Conceptual design work for A2A routing and coastal terminals is still happening.
Note: I highlighted my responses in blue because it's easier than me trying to do multiple quotes.
Fred M Cain Murphy Siding Maybe, having the goods ship all that way by rail would be quicker? I'd have my doubts. All things considered, I don't think it would be cheaper. Murphy, Yes, it would not only be faster but MUCH faster but NOT cheaper. It would be especially not cheaper if the enormous construction costs would have to be later recovered in freight rates. But what goods are we talking about that are valueble enough to warrant spending that much money? Wouldn't the construction costs have to be later recovered before anyone would want to invest a dime? Of course, another thing to consider here is that such a plan would not just offer end to end service but would also bring rail freight service to dozens of communities along the line that presently don't have it. I can't believe these dozens of communities along the way are very big. Don't you think their needs now are being met by trucks? It would be nice if we could hear from someone who really knows a lot about this and not just express OUR opinions, 'cause our opinions really don't amount to a hill of beans. But like I say, A2A is not answering their e-mails so at this point all we're left with is guesswork and our opinions. Just because we're not experts doesn't mean that your opinion or mine don't have some validity- as opinions. If enough "experts" thought it was a worthwhile project, wouldn't it be started already? I wonder if this could be a good subject for a new TRAINS magazine article? Regards, Fred M. Cain
Murphy Siding Maybe, having the goods ship all that way by rail would be quicker? I'd have my doubts. All things considered, I don't think it would be cheaper.
Maybe, having the goods ship all that way by rail would be quicker? I'd have my doubts. All things considered, I don't think it would be cheaper.
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
Marc6850 There were plans to build a new railroad from the northern line on the ARR into Canada and South, but I believe it was deemed economically infeasable so it is not happening.
There were plans to build a new railroad from the northern line on the ARR into Canada and South, but I believe it was deemed economically infeasable so it is not happening.
Marc,
What plan is that? The A2A plan was intending to do exactly that and as far as I know it's still "on". Or, did you find some information that it's been dropped? That's not impossible because they are no longer returning e-mails from their website.
Regards,
Fred M. Cain
joeraySomething many folks don't know is that several very substantial railroad bridges have already been built over several rivers between Fairbanks and the Canadian border.
Interesting. Are any of them visible on Google aerial view?
I ask because I once used Google "satellite view" to trace the ROW of the Dease Lake extension from the northernmost railhead all the way to its namesake town, and trackless bridges are visible most of the way.
Sifting through various documents (a couple of years before this discussion surfaced) I recall that feasibility studies conducted so far concluded that even if track extended to Dease Lake, building north of there passed through too much hazardous terrain to be feasible, compared to the alternatives.
---PCJ
There were plans to build a new railroad from the northern line on the ARR into Canada and South, but I believe it was deemed economically infeasable so it is not happening. There were discussions about building a broad gauge railroad on the same route in the late 70's to primarily carry Alaska crude oil but the oil industry would not support it.
Ever heard of Canadian National or Canadian Pacific? One of them does run a line from Canada to Mexico pretty much. Former IC Chicago to New Orleans
Murphy Siding Not rah rah rah trains, but an opinion nonetheless: Freight already moves from Chinese ports to North American ports in large quantities. From the North American ports, it moves inland by rail. Maybe, having the goods ship all that way by rail would be quicker? I'd have my doubts. All things considered, I don't think it would be cheaper. What products coming from Asia would be of such great value that it would be worth the incredible investment to make the whole trip by rail?
Freight already moves from Chinese ports to North American ports in large quantities. From the North American ports, it moves inland by rail. Maybe, having the goods ship all that way by rail would be quicker? I'd have my doubts. All things considered, I don't think it would be cheaper. What products coming from Asia would be of such great value that it would be worth the incredible investment to make the whole trip by rail?
Recently (in the past 3 years or so) wasn't there a big deal being made of a all rail route approximating the Silk Road of medieval times - with transit time being on the order of three weeks - and that was considered a radical improvement over the prior means that were being used.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
Not rah rah rah trains, but an opinion nonetheless: Freight already moves from Chinese ports to North American ports in large quantities. From the North American ports, it moves inland by rail. Maybe, having the goods ship all that way by rail would be quicker? I'd have my doubts. All things considered, I don't think it would be cheaper. What products coming from Asia would be of such great value that it would be worth the incredible investment to make the whole trip by rail?
Fred M Cain'm pretty sure that the Chinese also use "Russian broad gauge" (five feet) as opposed to standard gauge (4ft, 8½").
China uses standard gauge.
Fred M CainSo if the Bering Strait rail connection should ever enter the serious planning stages, that issue will need to be addressed.
This was solved by the 1970s.
Until the actual hard bridge/tunnel is built, the issue is virtually moot: the swap from rail container equipment to ferry on one side, and on the other side back to rail, is done in typical ways with typical equipment, ganged in parallel if necessary, using the 'ground' as temporary storage where required.
The solution evolved by the late 1970s is horizontal gang sideloading between compatible container trainsets -- there are applicable systems for vans or other vehicles as well. Groups of overhead gantries could also be used where little reassignment of blocks of containers longitudinally in the consist is likely.
In all probability, this is preferable to the various methods of automatic or manual 'gauge change', even though the required range is relatively small between standard and Russian gauge. I do not know any system that is both cost-effective and safe to use on three-piece truck installations ... yet. There is no real engineering reason why one could not be. But it seems a little obvious, to me at least,that for very long land-bridge operations across incompatible systems, it makes far better sense to keep the respective trainsets 'shuttling' than to run a large fleet of gauge-changing trucks in service that occupies weeks per trip. Having one 'break in gauge' with a full intermodal facility dedicated and purpose-developed for it may make the best sense.
Allegheny1633Hi All, I have found this entire topic to be most interesting as I am quite a fan of mega projects. Regarding the potential for an Alaska to Russia connection across the Bering strait (which would be an incredible project!) - how to deal with the gauge change problem? You will all recall that Russia uses a slightly larger gauge than North America! TIA, John.
Actually, it has been reported in several different sources that the Chinese have been running a through freight train now from Beijing to western Europe. Gauge barriers were not mentioned which left me wondering how they're dealing with that in that instance. I would guess that they're probably transloading containers from broad gauge cars to standard gauge cars - but I don't know that for a fact. Does anybody know?
I'm pretty sure that the Chinese also use "Russian broad gauge" (five feet) as opposed to standard gauge (4ft, 8½").
So if the Bering Strait rail connection should ever enter the serious planning stages, that issue will need to be addressed.
Probably will never happen as there is a great distance between the two and very rugged country. I have rode Alaska RR from Anchorage to Fairbanks with stopover at Denali Park. I missed WP&Y getting started running again by a couple of years. Juneau had no road connection to the rest of AK, only way in and out was by plane or boat. We were on a Princess Cruise and stopped at different ports along the way, the year before we had did the land portion by train and were supposed to fly to Whitehorse and be bused to Skagway but cruise ship went on wildcat strike. We had a choice to continue by bus all the way or go home. We opted for the latter and got a full refund for the trip. We had already spent a week in AK, touring Anchorage area, riding the train to overnight at Denali and on to Fairbanks, where the tour ended for us with a flight back to Seattle and home from there. Princess also gave us a voucher good for a cruise the following year which we did, so we had 2 free trips to AK, land and sea. Good deal.
Actually, there is a lot of action going on that has not been publicized. The governor of Alaska is working with President Trump on getting the paperwork going. Of course, it will take a few years to get established. But it makes a lot of sense!
jeatonThere was a preliminary study made by a consulting firm, I believe A.T. Kearney, to haul the Prudhoe Bay oil via rail.
You still see this referenced in the A2A maps! (See the arrow labeled 'North Slope')
You're right about the very large tankage -- for some reason I recall that the tank structure was at least partially below ground for a variety of reasons. Wasn't the idea a bit similar to the current arrangement of some degassed Bakken/Eagle Ford crude or 'dilbit' by rail in that some sort of pipeline arrangement would be 'ultimately' built when politically feasible, out of some sort of 'trust fund' based on an oil volume surtax, probably co-located with the rail line?
Still beats all hollow the preliminary consulting-firm study to use large turbine aircraft to carry the crude! (In those pre-CIS days there wasn't access to appropriate large-enough turboprops!)
We had a post on this very recently in a thread here, perhaps String Lining. There are people here who know the details, and perhaps some of the 'scuttlebutt' -- I ought to remember, as I read avidly about it back at the time ... but I don't remember the critical details now.
I don't think financing the line is any particular difficulty for the Chinese 'initiative' -- they'll just be waiting until the critical path for the 'whole' part of the Belt comes together. As I noted there is comparatively little point in running that line merely as a bridge to Anchorage, less in connecting to WP&Y without standard-gauging the latter (which I don't think would ever happen). In fact, without a 'hard' double-track connection across the Strait, there is far less point in going to the trouble and expense of doing all that work 'early' -- mines and resources or no -- from a Belt and Road perspective at least.
Now, getting domestic sources to fund the thing ... that's a different, and far more difficult thing, even ignoring politics and manipulations. Made far worse now that the precedent of university-sociology-student pile-on for blockade of rail lines on flimsy pretexts is now established as fully workable.
I can almost see where maybe the Chinese would/could bankroll this thing by building a line from China to the Bering Strait and maybe even a bridge or tunnel spanning the Strait only to hit a dead end in America.
We Americans and Canadians just don't seem to be able to get our act together on this.
In my own personal, honest and humble opinion, one of the greatest obstacles has to do with American (and perhaps Canadian) transportation policy where roads and highways are favored over rail. John Ray almost suggested as much in his post. Changing that political policy might just be the nut you'd have to crack. Will that ever change? I hope so but I have no reason to be optimistic about it.
I remember when I was in high school (1960s) a line to Alaska almost became a reality. I seem to recall that the Pacific Great Eastern/BC Rail was involved. Wasn't there even a long stretch that was graded but never received rails?
I seem to recall that Richard "Tricky Dick" Nixon played a role in killing the project. It's really a darn shame 'cause it could've probably been built for a lot less money back then that it could be today.
Fred M CainAnother amazing fact that I discovered yesterday is that the average weather at Whitehorse is not as cold as I'd imagined.
But the weather is acknowledged as anomalous for Yukon Territory, and largely due to the effect of the river and relative adjacency to the Pacific. It's also in the direct rain shadow of the mountains, so bad snow conditions are less of an issue than 'elsewhere' on the route.
And the low temperatures, when they do occur, are very close to -70F, which I think seldom occurs in Indiana... "average" temperatures in the Yukon are not always a good guide for what spot or microweather conditions will be like.
I suspect most of the lack of progress is related more to timing than to actual construction or financing expediency. As I recall this was a critical part of the One Belt One Road initiative, which inherently involves the extension of the Trans-Siberian to a crossing (probably a fast ferry first, then a bridge or tunnel) at the Bering Strait (and of course 'thence' to some effective landbridge possibilities in North America) and would receive significant assistance if not outright financing from the Chinese. I find it important that the Chinese have firsthand design and operating experience with conditions on the Nepal/Tibet railway that are probably far more extreme than most of what prevails in the Yukon 'connection' -- and of course they probably have the capital equipment 'to spare' for efficient new railway construction, which might more or less easily be 'winterized' for longer effective building 'season'.
This might be part and parcel of whatever there is for organized objection to building the rail link, but I don't really see much political downside to having the asset built and maintained with OPM much of which used to be American before Walmart et al. sucked it out. I somewhat cynically expect to see a 'surge' of activity culminating in construction, timed to meet the extension a-buildin' in Russia...
Joe Ray,
That was a most interesting and helpful post. Thanks so much for that. I hope there is a way to move the project forward.
Running the A2A through the Yukon Territory has been questioned as practical on this group do the the harsh weather conditions. But the AlCan Highway is open year-round. Also, when it comes to very harsh weather trains tend to be more reliable that automobiles. There are some trains in Canada (and Alaska too) that serve isolated communties that would other wise be cut off due to the harsh weather.
Another amazing fact that I discovered yesterday is that the average weather at Whitehorse is not as cold as I'd imagined. It's colder than it is here (northern Indiana) but not much colder. Not as much as I would've guessed.
Fred M. Cain,
Topeka, IN
Fred M CainI guess, what I was really getting at is that an organization that cannot manage to return e-mails, tends to give me the impression that they are not all that organized.
I can only say that if I were involved with A2A, I wouldn't miss a chance to send 'collateral' and encouragement to anyone positive about my project, or even just 'the idea' in general.
I learned a long time ago never to 'write anyone off' based on their supposed ability or lack thereof to make "meaningful" contributions to a bottom line. During my brief stint in the exercise-equipment field, we had one little old lady come in and 'try out' some of the treadmills. My head salesman started to show me the 'five-minute shuck' to get obviously non-paying people out of the showroom, but I took her in hand and showed her some of the valuable points to look for in different types of treadmill, how different people could get valuable fitness advantage out of them, etc. (More as 'people-skills' training for me, and a demonstration of how relationship-based organizations 'ought' to work, than out of any hope of making, let alone closing, a sale...)
She subsequently referred 19 sales over $3000 apiece to us.
You might easily be in a position somewhere, sometime, to contribute materially to something that benefits them. In fact I would not argue against the idea that you should try getting into some position or activity where you might do that.
As far as any investment I could make in the project, my goal would be more to partake in an exciting project than to help move it along because I would obviously not be able to move it along.
Just out of curiosity ... what markets does A2A trade in, and what's the trend of their share price? If they are still in the general 'penny-stock' category, a $2500 investment might represent a significant chunk of (eventual) ownership -- or enough to make you a credible 'influencer' of some of their actions. That's a very different thing from arrangements to actually build out operating assets ... and, I'll be the first to admit, arrangements that actually earn any kind of return on the investment, let alone one that covers the opportunity cost. But if done for love, the satisfaction alone may be enough.
I tend to disagree with the general assessment that operation outside of the summer warm season would be hellish. Well, maybe hellish, sure, especially if someone has to walk back a mile to fix an air hose or broken coupler in minus 50° weather. But railroads operate in all kinds of weather conditions. The Alaska Railroad runs through the winter as did the Quebec North Shore & Labrador (if it's still operating today, I'm not sure about that one).
The question I'd ask is this: have you actually experienced weather in the Yukon Territories? It's one of those things like storms in the North Atlantic: you almost can't imagine how bad it can get until you actually see it, and even what looks like coherent planning may not 'survive initial contact with the adversary'.
Where the peculiar issue comes in here is that, if the railroad is to operate as a directional 'conveyor belt', even comparatively slight delays or breakdowns might cascade into greater and greater catastrophe, perhaps due to complex issues impossible to foresee effectively. The usual modern Internet-style 'we'll fix emergent problems or breaks in an agile fashion as they present themselves' doesn't apply well with physical built-to-a-price machinery run by tired people in an adversarial relationship to their nominal management ... let alone to the need to throw enormous resources into a recovery before the magnitude of the problem can be fully appreciated -- not something any heavily debt-loaded near startup is likely to be able to do 'correctly'.
I encourage you to make up a 'shadow' version of the project, perhaps in one of the better train-simulation programs, and then run as many potential complex failure scenarios as you can develop over time -- in the ways that space simulation is commonly 'gamed' for multiple and sometimes impossibly-lethal sets of failure conditions -- and develop credible responses and response mechanisms (and the necessary team-building and leadership approaches that would be needed to champion them) to get the operating 'playbook' as mature as possible. There are several people here who have firsthand knowledge of winter-weather operations, and they can surely guide you well.
"Did you really think that applying to contribute 0.0000000002% or so of the likely required ultimate cost would generate a terrifically enthusiastic reply?"
Overmod,
Well, no, I didn't think that. Obviously by passing up whatever I could invest will not make or break the project. I didn't mean that. I guess, what I was really getting at is that an organization that cannot manage to return e-mails, tends to give me the impression that they are not all that organized. I could be wrong about that by that was my general impression.
As I said before, I'd love to see it but if it never comes to pass at all, I'll hardly be surprised.
Fred M CainAfter updating this thread the other day, I was just absolutely amazed as to how many peopled chimed in with negative stuff again, bending over backwards to identify every possible problem or difficulty. Why do we do this? It almost seems that instead of advocating for rail, we're trying as hard as we can to make a convincing argument for NOT doing this! Why? Why just look for problems with it?
Perhaps (speaking gently) because some of us have been looking at this carefully since the 1980s (before the days of the BAM) and have come to the conclusion that unless this is done expensively right from the beginning, it can produce at least a much of a black eye for 'rail' as the California HSR has.
It's not that the route doesn't make sense. It's not that operations during part of the year won't be valuable. It's (in part) that operations during the 'rest' of the year will be hellishly difficult, and hellishly expensive, and the response to the perhaps-frequent incidents will be still more hellish and expensive.
By the way, it only makes sense in connection with a rail bridge (or very substantial ferry operation) across the Bering Strait in conjunction with a relatively high-speed multiple-track line in Russia. There is likely little if any advantage in using Anchorage as a Pacific Rim port, across some kind of Customs boundary, for traffic originating largely in southern Alberta... which is what the 'simplified' A2A maps seem to be indicating.
This to somewhat speed up imports from Europe and Asia, which are artificially depressed now and may not recover after this coronavirus-excuse economic downturn wipes out still more middle-class purchasing power here. And to prioritize shipments of, presumably, dilbit -- with all its political baggage in production and transport and carbon content. I'll grant you that there might be somewhat less of a diluent flash issue during cold months of the year, but I don't think a trillion-dollar project to accelerate fossil-fuel consumption will exactly be a political priority.
Yes, of course I'd love to see it built, just like I'd like to see a high-speed container corridor across the Isthmus of Tehuantepec, a far more sensible use of anyone's available capital. I can tell you in some detail how to build it and run it ... in fact, I have. Unfortunately this shares a common characteristic with the C&NYAL: you have to build it out all the way, not incidentally paying to maintain and secure the parts you progressively build, before you make more than very incidental income out of running things over it. And then charge rates that have some reasonable return on investment, and that retire any debt you've incurred building the thing. Keeping in mind that you have a Bekenstein bound of sorts posed by the cost and time of ocean shipping to West Coast ports (including Prince Rupert), or via Panamax to East Coast points, in a world of increasing PSR shucking of expensive-to-run or uncertain or relatively-restricted-volume traffic.
Compare this with the finances of the Channel Tunnel, an enormously simpler and more lucrative project than this, and tell me the path to profitability...
Here is a REAL problem: I sent an e-mail to this Alaska to Alberta (A2A) Railway asking if there is anyway a small investor could invest in this. (What the heck? I’d throw in a few grand, sure). Guess what? No response. That is a red flag.
Did you really think that applying to contribute 0.0000000002% or so of the likely required ultimate cost would generate a terrifically enthusiastic reply? Or be useful as a piece of propaganda to get meaningful further contributions from the rail enthusiast community?
For those who disagree with this significance, the contact information for the A2A Railway effort, in addition to the link he provided, is:
Deggesty BaltACD Miningman Huh? You mean -40 is a different -40 if you're Government owned or private enterprise? Yes, I would think the Ruskies have this all figured out pretty well. The Trans Siberian has been around a while, in fact why not just let them be the operator on a contract basis. Of course you're also going to have the time of it with Native issues in Canada and you will lose. In fact the Russian's have excellent relations with their Aboriginal peoples which is something really worth looking into. Tells you something about both sides over here, maybe everyone can learn something. -40 is the same. Government Rubles and Private Dollars are not. Do they have good relations with their Native Peoples, or did Stalin eradicate them. Oh, let's use the Kelvin scale--then you have pure water freezing at 273.15 degrees, not 0 or 32.
BaltACD Miningman Huh? You mean -40 is a different -40 if you're Government owned or private enterprise? Yes, I would think the Ruskies have this all figured out pretty well. The Trans Siberian has been around a while, in fact why not just let them be the operator on a contract basis. Of course you're also going to have the time of it with Native issues in Canada and you will lose. In fact the Russian's have excellent relations with their Aboriginal peoples which is something really worth looking into. Tells you something about both sides over here, maybe everyone can learn something. -40 is the same. Government Rubles and Private Dollars are not. Do they have good relations with their Native Peoples, or did Stalin eradicate them.
Miningman Huh? You mean -40 is a different -40 if you're Government owned or private enterprise? Yes, I would think the Ruskies have this all figured out pretty well. The Trans Siberian has been around a while, in fact why not just let them be the operator on a contract basis. Of course you're also going to have the time of it with Native issues in Canada and you will lose. In fact the Russian's have excellent relations with their Aboriginal peoples which is something really worth looking into. Tells you something about both sides over here, maybe everyone can learn something.
Yes, I would think the Ruskies have this all figured out pretty well. The Trans Siberian has been around a while, in fact why not just let them be the operator on a contract basis.
Of course you're also going to have the time of it with Native issues in Canada and you will lose.
In fact the Russian's have excellent relations with their Aboriginal peoples which is something really worth looking into. Tells you something about both sides over here, maybe everyone can learn something.
-40 is the same.
Government Rubles and Private Dollars are not.
Do they have good relations with their Native Peoples, or did Stalin eradicate them.
Oh, let's use the Kelvin scale--then you have pure water freezing at 273.15 degrees, not 0 or 32.
For mere humans -40 it makes no diffence as to F or C.
Yes, of course I'd love to see it built, just like I'd like to see a high-speed container corridor across the Isthmus of Tehuantepec, a far more sensible use of anyone's available capital. I can tell you in some detail how to build it and run it ... in fact, I have. Unfortunately this shares a common characteristic with the C&NYAL: you have to build it out all the way, not incidentally paying to maintain and secure the parts you progressively build, before you make more than very incidental income out of running things over it. And then charge rates that have some reasonable return on investment, and that retire any debt you've incurred building the thing. Compare this with the finances of the Channel Tunnel, an enormously simpler and more lucrative project than this, and tell me the path to profitability...
Did you really think that applying to contribute 0.0000000002% or so of the likely required ultimate cost would generate a terrific reply? Or be useful as a piece of propaganda to get meaningful further contributions from the rail enthusiast community?
Johnny
Fred M Cain After updating this thread the other day, I was just absolutely amazed as to how many peopled chimed in with negative stuff again, bending over backwards to identify every possible problem or difficulty. Why do we do this? It almost seems that instead of advocating for rail, we're trying as hard as we can to make a convincing argument for NOT doing this! Why? Why just look for problems with it? O.K. "If you can't beat 'em join 'em". Here is a REAL problem: I sent an e-mail to this Alaska to Alberta (A2A) Railway asking if there is anyway a small investor could invest in this. (What the heck? I’d throw in a few grand, sure). Guess what? No response. That is a red flag. Here’s another red flag: There has been virtually NO news on this project since last July. That’s a BIG issue because with a scheme like this, it is absolutely critical to keep the momentum going. So, “no news is bad news”. You know, the whole project might just have an ulterior motive. They cite the need to haul oil from the Alberta tar sands to ports in Alaska for shipping overseas since the building of pipelines is being held up for political reasons. Could this whole plan just be a method to push the Canadian government to back down and let them build a pipeline? NOTE : FRED SAID: [FURTHER!] "...Needless to say, I’d love to see a physical rail connection to Alaska. This now makes at least the third time that they’ve gotten serious about building it. I’m afraid it will probably end up just like earlier attempts. Sure, it’d be nice but it’s just too darn expensive..." On the other hand, our governments, both in Canada and the U.S., have absolutely NO problem whatsoever in finding the money to build highways. Why make it so hard for rail? Anyhow, just in case a few of you might not have seen it, here is the URL to the A2A’s website: https://a2arail.com/ Regards, Fred M. Cain
After updating this thread the other day, I was just absolutely amazed as to how many peopled chimed in with negative stuff again, bending over backwards to identify every possible problem or difficulty. Why do we do this? It almost seems that instead of advocating for rail, we're trying as hard as we can to make a convincing argument for NOT doing this! Why? Why just look for problems with it?
O.K. "If you can't beat 'em join 'em". Here is a REAL problem: I sent an e-mail to this Alaska to Alberta (A2A) Railway asking if there is anyway a small investor could invest in this. (What the heck? I’d throw in a few grand, sure). Guess what? No response. That is a red flag.
Here’s another red flag: There has been virtually NO news on this project since last July. That’s a BIG issue because with a scheme like this, it is absolutely critical to keep the momentum going. So, “no news is bad news”.
You know, the whole project might just have an ulterior motive. They cite the need to haul oil from the Alberta tar sands to ports in Alaska for shipping overseas since the building of pipelines is being held up for political reasons. Could this whole plan just be a method to push the Canadian government to back down and let them build a pipeline?
NOTE : FRED SAID: [FURTHER!]
"...Needless to say, I’d love to see a physical rail connection to Alaska. This now makes at least the third time that they’ve gotten serious about building it. I’m afraid it will probably end up just like earlier attempts. Sure, it’d be nice but it’s just too darn expensive..."
On the other hand, our governments, both in Canada and the U.S., have absolutely NO problem whatsoever in finding the money to build highways. Why make it so hard for rail?
Anyhow, just in case a few of you might not have seen it, here is the URL to the A2A’s website:
https://a2arail.com/
Since Fred M. Cain seems to be' waking' some ole Zombies up I reade this with some interest....It surprised me that that there was only a passing reference to the Siberia-Alaska Bridge over the Bering Straits
Back in about 2007 when this thing was originally posted; there was quite a bot of reference material, regarding the studies of the Alaska/ Canada/USA Rail link mentioned on the AAR's website. Apparently. these days any references to that have been made, verboten on that railroad web site... It's sort of listed, but linked is "FORBIDDEN 403" ....
SOOOO! I went and checked a little further: [linked@] http://autc.uaf.edu/projects/2019/alaska-canada-rail-link/
"Alaska-Canada Rail Link Economic Benefits"
From Project Summary [in part] "...Construction of the 1,740 km Alaska-Canada Rail Link (ACRL) between Fort Nelson, BC and Delta Junction, Alaska to join the North American rail system to the Alaska Railroad will result in tremendous economic benefits for Canada and the US. The ACRL will provide valuable additional east-west rail capacity and tidewater access to the Pacific, hugely benefitting not only the Yukon and Eastern Alaska regions, into which it will introduce rail transport for the first time, but throughout both countries. The economic benefits of ACRL construction are consistent with Canadian government’s desire to promote Northern development and comparable in significance to those of Canadian Pacific Railway in the 1880’s and the St. Lawrence Seaway in the 1950’s..."
And for more detailed reading, and PDF of Documents! See link @ https://scholarworks.alaska.edu/bitstream/handle/11122/10567/ALCAN%20FINAL%20Report%20-June%2029%2c%202019%20master%20with%20project%20team%20descriptions%20%281%29.pdf?sequence=1
Enjoy!
Dave,
That is most certainly good news! Glad someone overseas at least has THEIR head together.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.