Rail Link to Alaska, Part II

[WM7471]

440cuin wrote: "I for one do remember John Knieling's articles and his tank train. I also tend to agree about the possibility of shipping oil this way could be cheaper then pipe and safer then boat, if done properly. But none seems interested in doing that, too bad though."

Just a possble reason for the oil companies preferring pipelines to tank trains from your friendly neighborhood cynic: Oil companies form partnerships to build, maintain and operate oil pipeline companies at a profit by charging themselves to trainsport their oil from point "A" to point "B". This expense is then passed along to the consumer as higher prices at the pump, to enable them to move money from your pocket, Point "C" to their pocket, Point "D".

[soapbox]

Anyone calling themselves 440 cuin should know this, I remember my Charger R/T fondly.

[TH&B]

I for one do remember John Knieling's articles and his tank train. I also tend to agree about the possibility of shipping oil this way could be cheaper then pipe and safer then boat, if done properly. But none seems interested in doing that, too bad though.

[Anonymous]

Didn't you see Alaskaman's post? The nearest any rail line gets to the Bering Strait is about a thousand miles away through very cold and rocky terrain.

[Anonymous]

and what ever happened to the bearing straight tunnel? I heard they had actually started it in 1900, but gave up. Wouldn't it be similar to the chunnel?

[Anonymous]

Yeah, I asked about that Bering Strait tunnel idea back when I brought up this idea about a month or so ago. I still think an Alaska rail link would be an interesting idea, but perhaps that Lewiston-Missoula link would be a better first move.
You were born on Russia's east coast, Alaskaman? How long did you live there? What exactly is it like?

[espeefoamer]

QUOTE: Originally posted by daveklepper

Why stop with Alaska? How about a Bearing Strait Tunnel and a rail link to now non-Communist Russia and thus a USA - Europe rail link, rather round about, but something to think about. Dave Klepper

The Russian rail system is built on a 5 foot guage.

[overall]

I am old enough to remember a commentator named John Knieling who wrote a column in TRAINS magazine called the "Professional Iconoclast". In one of those columns, he proposed hauling the oil out by rail using tank trains. This is a train in which all the cars are linked together with a pipe so that the entire train could be filled up or emtied out from one connection. I think I remember him saying that the track could be built, train sets bought and crews trained for less than it was going to take to build the pipe line. He berated the industry for not selling this idea. Maybe some of the over forty types who read this board might recall this also.

George

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by daveklepper

Why stop with Alaska? How about a Bearing Strait Tunnel and a rail link to now non-Communist Russia and thus a USA - Europe rail link, rather round about, but something to think about. Dave Klepper

When talking about a rail link to Russia, we first need to consider two things. First, we will need to lay a new line through Alaska, about 300 miles. Then, even if the tunnel is built, what's next? The closest mainline to where the line that will come ashore in Russia is about 2000 miles away. 2000 miles of rugged mountainous terrain, wich will cost a lot more than the proposed Alaska link. The cities on the other side of the Bering Strait are not even connected to main cities in Russia (about 2500 miles south, where i was born)
by a road network, airplane is the only way of getting there.

[Anonymous]

Is the Alaska Rail Link the most important proposed rail line project in North America? I would think the Lewiston-Missoula Rail Link has more merit, since it only requires the construction of a 100 or so miles of new rail line to connect the West Coast's most inland barge port with the Northern Tier rail grid (e.g. BNSF in Montana), while the Alaska Rail Link would require a 1000 or so miles. At a cost of $5 million per mile, the L & M rail link would cost $500 million, while the Alaska Rail Link would cost $5 billion. In terms of commodities to pay for the respective lines, the L & M Rail Link would be a vital link in the current movement of export grain and heavy haul containers, while the Alaska line would be dependent on the development of on line resource development, a risky venture. It is doubtful the Alaska line would be used for much Pacific Rim export cargo from the Midwest.

[daveklepper]

Why stop with Alaska? How about a Bearing Strait Tunnel and a rail link to now non-Communist Russia and thus a USA - Europe rail link, rather round about, but something to think about. Dave Klepper

[WM7471]

It's a wonderful idea, who's time most likely has still not come. The only way that it will happen is if both the US and Canadian governments decide to pay for it and run it, since the chance of either CN or CP (or both) taking it on would be somewhere between slim and none. The State of Alaska would probably be willing to pay for and operate it's part as part of the Alaska Railroad which is a state property based on what I have read.

So the question would be if Canada would spring for several billion to build a relativly low density heavy duty line through 1000 miles of wilderness. Yes, it would undoubtedly stimulate the economies of the areas near it's route, but I think we can be reasonably sure that Canada would want the US to chip in since Alaska would be the primary recipient of the benifits at least in the beginning.

Then, there is the question of who would operate such a line? In the beginning it would be a bridge line for the most part, with most freight going north and a lot of it consumer goods and construction equipment. It would take at least several years before you saw any appreciable freight south (minerals, oil, LNG and forest products) the minerals would require trackwork capable of the new 315,000 pound cars.

A lot of track would be built on muskeg and permafrost so it would take a lot of expensive maintenance. Since you would need smooth well maintained track for the big user, tourist trains, 6 to 10 a day, each way would I think be reasonable in summer.

Also, with the passenger load would come the requirment for a reasonable amount of speed. I don't know what Canada would allow for passenger train speeds on dark track , but the 49 mph that the US allows, just wouldn't cut it. So, the line would need signals.(the tourist trains would need to be able to go up, see the sights and come back in a week, even if their southern terminal was in Edmonston. It has a big enough airport to handle the job. Trains from Chicago, L.A., New York or Toronto have to be 2 - 4 week high end trips.)

Towns would have to be built for those who would both build and operate the line year 'round. That is another continuing expense.

And then there are the environmental costs. Expect the environmentalist to fight this tooth and nail on every little item not to mention the claims of Native Americans, etc. Look for the lawyers to eat up any possible profits.

Too bad, It is a great idea. But, the roads and airports already exist and the pipelines are comming, so unless there is some great need for a railroad to be built by and operated by the US and Canadian governments at a loss. Don't hold your breath. [2c]

[Anonymous]

Alaska should have been linked by rail to the U.S./Canadian/Mexican network by mid twentieth century. That would not be just for the sake of Alaska, but it would also help open up the more remote areas of Canada. A rail link would facilitate the shipment of lumber, minerals, oil, and gas out and manufactured goods and food going in. Such a rail line would be similar in length, terrain, and remoteness to the Trans-Siberian Railway. Imagine the spectacular scenery viewed from passenger trains! The national defense importance cannot be overlooked either. It's a wonder that such a railway was not built during World War II or during the 1950's when the DEW Line was built. In addition to the radar sites, interceptor bases, dispersal fields originally built for SAC bombers, the Army has usually maintained a brigade up there. The area is large and important enough for one or more divisions. I was not aware of plans for a Stryker Brigade in Alaska. It does make sense. All of the armored vehicles are supposed to fit into C-130's and could range throughout northern Asia. Why would an Alaska-based unit benefit from a continental rail link? In wartime or the beginning of a crisis, such units would deploy by air and be resupplied by sea unless it is a small raid to a remote location. Air and sea transport assets would be in great demand in war and too expensive for routine peacetime logistical support. Currently we can use an all highway route through Canada or a combination of ship, Alaska RR and/or truck for military and civilian transport. That is why the cost of living, industry and defense up there is so high. There may not be a single compelling reason for building a railroad to Alaska, but the combination of raw material shipment, heavy industry, merchandise freight, local passenger travel, tourism, and defense are reasons for building a railroad to our largest and most remote state. Those very same reasons are why the big three North American nations should re-invest in their railway systems and upgrade for higher frequency, higher speeds, and heavier tonnages. Likewise, those are the same reasons for also building a comprehensive space transportation system at the same time. Expensive? Not compared with the cost of paying for more oil wars, paying people not to work, and paying for consumer goods imported from third-rate countries whose workers labor under near slave-labor conditions while our standard of living continues to slide down the toilet.

[Anonymous]

About a year ago I drew on a map a possible ARR/BCR connection. I hope they do it!

[CG9602]

I think this is a fascinating idea. It would enable RR's to ship mineral resources out of Alaska in addition to making the land-sea route to Asia that much shorter, ad competitive with the Panama Canal. I think it would also be fun to be able to ride a passenger train to Alaska and back. I gotta ask, though: Where is the justification? At what cost will there be benefits?

One can always dream. Oh, well.

[greyhounds]

How on Earth could this support the Stryker Brigade. The whole point of those brigades is to have some form of light armor force that is air transportable.

I can't see any need for a railroad to Alaska.

Of course, there was no aparent need for BC Rail. But when you're spending other people's money there is aparently no need for a need.

[espeefoamer]

BC Rail has been sold to the CN.

[Anonymous]

I would love to see it happen I think that they shuod use BCRAIL's existing track until the place they'ed have to build new and who would own it the Goverment or BC RAIL and ALASKA RAILROADS

[CSSHEGEWISCH]

It sounds good on paper but the view from down here suggests that it won't happen anytime soon. BCR's Dease Lake line was viewed in some quarters as the beginning of a line to Alaska but much of that line never got beyond the initial surveys and grading and most of the rest is out of service.

It would also be interesting to see how this proposal plays out if CN's lease of BCR is approved.

[Anonymous]

This article appeared today in our newspaper. (Opinion Section)
I thought it was interestring.


Voice of the Times
(Published: January 26, 2004)
STARS SEEM ALIGNED FOR . . . Rail link

THE TIME may just be right to link the Alaska Railroad to the continental railway system at Fort Nelson, B.C., a 1,000-mile extension that could have enormous economic implications for Alaska and Western Canada.

One of the previous problems with the long-sought rail link has been lack of enthusiasm from the Canadian government in Ottawa, but our neighboring nation’s new Prime Minister Paul Martin seems more positive about the idea.

With a gas pipeline from Alaska’s North Slope likely to be built in the relatively near future and members of Alaska’s congressional delegation now in key positions in Washington, building the estimated $3 billion project may be within reach.

The time is certainly appropriate to take a good hard look at the possibilities and pursue them if we can.

Gov. Frank Murkowski suggests the railroad could be constructed in the same transportation corridor as the gas pipeline and new fiber optic and electric lines.

The Alaska Railroad now ends at Eielson Air Force Base outside Fairbanks. The most likely route of the gas pipeline is along the Alaska Highway to the U.S. Midwest.

The railroad link is apparently not essential to construction of a gas pipeline, but building them together could provide beneficial economies of scale and mutual support. How the railroad construction costs would be split between the United States and Canada is unclear, but the benefits to both are impressive.

The railroad extension could open important new economic opportunities in the continent’s Northwest region. Those include investments in oil and gas development, mining, tourism and other industries.

And former North Pole Rep. Jeannette James says Sen. Ted Stevens endorses the railroad link and believes it would be useful for support of the Army’s new Stryker brigade here.

One key aspect to the timing is Congressman Don Young’s chairmanship of the U.S. House Transportation Committee. The governor rightly points out that the time to move on such a project is now, while Young is still chairman.

Among the project enthusiasts at a recent conference on the subject in Juneau were Yukon Premier Dennis Fentie and two members of the British Columbia Parliament, Minister Greg Halsey-Brandt and Mr. Dennis MacKay, a member of the Northern Caucus. The conference was sponsored by Sen. John J. Cowdery, chair of the Alaska Senate Transportation Committee, and Rep. Jim Holm, his House counterpart.

The stars may at last be aligned to link the Alaska Railroad to the continental rail system. It’s time to find out.



What do you think?