MidlandMike According to the ARR website they run the mainline freight 5 days a week. I know that at one time they ran the freights at night to avoid the passenger trains.
According to the ARR website they run the mainline freight 5 days a week. I know that at one time they ran the freights at night to avoid the passenger trains.
BackshopThe guidebook had an interesting comment. There was a high maintenance trestle halfway to Seward. With the new diesels, they got rid of it and just looped the line, making it a 3% grade.
IIRC the trestle was to avoid a glacier, but the glacier melted back, and they rerouted the line on the dry ground.
Backshop I didn't see any freight trains moving at all, although there were plenty of coal hoppers other freight cars.
According to the ARR website they run the mainline freight 5 days a week. I know that at one time they ran the freights at night to avoid the passenger trains. They also used to haul a lot of oil products from the refinery in North Pole near Fairbanks, but the refinery closed.
Thanks for the report.
Fred M Cain Backshop I'm doing an Alaska Railroad trip from Fairbanks to Seward in a week, so I've been doing a little bit of research. Right now, the ARR only has 51 locomotives. When you subtract the ones that pull the passenger/sightseeing trains, there seems to be relatively few hauling natural resources. That should tell you something right there. If enough were located near the ROW, I'm sure they would be transported down to one of the ports and loading infrastructure built there. That would be a lot cheaper than building a long railroad through Canada. "Backstop", I think that sounds like an absolute blast. Please post something either on this thread or another and tell us how it went. Some pictures would be nice too. I hope you have good weather. Checking Accuweather for Fairbanks this morning, it looks nice. Cool, but I like it cool. Good luck ~ !
Backshop I'm doing an Alaska Railroad trip from Fairbanks to Seward in a week, so I've been doing a little bit of research. Right now, the ARR only has 51 locomotives. When you subtract the ones that pull the passenger/sightseeing trains, there seems to be relatively few hauling natural resources. That should tell you something right there. If enough were located near the ROW, I'm sure they would be transported down to one of the ports and loading infrastructure built there. That would be a lot cheaper than building a long railroad through Canada.
I'm doing an Alaska Railroad trip from Fairbanks to Seward in a week, so I've been doing a little bit of research. Right now, the ARR only has 51 locomotives. When you subtract the ones that pull the passenger/sightseeing trains, there seems to be relatively few hauling natural resources. That should tell you something right there. If enough were located near the ROW, I'm sure they would be transported down to one of the ports and loading infrastructure built there. That would be a lot cheaper than building a long railroad through Canada.
"Backstop",
I think that sounds like an absolute blast. Please post something either on this thread or another and tell us how it went. Some pictures would be nice too. I hope you have good weather. Checking Accuweather for Fairbanks this morning, it looks nice. Cool, but I like it cool.
Good luck ~ !
We took the train from Fairbanks to Anchorage the first day. It was only nine cars but was pulled by 3 of 4300-series SD70MACs. They appeared to be freshly painted. There were a couple of GP38s and GP40s in Fairbanks for local work. Four of the 4000-series 70s were there and appeared to be used mainly for freights, looking at their exterior paint. We passed several passenger trains on the way to Anchorage, they were turns that had a SD70 on one end and a 40 on the other. Our "boat train" to Seward was also a push-pull with a 70/40 combo. After 12 hours the first day and 4 the second, I was ODed on trains. The guidebook had an interesting comment. There was a high maintenance trestle halfway to Seward. With the new diesels, they got rid of it and just looped the line, making it a 3% grade. The shorter Anchorage-Seward portion had as much scenery as the longer day. Unless you want to see the whole line, I'd suggest just doing it. I didn't see any freight trains moving at all, although there were plenty of coal hoppers other freight cars. A couple more points--leaving Fairbanks, you run around a couple mile long balloon track, so you pass by the depot that you just left. Also, even though I didn't see the engine facility in Anchorage, between the one in Fairbanks and the other trains, I saw 20 of their 51 locomotives.
blue streak 1 <SNIP> That end is about 2000 air miles from NENA on hwy 35 Mckensie hwy. In BC the tracks or ROW extend to Muskwa just south of Ft. Nelson. !!~~ 1500 air miles to air base. Also with some track work the narrow gauge White Pass & Yukon could connect with the standard gauge RR.
<SNIP>
That end is about 2000 air miles from NENA on hwy 35 Mckensie hwy. In BC the tracks or ROW extend to Muskwa just south of Ft. Nelson. !!~~ 1500 air miles to air base. Also with some track work the narrow gauge White Pass & Yukon could connect with the standard gauge RR.
MidlandMike Overmod NKP guy I mentioned the new NS bridge over the Genesee River in New York, and we all agreed that was the exception and not the rule. But this is an exception in a different sense. The original bridge IIRC was built over one and a quarter centuries ago -- as a hurry-up project to replace an earlier bridge -- and successfully weathered things like the advent of S-class Berkshires and then SD45-2s in multiple. (And was not replaced for any reason of imminent failure that I could see...) Be interesting to see how much of that longevity was design skill, and how much was maintenance... Yes, the original wooden bridge was replaced in a hurry, it burned down in 1875. The iron bridge had a weight limit of 273,000#, making it obsolete for the 286,000# standard of today. As mentioned, the old speed limit was 10 mph. The new limit is 30 mph. They could have increased the speed, but that would have meant reducing approach curves, which would have increased environmental damage. This is according to the Trains book "Big Projects". Another bridge getting replaced is the BNSF/ex-NP bridge at Bismark, ND.
Overmod NKP guy I mentioned the new NS bridge over the Genesee River in New York, and we all agreed that was the exception and not the rule. But this is an exception in a different sense. The original bridge IIRC was built over one and a quarter centuries ago -- as a hurry-up project to replace an earlier bridge -- and successfully weathered things like the advent of S-class Berkshires and then SD45-2s in multiple. (And was not replaced for any reason of imminent failure that I could see...) Be interesting to see how much of that longevity was design skill, and how much was maintenance...
NKP guy I mentioned the new NS bridge over the Genesee River in New York, and we all agreed that was the exception and not the rule.
But this is an exception in a different sense. The original bridge IIRC was built over one and a quarter centuries ago -- as a hurry-up project to replace an earlier bridge -- and successfully weathered things like the advent of S-class Berkshires and then SD45-2s in multiple. (And was not replaced for any reason of imminent failure that I could see...) Be interesting to see how much of that longevity was design skill, and how much was maintenance...
Yes, the original wooden bridge was replaced in a hurry, it burned down in 1875. The iron bridge had a weight limit of 273,000#, making it obsolete for the 286,000# standard of today. As mentioned, the old speed limit was 10 mph. The new limit is 30 mph. They could have increased the speed, but that would have meant reducing approach curves, which would have increased environmental damage. This is according to the Trains book "Big Projects".
Another bridge getting replaced is the BNSF/ex-NP bridge at Bismark, ND.
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
OvermodI don't remember what the speed restriction got down to, but at one time it was gantleted, which might throw a wrench into either double-track with CTC or dual-main operation...
10. also weight restrictions.
It's been fun. But it isn't much fun anymore. Signing off for now.
The opinions expressed here represent my own and not those of my employer, any other railroad, company, or person.t fun any
tree68I would suggest that public perception may have played a part in the Letchworth bridge replacement. It spans a very popular state park. I'm not sure, but I think it was restricted to a very low speed, as well.
I'm not sure, but I think it was restricted to a very low speed, as well.
I don't remember what the speed restriction got down to, but at one time it was gantleted, which might throw a wrench into either double-track with CTC or dual-main operation...
OvermodThat one certainly was. Which is proof to me that regular watchful maintenance can greatly reduce a perceived need to replace even a 1917 structure.
I would suggest that public perception may have played a part in the Letchworth bridge replacement. It spans a very popular state park.
Larry Resident Microferroequinologist (at least at my house) Everyone goes home; Safety begins with you My Opinion. Standard Disclaimers Apply. No Expiration Date Come ride the rails with me! There's one thing about humility - the moment you think you've got it, you've lost it...
That one certainly was. Which is proof to me that regular watchful maintenance can greatly reduce a perceived need to replace even a 1917 structure.
Of course if the thing is demonstrably corroded or twisted past safe limits, it would best be replaced rather than 'watchfully wait' until some overt sign of impending failure.
[But] You rush in to contradict NKP with what exactly? His point, as I saw it, was that bridges are rarely replaced with new. Do you think that +100 year old infrastructures are generally just fine?
Overmod The original bridge IIRC was built over one and a quarter centuries ago -- as a hurry-up project to replace an earlier bridge -- and successfully weathered things like the advent of S-class Berkshires and then SD45-2s in multiple.
Anybody know the Cooper rating of the old Letchworth bridge?
Maintenance notwithstanding (and it is a significant factor), structures of that era were built without the extensive computer modelling used today, so they were generally over-engineered.
NKP guyI mentioned the new NS bridge over the Genesee River in New York, and we all agreed that was the exception and not the rule.
That's the "Key" point: It was his own money, thanks to Standard Oil. He didn't work to socialize the costs so he could privatize the profits, unlike these days.
This brings to mind the recent discussion here about railroads not investing much in their own infrastructure improvements and repairs.
Recently I was talking with 2 young engineers inspecting a W&LE bridge nearby that likely dates from about 1917. They observed that railroads, in general, repair and continuously patch-up their bridges. "They never replace them," he said. I mentioned the new NS bridge over the Genesee River in New York, and we all agreed that was the exception and not the rule.
Railroading needs more Henry Flaglers.
MJ4562 Reading this thread I can't help but think about the FLEC Key West extension.
Reading this thread I can't help but think about the FLEC Key West extension.
blue streak 1 Open railway map show track going past delta thru the airbase about 4000 feet NE parallel to the NE of the runway past air base, parallel to quary road and stopping parallel to Mullis road about 4000 feet due east of base hanger.. Map shows active crossings to end, but trackage in doubt! OpenRailwayMap That end is about 2000 air miles from NENA on hwy 35 Mckensie hwy. In BC the tracks or ROW extend to Muskwa just south of Ft. Nelson. !!~~ 1500 air miles to air base. Also with some track work the narrow gauge White Pass & Yukon could connect with the standard gauge RR.
Open railway map show track going past delta thru the airbase about 4000 feet NE parallel to the NE of the runway past air base, parallel to quary road and stopping parallel to Mullis road about 4000 feet due east of base hanger.. Map shows active crossings to end, but trackage in doubt!
OpenRailwayMap
Open Ry Maps shows the line going thru North Pole and ending at Eielson AF Base. Delta Junction is 70 miles to the SE passed that.
diningcar Isn't it time to drop this post? Nothing significant is being added.
Isn't it time to drop this post? Nothing significant is being added.
Well, I mean, yes and no. First of all a couple of people added some new and interesting information yesterday. So, that'd be a no.
However, I personally no longer have anything to add at this time, so I'll probably drop visiting the thread but I'd like to at least have the option of revisiting it again maybe in a year's time or whatever just in case new information might manifest itself.
blue streak 1 Open railway map show track going past delta thru the airbase about 4000 feet NE parallel to the NE of the runway past air base, parallel to quary road and stopping parallel to Mullis road about 4000 feet due east of base hanger.. Map shows active crossings to end, but trackage in doubt! <SNIP>
Here is a Google Earth Street View taken just inside the air base on its northwest side:
https://www.google.com/maps/@64.7094275,-147.1445046,3a,75y,49.74h,83.08t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1s43LEJhpgUxrlYHH_s5tP9g!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3D43LEJhpgUxrlYHH_s5tP9g%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D3.5606878%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i13312!8i6656!5m1!1e4
As you can see, the track appears to be active but is not exactly in what might be described as tip-top shape. If this were to become part of a connection to the lower 48, this stretch of track would also surely need to be rebuilt.
I think we can all agree that if the connection to the lower 48 states would ever get built, it would be a huge, massive infrastructure project of historic proportions.
Although I would love to see it happen for a couple of different reasons, I am nevertheless realistic to see that this is extremely unlikely to happen during our lifetimes - if ever. What might just possibly precipitate it would be some kind of a now unforeseen "game changer". Extremely unlikely but not impossible by any means.
Blue Streak,
Thanks for sharing the map. I hadn't seen this one before. I'm not sure how accurate it is, though, as you stated yourself, some of the trackage around the Eielson Air Force Base may be in doubt.
I also noted that the WP&Y is not indicated. Perhaps that might be because the WP&Y is considered to be a "tourist road" and they don't show tourist lines.
Mike,
Ah, yes~! A pipeline. I didn't think of that. That is a good explanation. Had I just followed the line south and east of Delta Jct, I would've seen that it's not intended as a future railbed. However, some of the pipeline's right-of-way might be able to accommodate a railroad but I don't know that.
If somebody(s) can be convinced to part with enough money to make it a reality - it will happen. What that convincing 'story' will be remains to be seen.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
Fred M CainIt kinda appears to me as though they may have done some grading of the roadbed as well, how much, I don't know. Google Earth satellite views seem to show a line largely running parallel to the highway north and west from Delta Junction. Farther to the northwest it leaves the highway and later approaches the river. Here is a Google Earth "street view" taken on the northwest side of Delta Jct: https://www.google.com/maps/@64.1293389,-145.7814076,3a,75y,148.84h,69.26t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sEOv7bDI_E6nULdQ-PAzEkA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656 That sure looks like a planned railroad crossing to me. As the stop signs clearly indicate, some people are evidently using it as a road but there is really no logical reason to have a road on that alignment.
I noticed in streetview there was a circular pipeline marker to the right. I followed the ROW to the south and came upon an Alaska Pipeline pumping station. I followed the line to the north, and at Big Delta I came upon where the pipeline emerges from underground, and starts running above ground to avoid melting permafrost.
Overmod,
Actually, my tongue-in-cheek remarks about obtaining federal infrastructure funding refer only to the air force base - Delta Jct extension and the Port MacKenzie branch. I might have made my remarks unclear.
Obviously there's no way to get infrastruture funds from Washington to build a line through Canada to the lower 48 states. If the Canadian government doesn't help with that - it will just never get built, that's all.
I have been somewhat following the thread on California's plans. I did opine that they might get shot down in court but we'll have to see. Maybe not.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.