rails to alaska? to asia?

[Anonymous]

Sounds like a great idea . the highways are not safe to travel i would love to ride a train to the great north
doug barnhart

[f14aplusfl]

Why not? It makes sense. Whether the money is there is another story.

[Anonymous]

Welcome to the forums!!!

bikemaster
grayfox1119
Mapleleafs
zhyachts

[oltmannd]

QUOTE: Originally posted by leftlimp

The most logical way to finance the Alaska Rail Link is to give a land grant to whatever entity is awarded to rights to build the link. Doesn't the federal government own something like 10,000,000 acres of land in the Great State of Alaska? Why not take half that and give it as the land grant to the eventual rail link builder? You can bet your bottom dollar the rail link would be built within our lifetimes with such a land grant. Unfortunately, most of you supposedly pro-rail types are also predisposed to the far left take on political issues such as land grants (e.g. you'd all oppose the idea of reducing the amount of federal land ownership in the West, instead insisting on taxpayer funding of the project), thus due to the predominance of left wing extremism, the rail link will never ever be built. It's as simple as that!

Land grants are an interesting way to subsidized construction, but generally amount to a drop in the bucket of overall cost, as they did with the transcon RR.

If land grants were significant, then why weren't the interstate highways built by private concerns with land grants? They were built as public works financed out of tax revenue by that noted radical left-winger, Eisenhower!!

[Anonymous]

Yes, we CAN do things like this, just like we CAN send men to the moon & Mars. But I've seen the pictures of Mars and three thoughts come to mind right away. It is flatter and more desolate than Afganistan. It has no atmosphere that humans can live in. It has no Starbucks coffee shops. Need I say more?

[grayfox1119]

Having been to Ak, and rode the rails from Seward to Anchorage to Fairbanks, I would be in 6th heaven to ride al the way from Worcester, Mass to Ak through some of the most beautiful scenery on God's earth. I feel that many tourist would jump at the chance to ride a train via this route. Tourist travel to Ak has steadily been rising with over 1 million people visiting Ak last year. Yes, they come via air and by cruise ship, and some via the Alcan highway now because those are the only modes at present. If we can dream it, we can do it. We put a man on the moon and the technical gains that we derived from the products arising from this venture are too numerous to mention. Rail links to AK would open up BC and Yukon for development, tourism, hunting, fishing, camping, etc., not to mention cheaper prices in AK for their goods from the lower 48 and Canada.
As for oil? Guess what guys and gals; there are trillions of barrels of oil buried under Alberta not even tapped into yet, There is enough oil under the ground there to supply the whole world for over 100 years!! Now wouldn't that be nice to have rail service available to connect BC, the Yukon and into AK?
Too many times we tend to look for reasons and problems as to why we "can't" do something. We can do ANYTHING if we put our hearts and minds into the project. It can be done, and you know what? It WILL be done, bet on it !!!

*** [:)]

[Anonymous]

Not a chance! Though it sounds interesting.... as you mentioned, it may be appx 1000 miles to Ft St John--but what about Vancouver/Seattle--those two are 2500 miles away! And there aint much between Anchorage/Fairbanks and Seattle/Vancouver (Yes, I know that these two sets of cities aren't exactly close, but it's done for a point). Also if we checked, I'll be the population of Seattle and Vancouver exceeds the population of the State of Alaska.

Another thing to consider is that the ARR only runs daily passenger service from roughly Memorial Day to Labor Day--sure, it is a few weeks longer, but not much. The rest of the year, (Sep-May) the train runs from Anchorage to Fairbanks on Sat, and returns on Sun. Oh, by the way, it only has 3 cars during this time. Also, to bring the population issue back into consideration, the State of Alaska only has about 650K residents--for the entire state--which is 2.5 times the size of Texas!

Now, having cast a gloom and doom on this entire subject, lets think about what would necessitate this. Passenger travel just AINT gonna cover the cost of this idea. And neither the US nor the Canadian govt is gonna foot the kinda bill this would entail w/o something in return. So, where does that leave us..... Freight or unit trains... and there are only two or three possibilities here. the first, and most obvious is oil. Ehhhhhh, probably not. Somehow I don't think the powers that be are gonna like the idea of an Ak-Canada-Lower48 rail link shutting down the pipeline and the Valdez oil terminal. Not too mention, that Canada already has their own strategic oil reserve. 2), coal. Once again, probably not, I think the Powder River has that game taken care of. 3) Intermodal..... A possibility--granted. However, that would require the construction of a new intermodal facility. Now this could be adventageous, as it might reduce some of the burden from other facilities in Ca, etc. However, the most likely places, Valdez, Whittier, Seward, etc, are all limited by local topography. Not to mention, that the narrow waterways in these areas may not be able to support the amount of sea traffic this would generate. Remember, Valdez is already swamped with tankers.

There is another thought. In this era of mega-mergers, how long do you think the ARR would survive. Most ARR employees that I know hope that the ARR never extends to the Yukon border. They like who they are and who they work for. They don't really want to be employees of the CP/CN or any other Class I.

Just the thoughts of a guy who lives in the area. Would it be nice to follow the RR from Anchorage/Fairbanks all the way to Washington.......? Yeah, it kinda would, but I don't see that one ever happening. But I've been wrong before... :-)

John Clum
Eagle River, Alaska

[RudyRockvilleMD]

This an interesting concept, and there have been proposals to link Alaska to the US by rail, but I doubt if we will see it in our lifetimes. The costs of construction and operation would be much too high, and how much freight traffic is there to justify it? The construction of a rail link to Alaska might be justified on the basis of national defense, and supported by the Department of Defense.

[zhyachts]

The Alaska/Russia link will increasingly make sense as the world's oil reserves run out. Eventually oil will be far too expensive to use ships for freight. The oil market will drift to the highest return such as transcontinental flight where people will pay for the time savings. Freight and travel that's not time sensitive will have to go by electric powered transportation, which will be rail for long distances. Environmentally this electric rail service will have less negative impact on our planet than the oil fired shipping industry.

Will this happen in our time? Probably not - but it will happen.

One of the pressures to solve the North Korean problem is Japan's dream of rail service to Europe. A tunnel from Japan to South Korea will be built long before the Bering Strait tunnel. Russia and China are already developing, and competing for, parts of this link. This will have a negitive impact on the U.S. railroad's lucrative land bridge service.

Bill Kimley
Zhuhai, China

[Anonymous]

I truley think that we will rails to Alaska in our lifetime it would cost a ton of money but we did the Panama Canal why can't we do it now

[CG9602]

These are interesting ideas, though they are quite expensive. I think that Trains had an article several months back about one politician who decided that the time had come to re-start the rail construction ( or at least look at new proposals) for the rail line from Northern BC to Alaska. The roadbed was built, in places, in northern BC along a tributary of the Yukon River (I think).

As for the Bering Strait project, here are some sites to peruse:
http://www.headway.us/read.php?i=146

http://www.theglobalrailway.com/pressbureau/features/TheBeringStraitProjectCollectedPapers.htm

http://home.att.net/~Berliner-Ultrasonics/strunnel.html

http://www.arctic.net/~snnr/tunnel/

It's an intriguing idea, and something that a politican could hang the hat upon (kind of like how the Apollo moon pgm is associated with President kennedy and the Panama Canal with TR), but where's the money going to come from? More importantly, where's the drive going to come from as well?

[Anonymous]

Many of the native tribes own the land here. Which means that the goverment will have to purchase that land, should the propsed route ever go on that land. But thats one of the may issues we might face during/before the constuction.
We can't forget about "The friends of animals" who will do anything in their power to prevent the rail link from ever happening because of the possible "impact" on Alaska's wildlife.

[Anonymous]

I for one would really love to see this happen. It would certainly be a lot more practical than going to Mars!

[Anonymous]

The most logical way to finance the Alaska Rail Link is to give a land grant to whatever entity is awarded to rights to build the link. Doesn't the federal government own something like 10,000,000 acres of land in the Great State of Alaska? Why not take half that and give it as the land grant to the eventual rail link builder? You can bet your bottom dollar the rail link would be built within our lifetimes with such a land grant. Unfortunately, most of you supposedly pro-rail types are also predisposed to the far left take on political issues such as land grants (e.g. you'd all oppose the idea of reducing the amount of federal land ownership in the West, instead insisting on taxpayer funding of the project), thus due to the predominance of left wing extremism, the rail link will never ever be built. It's as simple as that!

[jeaton]

That might be the schedule, but it will probably take 90.

[Train Guy 3]

Why not, build it all. Around the world in 80 days........ by rail.

[TH&B]

What's on Mars???
The line to Russia is probably too much of a good thing, but I realy do support the line to Alaska from the 48, it would be usefull and practical. Auatralia is just finishing up a new trancontinental north-south line.

[Anonymous]

Congress has indeed been known to sponsor Jules Verne-i***ype boon-doggles. I say let's go! If some private corporation(s) are willing to foot the bill and absorb the profit or loss, then get it on. But Bush's interest is in going to Mars. [Perhaps he's looking for some more suckers to support our debts.] All these guys with great ideas to spend my money are too much! Come to think of it, they aren't spending my money, but my great-grandchildren's. Andyjay, if there was any feasable way to run a railroad to Alaska[or Mars!] and make a profit from it, some slick Capitalist would have done it many generations ago. And LC, there isn't any "public works" cash left; that thin, red line you see on the horizon is the brick wall that we are approaching at notch 8...

[Anonymous]

There have been talks in the past about such project. I believe that a rail link to Alaska will only do good for our great state. Not only it will relive the traffic on Alaska and other major highways, it could bring money to our trasury. Tourism, gas and oil are some major things that bring our state money. Transporting oil might be a lot easier/cheaper by rail than by barge. Tourist flow from the Lower 48 states and Canada will increase.
What does that mean? Money.

[Anonymous]

DOn't hold your breath on this happening anytime soon. Unless I miss my guess Pres. Bush's recent pronouncements concerning NASA and the Moon and Mars are gonna soak up a LOT of any "public works" type cash likely to be available for a while...

LC

[Anonymous]

I don't think we'll ever see it in our life times. I'm not trying to be negative but there are a few major issues.

1- Money - who is going to pay for it? Will it return its investment?

2 - Construction in the great north is slow. One can only work for a few months.

There was a whoel show on TLC explain how they wanted to build a bridge connecting USA to Russia. The bridge would handle both trains and trucks.

It's a major under taking. I believe that money and time could be better spent on improving the exist rail system. But then again I'm just a fan.

[JoeKoh]

this could be possible in the future.I have seen reports about buiding a railtunnel from spain to morrocco accross the strait of gilbrailter.connecting europe and africa.
stay safe
Joe

[oltmannd]

This is exactly the kind of giant public work project that produces huge benefits to society the the gov't needs to undertake. The private sector has not been able to generate the capital and sustain the lag from design to implemenation on projects like these since the gilt age. Benefit would primarily be moving goods. China , Russia, US and Canada would reap huge benefits being able to move high value cargo (i.e. consumer electronics) faster and almost as cheaper as container ship service.

I fear that as a society, we are so locked into entitlement programs and/or worshipping the free market that we can't see our way clear to do things like this anymore. Even China, which is still dirt-poor on the average is finding a way to built a massive high speed rail network.

[Anonymous]

For nearly a century, American railroads- and the government- have had a back-burner desire to build a railroad to Alaska, connecting with the Alaska Railroad at or near Fairbanks. In my opinion it would be somewhat feasible, as the nearest viable railroad track terminates "only" about 1000 miles away at Fort St. John, British Columbia. The Canadian government also seems on board with the idea. Alaska governor Frank Murkowski is, of course, the main supporter. The plan has also been touted by supporters of Reagan's "Star Wars" missile defense system, which would likely involve construction in Alaska; the railroad would serve as a key supply line.
I'm not too keen on the "Star Wars" idea, but I would be all for a rail line to Alaska. First of all it would lessen traffic on the Alaska Highway, which despite its very rural nature is obviously an important transportation artery, being so far the only land-based link with the rest of the nation, therefore the chances of a damaging road accident which would cut things off for about a week or so would be reduced. Prices on Alaskan goods might drop with the adding shipping option a railroad would bring. Perhaps best of all, a joint American-Canadian construction might mend fences between the two nations damaged by disagreement over the Iraq war. Didn't the Chunnel, another monumental public works project, somewhat do the same for those old cultural rivals the British and French (at least while it was being built, anyway)?
Lastly, I'd imagine there might be some considerable demand for passenger trains from the 48 states and major Canadian cities to Alaska. It might not be a scheduled Amtrak- or VIA-styled service, but sort of a privately run "land cruise" like the American Orient Express. Given the obvious weariness that precludes most "Lower 48ers" from driving to the 49th state due to the long distance, I might think a good number of people would enjoy the idea of being whisked along overland to the natural splendor of Alaska. Once again, travel rates and lodging fees to there might go down.
So what do you think of the idea of an Alaska rail link? Who do you think might build and operate it? The American or Canadian government or both, just the governments of the province of British Columbia, the Yukon Territory, and the state of Alaska, or a private company? Would perhaps trains from America's freight rail titans, CN, CP Rail, and the Alaska Railroad all be allowed on the tracks? And would it be owned by one of the above companies, the above governments, or a totally separate private company similar to that which operates the Chunnel? Either way, I think it's an idea whose time has come, and Alaska deserves a rail link with the rest of North America. It certainly seems like a less daunting task than building the Trans-Siberian Railroad must have seemed to the Russians in the czarist era.

A bit less feasible is the plan (you might not believe this, but it does exist) to tunnel under the Bering Strait and link with the Trans-Siberian Railroad, thus providing a rail link between the Americas and Eurasia. Obviously many problems come up; it's something like a few thousand miles from the Bering Strait to the Trans-Siberian, through some of the most inhospitable territory on Earth. And then there is the issue of track gauge (the Russians use 5-foot gauge); although some supporters have proposed cars with telescoping axles, hauled by specially appointed standard-gauge locomotives. Obviously the very idea boggles the mind, although digging the tunnel itself would not be so difficult, as the Bering Strait is only about as deep as the Strait of Dover (remember it used to be dry during the Ice Age, which of course was how the Indians got here), and there are the small Diomedes Islands in the middle which could serve as supply stations.
Despite the Jules Verne-ish nature of the plan, it is sponsored by some Alaska congressmen as well as the Russian government. Admittedly, it would be pretty interesting to ride a train from New York to London, even though the ride would probably take about 3-4 weeks. Of course I don't think this one would be a possibility. It's just too much of a roundabout way to profitably ship cargo from even the West Coast of America and Canada to Western Europe via Montana, Alberta, British Columbia, the Yukon, Alaska, Siberia, Russia, and Eastern Europe, not while the Panama Canal is still in business and we still have east-west lines across the continent and ports on the East Coast. Alaska si, Bering no.