Edit post

Edit your reply below.

Post Body
Enter your post below.
[quote user="Railway Man"] It depends on how you define "modern, heavy-haul".  If you want to have not more than 0.4 percent grades against the loads and 2 degree curves, which is more-or-less a sort of defacto heavy-haul standard, most of the rail system in North America is grossly unacceptable including all the routes leading out of the Powder River Basin!  Should you want to have such a thing leading into the interior of the Yukon from any potential port, you would want to ring up the tunnel boring machine people, point them inland at the foot of the dock, and spend $15,000 per foot until the TBM emerged 40 or so miles on the other side of the Alaska Range. But, if you want to provide a best-fit between cost of operation and maintenance, and cost of construction, which is what the engineering profession is trained to deliver, then heavy grades and curves are not inherently impractical. In the case of the WP&Y, you do not even need all new rail (much of it is new 115 lb. stick) and only some new ties (most of the relay ties are standard-gauge), or even all new ballast (most of it is good crushed stone) only some bridge strengthening, embankment armoring, and regauging.  At least as far as Carcross, that is.  Beyond that you would sled the embankment and start fresh because it is so far gone. RWM [/quote] I only referred to the phrase, "heavy-haul standard gauge railroad" since it is referenced on page 59 of the report linked by carnej1 above.  It refers to “rebuilding the entire route to modern, heavy-haul, standard gage specifications.”  It does not go into detail about the rebuild work.   <?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o:p></o:p> It also says this: “While the narrow gage is a much less efficient operation than standard gage, the capital cost of upgrading the route to heavy haul standards offset most of the operating efficiencies gained through the use of standard gage technology.”  So it concludes that total life-cycle costs would be about the same for converting to standard gauge, as they would be for retaining narrow gauge. <o:p></o:p> From what you say, it sounds like the line could be standard gauged to a lower standard than what the report contemplates.  If so, and if the report is correct, it would tip the balance in favor of standard gauging rather than retaining narrow gauge.   You mentioned that tie replacements on the WP&Y have been standard gauge.  Does that indicate that the company has been contemplating changing to standard gauge aside from this new development plan?  Or is that being done just in anticipation of new mining development and new freight traffic, the same as contemplated by the plan?  Would the existing tunnels clear standard gauge trains?
Tags (Optional)
Tags are keywords that get attached to your post. They are used to categorize your submission and make it easier to search for. To add tags to your post type a tag into the box below and click the "Add Tag" button.
Add Tag