Overmod ccltrains Before any serious rough is given to a rail line to Nome we need to connect the Alaska Railroad to the rest of the US. There is no way to do that along the coast; in fact the A2A and G7G routes represent about the shortest workable connection (both to Canada and to the USA). If there were additional need, an organized train-ferry service, or small dedicated coastal intermodal container transfer, perhaps with 'icebreaking' provision, would be far more cost-effective than trying all-rail.
ccltrains Before any serious rough is given to a rail line to Nome we need to connect the Alaska Railroad to the rest of the US.
There is no way to do that along the coast; in fact the A2A and G7G routes represent about the shortest workable connection (both to Canada and to the USA).
If there were additional need, an organized train-ferry service, or small dedicated coastal intermodal container transfer, perhaps with 'icebreaking' provision, would be far more cost-effective than trying all-rail.
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
charlie hebdo Alaska has a population of only 738,400,#47, almost half in the Anchorage area. The gross state product ranks #48. Most of the economy is gas and oil, then seafood followed by tourism, all using pipelines and shipping. A railroad line connecting to Canada and the lower 48 is analogous to the earlier "bridge to nowhere."
Alaska has a population of only 738,400,#47, almost half in the Anchorage area. The gross state product ranks #48. Most of the economy is gas and oil, then seafood followed by tourism, all using pipelines and shipping. A railroad line connecting to Canada and the lower 48 is analogous to the earlier "bridge to nowhere."
ccltrainsBefore any serious rough is given to a rail line to Nome we need to connect the Alaska Railroad to the rest of the US.
MidlandMikeAlso the A2A proposed line starts from the Alberta oil sands. There has been falling investment there over the last 5 years. Oil is a very economically volatile commodity.
Which is why via the same line you would probably build it to mines of other minerals instead of being a one commodity rail line. Look at a map of Alaska that shows the deposits of various minerals and they are clustered in various areas. I am not sure anyone yet knows the quantities of most of the minerals as I do not think there has been a lot of exploration given the lacking transportation network in the state.
GrampWhy wouldn't CN want to build a branch line to the area?
Because railways always want a guarantee of profitable business running for 20-30 years before they construct a rail line of any significance. This is precisely why the Feds had to step in and back the transcontinental rail line. It wasn't until the transcontinental line started to prove itself that you had other railroads later attempt private financing.
Also, why Wisconsin sponsors new rail lines using taxpayer money or state backed bonds because it decided the state cannot afford to wait for the railroad to determine if construction is viable over a half century or more. The state would rather construct the line now and subsidize it until it is viable (if it makes a mistake....so be it). Even so there has to be a business threshold for the state to invest it's money, so that the money is not completely wasted.
The only reason the coal line to the Powder River Basin was built is they had at least a 15 year guarantee of Coal trains running not sure what their 20-30 year forecasts showed. Additionally they had another railroad partnering in the costs and probably some government financing or help as well.
Why wouldn't CN want to build a branch line to the area?
Regarding investment in rail lines thru northern mineral belts, I am reminded of the Ring-of-Fire mineral development in northern Ontario. It's the largest known chrome deposit in North America, along with other minerals. It's about 200 miles to a connection with the CN at Nakina. The mine developers went to the provence for help, but Ontario was only interested if the line was lengthened substantially to connect to the Ontario Northland, a ward of the provence. They seemed to have prescribed their own poison pill. The present plan is for a road.
Also the A2A proposed line starts from the Alberta oil sands. There has been falling investment there over the last 5 years. Oil is a very economically volatile commodity.
To help bring some additional information together on these two proposals for similar railroads in the Canadian Northwwest and Alaska.
I have a linked site on another TRAINS Forum Thread from October of this year:
"G 7 G Railway - Fort McMurray, Alberta to Delta Junction, Alaska"
linked @ http://cs.trains.com/trn/f/111/t/284505.aspx
There is on this Thread the G 7 G's linked website.
CMStPnP Fred M Cain Mike and Charlie, Well, there was that one company (A2A) that sounded really serious about connecting the Alaska Railroad to the rail system in Canada (and therefore to the lower 48 states). https://a2arail.com/ I e-mailed them and finally did get a response back. Yes, the project really is for real but that doesn't mean that it will ever actually happen. On the other hand it is most definately NOT just a "pipe dream". Another issue is that I got an answer back from them just before the pandemic broke out so I have no idea how that's affecting their plans. It all boils down to money. If they can somehow, someway manage to raise the necessary funds for construction (never mind paying for the numerous lawsuits) it might just become a reality. But we have watched this movie before, haven't we? So then again, maybe not. I'm cautiously optimistic about it but I sure wouldn't dare to bet the farm on it, either. Regards, Fred M. Cain Nice website. I think they need to be more specific with what minerals and locations they are specifically interested in. In order to do that they need a partner though interested in mining and lets face it.......no mining company is going to spend money on this unless they have Federal Government cooperation. So in my view it needs both Private and Public sponsors to go further down the track as they say. I really think it needs to be government driven under the excuse of opening Alaska up to development and new migration.
Fred M Cain Mike and Charlie, Well, there was that one company (A2A) that sounded really serious about connecting the Alaska Railroad to the rail system in Canada (and therefore to the lower 48 states). https://a2arail.com/ I e-mailed them and finally did get a response back. Yes, the project really is for real but that doesn't mean that it will ever actually happen. On the other hand it is most definately NOT just a "pipe dream". Another issue is that I got an answer back from them just before the pandemic broke out so I have no idea how that's affecting their plans. It all boils down to money. If they can somehow, someway manage to raise the necessary funds for construction (never mind paying for the numerous lawsuits) it might just become a reality. But we have watched this movie before, haven't we? So then again, maybe not. I'm cautiously optimistic about it but I sure wouldn't dare to bet the farm on it, either. Regards, Fred M. Cain
Mike and Charlie,
Well, there was that one company (A2A) that sounded really serious about connecting the Alaska Railroad to the rail system in Canada (and therefore to the lower 48 states). https://a2arail.com/
I e-mailed them and finally did get a response back. Yes, the project really is for real but that doesn't mean that it will ever actually happen. On the other hand it is most definately NOT just a "pipe dream".
Another issue is that I got an answer back from them just before the pandemic broke out so I have no idea how that's affecting their plans.
It all boils down to money. If they can somehow, someway manage to raise the necessary funds for construction (never mind paying for the numerous lawsuits) it might just become a reality.
But we have watched this movie before, haven't we? So then again, maybe not. I'm cautiously optimistic about it but I sure wouldn't dare to bet the farm on it, either.
Regards,
Fred M. Cain
Nice website. I think they need to be more specific with what minerals and locations they are specifically interested in. In order to do that they need a partner though interested in mining and lets face it.......no mining company is going to spend money on this unless they have Federal Government cooperation.
So in my view it needs both Private and Public sponsors to go further down the track as they say. I really think it needs to be government driven under the excuse of opening Alaska up to development and new migration.
The current population of Alaska is about 710,000 for the whole state. Clearly consumer demand of the local populace is not going to be a driving factor. It would take large natural resources extraction projects, approved by the Department of the Interior, EPA, etc. to provide sufficient traffic for this. If it is to support export of tar sands oil or bitumen from Canada to Asia, one wood think they would have trouble getting that approved by the EPA or any number of judges ruling on lawsuits filed against the project.
1. Enormous costs which private capital is unlikely to provide and government has a huge deficit and other priorities.
2. What market exists for anything from or to Alaska that is not already adequately served by other modes of transport?
If anything, Nome would just be a forward deployed refueling base for Coast Guard icebreakers. No port, no railroad, no major infrastructure development.
All these various Alaska threads sound like wishful thinking or part of some fantasy game. Every poster that tries to interject a dose of reality gets rebuffed.
The bigest proposed copper/gold mine developement in Alaska in a while has had their federal permit denied by the Corps of Engineers. Even Pres. Trump did not support it.
https://www.cnn.com/2020/11/25/politics/pebble-mine-alaska-permit-denied/index.html
CMStPnP Economics and politics have always been intertwined. You cannot seperate the two. Convicted One I guess the Ruskies are not as enthusiastic about the prospect of a Trans-Bering Straight Railroad as some of our other posters here? I don't read it that way. This is the game the Russians always play. They are after fencing off the fishing area and sea bed floor for their own and claiming the territory for Russia if they can get away with it without a shooting war and not be directly challenged by a military. The Trans-Bering Straight Railroad they would treat as a seperate issue altogether. It would be treated as a commercial enterprise and not be impacted by political matters. Rough analogy.... They treat support of Alaska the same way. Regardless of the political issues, sanctions or Cold War revivals. The Russians have been very consistent at supplying Ice Breakers and Commercial Oil to the more remote areas of Alaska that can be more easily reached from Russia. They have never once threatened to terminate or suspend it because they view it as a commercial enterprise seperate from politics that benefits their pockets as well as generates good will. Also if the Russians cutoff that life line in winter they know full well we would gin it up on our side via the media and make them look really bad internationally so that is the other incentive they have not to mess with that agreement.
Convicted One I guess the Ruskies are not as enthusiastic about the prospect of a Trans-Bering Straight Railroad as some of our other posters here?
I don't read it that way. This is the game the Russians always play. They are after fencing off the fishing area and sea bed floor for their own and claiming the territory for Russia if they can get away with it without a shooting war and not be directly challenged by a military.
The Trans-Bering Straight Railroad they would treat as a seperate issue altogether. It would be treated as a commercial enterprise and not be impacted by political matters.
Rough analogy....
They treat support of Alaska the same way. Regardless of the political issues, sanctions or Cold War revivals. The Russians have been very consistent at supplying Ice Breakers and Commercial Oil to the more remote areas of Alaska that can be more easily reached from Russia. They have never once threatened to terminate or suspend it because they view it as a commercial enterprise seperate from politics that benefits their pockets as well as generates good will. Also if the Russians cutoff that life line in winter they know full well we would gin it up on our side via the media and make them look really bad internationally so that is the other incentive they have not to mess with that agreement.
CMStPnP Well looks like DoD is considering Nome, Alaska as a new Deep water port as a way to counter Russia's expansionism in the area. I wonder what this means for the surrounding area? Nome is on the far West Coast of Alaska. Would there now be an effort to also make the port a Commerical Port and perhaps extend the Alaska Railroad to it and thus open the interior of Alaska to more settlement and development? Interesting development if it continues to develop and the Navy actually moves in. https://www.yahoo.com/news/getting-invaded-u-boats-faced-131603071.html
Well looks like DoD is considering Nome, Alaska as a new Deep water port as a way to counter Russia's expansionism in the area. I wonder what this means for the surrounding area? Nome is on the far West Coast of Alaska. Would there now be an effort to also make the port a Commerical Port and perhaps extend the Alaska Railroad to it and thus open the interior of Alaska to more settlement and development? Interesting development if it continues to develop and the Navy actually moves in.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/getting-invaded-u-boats-faced-131603071.html
CMStPnPI don't read it that way. This is the game the Russians always play. They are after fencing off the fishing area and sea bed floor for their own and claiming the territory for Russia if they can get away with it without a shooting war and not be directly challenged by a military.
So, if I read you correctly, these current actions are "sabre rattling"?
Given the cost of a bering strait bridge, and the certainty that one half would be totally worthless without the other,....I'd be extremely reluctant to put so much at risk, with a bully as a partner.
And, I think the Russians are smart enough to realize that. If they had any interest in such a bridge I think they would be setting the table with something more reassuring than sabre rattling.
It's an open coast around Nome. During the gold rush days, ships had to anchor off the coast, and lighter in. The article said near Nome. Maybe they are talking about Teller which is on a natural harbor.
Convicted OneI guess the Ruskies are not as enthusiastic about the prospect of a Trans-Bering Straight Railroad as some of our other posters here?
CMStPnPWell looks like DoD is considering Nome, Alaska as a new Deep water port as a way to counter Russia's expansionism in the area.
I guess the Ruskies are not as enthusiastic about the prospect of a Trans-Bering Straight Railroad as some of our other posters here?
Nome is a long way from anywhere and if the Navy is looking at it as a port it might well be an expensive and not very practical way of maintaining a presence in the Bering Sea.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.