayers pay for it, therefore, it is not going to happen.

nanaimo73 wrote:

Modelcar wrote: ....Distance....I don't know, but I'd bet someone on here can come up with a close figure.  How about it Dale.... Hi Quentin, It would be over 1,000 miles from CN (ex BCR) in Fort Nelson, BC, to the end of Alaska Railroad. State and Federal funding would likely cover the 200 to 300 mile US portion if the Canadian portion was built. I believe a large majority of the people along the Canadian section would be in favor of the connection. I really can't see anyone in this Country, or in yours, that would be willing to cover the cost of the Canadian section. $5 billion ? It will only be built if American taxpayers pay for it, therefore, it is not going to happen.

You're probably right, Dale, about the lack of funding of $5 billion for the project.  It's a shame, really, especially since four times that amount was spent on the Osprey helicopter, and it still doesn't work right. -  al

tatans wrote:

What products shipped from Alaska to the motherland would constitute such an enormous and expensive cost/ (fisheads?) there is already a pipeline to Valdez, I hope they aren't going to start shipping oil by trains again are they? and what will the lower 48 ship to Alaska by train? coal? new cars? fur coats? All exciting questions eh???

With the possible exception of the fish-heads (or any other part of their anatomy), I presume that most of the commodities you mentioned would be prospective candidates.  Fur coats would probably go in intermodal vehicles of some sort.

But why not oil?  The pipline from Fairbanks (or thereabouts)  to Valdez probably costs almost as much to maintain as the northernmore half, and a rail pipeline (unit trains) probably wouldn't cause nearly the potential environmental problems (haven't we been reading about pipeline leaks that are causing oil proices to go up?).  Who knows?  Perhaps the availability of rail transportation might make refining operations feasible somewhere along the line.

Here is one for all of you.  There was a preliminary study made by a consulting firm, I believe A.T. Kearney to haul the Prodhue Bay oil via rail.  Really!  Bare with me, because it was around 40 years ago, but I think the idea was to barge the oil over to and up the Mackenzie River to a barge to rail transfer terminal on the south shore of Great Slave Lake.  Somehow the minor matter of a five month navigation season for the coastal/river move was dealt with (Very Large storage tanks?) and a proposal was made for facilities to rapidly load a train of 20,000 gallon tank cars.  And, as I recall, there was also a suggestion for the general routing of the rail line.  I don't recall the proposed routing beyond the new rail line.

Would it be a surprise to learn that nobody showed very much enthusiam for the plan?

Murphy Siding wrote:

I'd have to believe, that oil moves a lot faster and cheaper in a pipeline, than on a railroad.  How many gazillion gallons have shipped down the Alaska pipeline?  Currently, there is a proposal to run an oil pipeline from Canada to Oklahoma.  I haven't heard any mention of any rail alternative there, even though there are probably rail lines from Canada to Oklahoma already in place.

Unfortunately, I don't remember numbers but I seem to recall that there appeared to be some merit from the cost standpoint.  As I am sure you know, the Alaskan Oil Pipeline is far from the run-of-the-mill crude pipeline.  One thing I remember about the proposal was that it would take years longer to build than the pipeline.  It was suggested that a delay in bringing the oil to the market might not be so bad, as at the time imported oil would be cheaper to the refineries than the Alaskan Oil.  Anyway, oil people think pipes for transportation and it probably would have required a huge cost advantage to change the mindset.

Even with the benefit of hindsight, I doubt that the barge/rail proposal would be found to be a major lost oppurtunity.

Murphy Siding wrote:

I'd have to believe, that oil moves a lot faster and cheaper in a pipeline, than on a railroad.  How many gazillion gallons have shipped down the Alaska pipeline?  Currently, there is a proposal to run an oil pipeline from Canada to Oklahoma.  I haven't heard any mention of any rail alternative there, even though there are probably rail lines from Canada to Oklahoma already in place.

Speed isn't important; the opportunity cost of the transit time for the oil is not large.

Cost is important.  Operating costs are about 1.5 cents per ton-mile for a new, large-diameter pipeline vs. 2.5 cents per ton-mile for a new, heavy-haul railway.  You would only consider rail haulage if it was very short term and the rail line already existed.

RWM

cprted wrote:

Back in the 80s, BCR planned to build an extension to Dease Lake, BC. The RoR was purchased and graded, but forestry tanked so the project was canned. The graded roadbed still exists and is still owned by RR. At the time, I believe the line was billed as an way to connect Alaska by rail in the future.

Track was laid on about 1/3 of the Dease Lake Extension and the remainder was partially constructed and some bridges built.  The project had two goals, (1) to open northern B.C. to development (principally mineral) and (2) serve as an eventual connection to Alaska. 

Lumber prices didn't stop the Dease Lake Extension; what stopped it was the province ran out of enthusiasm for paying for immensely expensive public works projects. Lumber at that very long distance from consumers is not profitable to produce except when market cycles are at their peak.  The forests at that latitude do not produce high-quality trees or large-diameter trees.

RWM

Railway Man wrote:

Murphy Siding wrote:      I'd have to believe, that oil moves a lot faster and cheaper in a pipeline, than on a railroad.  How many gazillion gallons have shipped down the Alaska pipeline?  Currently, there is a proposal to run an oil pipeline from Canada to Oklahoma.  I haven't heard any mention of any rail alternative there, even though there are probably rail lines from Canada to Oklahoma already in place. Speed isn't important; the opportunity cost of the transit time for the oil is not large. Cost is important.  Operating costs are about 1.5 cents per ton-mile for a new, large-diameter pipeline vs. 2.5 cents per ton-mile for a new, heavy-haul railway.  You would only consider rail haulage if it was very short term and the rail line already existed. RWM

jeaton wrote:

Railway Man wrote:  Murphy Siding wrote:      I'd have to believe, that oil moves a lot faster and cheaper in a pipeline, than on a railroad.  How many gazillion gallons have shipped down the Alaska pipeline?  Currently, there is a proposal to run an oil pipeline from Canada to Oklahoma.  I haven't heard any mention of any rail alternative there, even though there are probably rail lines from Canada to Oklahoma already in place. Speed isn't important; the opportunity cost of the transit time for the oil is not large. Cost is important.  Operating costs are about 1.5 cents per ton-mile for a new, large-diameter pipeline vs. 2.5 cents per ton-mile for a new, heavy-haul railway.  You would only consider rail haulage if it was very short term and the rail line already existed. RWM   I can accept that operating cost differential, and I would be willing to wager that the capital cost of the new pipeline could be less that of a new heavy-haul railroad.  At least that would be the case if the pipeline didn't have to go over several mountain ranges and be built in a way to keep perma frost from melting.

Permafrost isn't much of an issue on this route; it's too far south.  Permafrost is a north-of-Fairbanks issue.  Where it's encountered locally the practice is to excavate and backfill.

The estimates are $8 million/mile for new rail construction on this route.  The estimate for the Prudhoe Bay-U.S. gas pipeline varies from $12-$24 million/mile but that includes the very expensive construction north of Fairbanks.  Mile for mile in equivalent terrain the cost is probably around $12 million/mile for the pipeline.

Bids were received for the gas pipeline concession last week.  This could prove very interesting.

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/headline/biz/5343623.html

RWM

Railway Man wrote:

jeaton wrote:  Railway Man wrote:  Murphy Siding wrote:      I'd have to believe, that oil moves a lot faster and cheaper in a pipeline, than on a railroad.  How many gazillion gallons have shipped down the Alaska pipeline?  Currently, there is a proposal to run an oil pipeline from Canada to Oklahoma.  I haven't heard any mention of any rail alternative there, even though there are probably rail lines from Canada to Oklahoma already in place. Speed isn't important; the opportunity cost of the transit time for the oil is not large. Cost is important.  Operating costs are about 1.5 cents per ton-mile for a new, large-diameter pipeline vs. 2.5 cents per ton-mile for a new, heavy-haul railway.  You would only consider rail haulage if it was very short term and the rail line already existed. RWM   I can accept that operating cost differential, and I would be willing to wager that the capital cost of the new pipeline could be less that of a new heavy-haul railroad.  At least that would be the case if the pipeline didn't have to go over several mountain ranges and be built in a way to keep perma frost from melting. Permafrost isn't much of an issue on this route; it's too far south.  Permafrost is a north-of-Fairbanks issue.  Where it's encountered locally the practice is to excavate and backfill. The estimates are $8 million/mile for new rail construction on this route.  The estimate for the Prudhoe Bay-U.S. gas pipeline varies from $12-$24 million/mile but that includes the very expensive construction north of Fairbanks.  Mile for mile in equivalent terrain the cost is probably around $12 million/mile for the pipeline. Bids were received for the gas pipeline concession last week.  This could prove very interesting. http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/headline/biz/5343623.html RWM

If it could have been built, the Railroad Companies would have started on the project in 1955 and would have finished by 1985.

Andrew

Railway Man wrote:

Traffic sources considered in the feasibility studies are centered on mineral resources in inland Alaska and Canada.  Shipping crude oil by rail from Alaska to the continental U.S. is not one of them, however; as ocean transportation is vastly less expensive.

Ah, a pity. I do remember (but don't easy access to right now) a column or two by Trains Professional Iconoclast (always loved that name) proposing just such a connection as an alternative to constructing the Alaska Pipeline. His "integral train" proposal would supposedly be cost comptitive (vs. the cost of all new pipeline and terminals) and would have the option of routing crude oil so shipped to refineries in any part of the US, not just the west coast.

Another interesting "mighta been".

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WEKxpvgxCT4

"If you don't finish you're schooling....you might end up in Iraq" - John Kerry

>>>It's a shame, really, especially since four times that amount was spent on the Osprey helicopter, and it still doesn't work right. -  al

....Not only could a connection to the lower 48 haul crude oil but how about all the other products as well.  Haul both ways.

tatans wrote:

Or maybe, just maybe, Canada may be plotting to run a railway corridor from Canada to Mexico down the middle of the U.S. I wonder if that would be permitted by the U.S. government.

So this Canadian Railroad already operates (at least indirectly perhaps) in 3 countries.

tatans wrote:

Wouldn't it have to go through a country to the north called Canada?

Not at all; the current plan is to build a bridge.

Gabe

P.S.  They put me here because they think I am slow, eh?

It would be easy enough to leave it as three-rail and temporally separate freight and passenger.  Given the heavy passenger train volume during daytime, the lack of space at Skagway, and that the freight business could not amount to greater than 2-4 trains a day, temporal separation might be the chosen solution anyway.

RWM

tatans wrote:

Or maybe, just maybe, Canada may be plotting to run a railway corridor from Canada to Mexico down the middle of the U.S. I wonder if that would be permitted by the U.S. government.

Think they already did - ever hear of a little pike called CN?  The Canadians have made other forays into the U.S., aka Canadian Pacific.

The oil prduction at Prudhoe bay is not declining!

The well heads came in at 1700 lbs. sq,in Artisian, and still maintain that pressure. The first full day of oil tranport thru the pipeline was 1.7 million barrals. It now stands at 1.2 million barrals a day. The oil pundits claimed Prudoe Bay's fields would last 20 years, it's now 32 years. As noted it's still maintains it's Artesian pressure, it's the pipe thats wearing out! If you look closley you will see that the pipe saddles (that support the pipe above the perma frost) are wide enough to accomodate 2 lines.

Gull Island, is a few miles off of Prudoe Bay oil fields. It's a bigger find than Prodoe Bay! I worked on the pipeline and made some friends with some execs rather high up in the food chain. They unbeknownst to one another have told me Gull Island will start production when oils hits $150.00 a barrel. The Gull find became classified as a hedge against a dictatorship-s holding the US hostage.

Russia found oil at 40,000 feet. Ain't no Dinasours down there. Oil is Ambiotic it turns out, not fossill.