Boyd How about a flying train? Now that would solve all of our problems.
How about a flying train? Now that would solve all of our problems.
DeggestyIt seems to me that such was promised back in the late forties (when we still subscribed to Popular Science).
It seems to me that such was promised back in the late forties (when we still subscribed to Popular Science).
Having slogged through the 1940's issues of PSM (Popular Science Monthly) on Google Books, I can recall one article on flying cars appearing ca 1950. There were several articles predicting a large postwar surge in general aviation.
- Erik
We should keep our discussions to basic railroad facts. Not the dribble about airplanes in the garage, tunnel to Russia, etc. Otherwise this forum becomes a piece of junk and no body will use it.
With that off my chest lets start serious discussion on the railroad to Alaska. The Alaska Railroad is going to build an approximate 80 mile extension from North Pole Alaska ( the city, not the top of the world) to Delta. Their web page shows topo maps with proposed routes. They just let the contract for the first section which includes the Tanana river bridge. I was recently in Delta and cannot see much to justify a rail line to there other than potential mining which can be a big load factor. Hopefully they are thinking ahead to the Canadian connection. From Delta to the Canadian border is about 200 miles.
The British Canadian government, which owned BC Rail prior to selling to CN was using the rail line as a development tool for BC. They had graded the line to Dease Lake but a change in government and the down turn of the economy caused the rail line to be dropped before rail was laid. It would not be a major project to lay the rail on the graded ROW. By highway it is about 600 miles from the Canadian border to Dease Lake. The highway is a more circutious route and the rail alignment could possibly be shortened to about 500 miles.
ccltrains The British Canadian government, which owned BC Rail prior to selling to CN was using the rail line as a development tool for BC. They had graded the line to Dease Lake but a change in government and the down turn of the economy caused the rail line to be dropped before rail was laid. It would not be a major project to lay the rail on the graded ROW. By highway it is about 600 miles from the Canadian border to Dease Lake. The highway is a more circutious route and the rail alignment could possibly be shortened to about 500 miles.
Make that British Columbian government. Ottawa was subsidizing construction of the line, and they are the ones who pulled the plug. The Dease Lake line was in sevice as far as the Minaret logging camp, but the loggers and the Pine Beetles have taken care of the trees, and it will be some time before they grow back. If a line was built through Canada to Alaska it would be from Fort Nelson, through Watson Lake, and would pass by Whitehorse well to the north. That would put it within range of the Selwyn lead zinc deposit.
http://www.selwynresources.com/en/selwyn_overview.cfm
http://www.photosbystevenjbrown.com/bcrail/northwoods/utv.html
. . . Kinda reminds me of what some notable said about a line in Nevada - I believe it was the Eureka & Palisade, or similar:
"Thsi railroad was built either 300 miles too long - or 300 years too soon !"
- Paul North.
erikem Having slogged through the 1940's issues of PSM (Popular Science Monthly) on Google Books, I can recall one article on flying cars appearing ca 1950. There were several articles predicting a large postwar surge in general aviation. - Erik
Johnny
I would think it would take just as much time and money to lay a roadbed as it would blacktop.
CSSHEGEWISCH Time was a major factor and priorities for strategic materials may have been another.
Time was a major factor and priorities for strategic materials may have been another.
Had not thought of the materials. That much steel for rails would have built a bunch (?) of liberty ships. Also the wood for all those cross ties may have not been easily harvested?
nanaimo73 ccltrains The British Canadian government, which owned BC Rail prior to selling to CN was using the rail line as a development tool for BC. They had graded the line to Dease Lake but a change in government and the down turn of the economy caused the rail line to be dropped before rail was laid. It would not be a major project to lay the rail on the graded ROW. By highway it is about 600 miles from the Canadian border to Dease Lake. The highway is a more circutious route and the rail alignment could possibly be shortened to about 500 miles. Make that British Columbian government. Ottawa was subsidizing construction of the line, and they are the ones who pulled the plug. The Dease Lake line was in sevice as far as the Minaret logging camp, but the loggers and the Pine Beetles have taken care of the trees, and it will be some time before they grow back. If a line was built through Canada to Alaska it would be from Fort Nelson, through Watson Lake, and would pass by Whitehorse well to the north. That would put it within range of the Selwyn lead zinc deposit. http://www.selwynresources.com/en/selwyn_overview.cfm http://www.photosbystevenjbrown.com/bcrail/northwoods/utv.html
Dale: Thanks for sharing those links. Both are very interesting and particularly the part about the Howard Pass Project: http://www.selwynresources.com/en/selwyn_howards_pass.cfm ( link from the selwyn linked article).
In another thread we had a pretty involved discussion about the potential for exploration in the B.C. and NWT areas. RWM made the statement that "minerals wanted to get to the sea". It would seem that the closest Ports would be in Canada and potentially a longer run to Alaska. Very little has been mentioned referencing the various distances involved.
The link about the former BCR line to Minaret being approx 300 miles and another 300(?), [yet to be laid] up to Deese Lake. would surely put an Alaska Connection closer than it ever has been before. The distances mentioned by ccltrains helps to visualize the distances, and with the start of the ARRC line to Delta Jct puts the link another eighty miles further to a possibility.
Zinc and Lead also have been found with quantities of gold and silver within the same deposits. That coupled with coal deposits could concieveably kick off a railroad building efffort and help populate some of that vast area. CN's Yard and terminal at Fort Nelson would also seem to add abother option to the equation.. Makes for interesting speculation.
Paul- The statement was "Either we have built the railroad 300 miles too long or 300 years too soon". It was the answer to the question by William Sharon who asked Darius Ogden Mills what he thought of the Carson and Colorado railroad after an investor's inspection ride in 1881.
See the Carson and Colorado chapter beginning on page 71 of Beebe and Clegg's "Steam Cars to the Comstock".
Thanks for the correction, clarification, and context. I knew I was close, but not quite right. It's too good a quote not to drag out from time to time, esp, when it might apply as here. - PDN.
blue streak 1 CSSHEGEWISCH Time was a major factor and priorities for strategic materials may have been another. Had not thought of the materials. That much steel for rails would have built a bunch (?) of liberty ships. Also the wood for all those cross ties may have not been easily harvested?
Well, the ties could have come from all the old-growth trees in the virgin forest that would have to have been cleared for the grading and roadbed - which would also go for lumber for lineside structures, etc.
Steel for the rails ? Well, let's see - assume 100 lb./ yd. rails - pretty good for the day, but not the PRR's 152 PS mainline stuff. So each mile of track would need about 176 tons of rail, 30 tons of tie plates, 13 tons of joint bars, 4.5 tons of spikes, plus some bolts and misc. items such as rail anchors, etc. = 223.5 tons, so say about 250 tons of steel per mile of track, which is 25,000 tons per 100 miles of track or 250,000 tons for 1,000 track-miles, allowing for some circuitry, sidings, yards, spurs, bridges, etc.
A typical EC-2 Class Liberty Ship weighed about 3,380 tons empty (not sure which 'type' of tons, though) - see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SS_John_W._Brown
So each Liberty Ship equaled about 13.5 miles of track, and 100 miles of track would have equalled 7.4 Liberty Ships, and the 1,000 miles of track would have been 74 Liberty Ships - yep, that seems like a "bunch" to me, too. There were 2,710 Liberty Ships completed - see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberty_ship - so that would have used up about 2.73% of the Liberty Ship fleet.
Would the nation have gotten the same benefit from using the steel that way instead, then or now ? Decide for yourself.
Paul_D_North_Jr A typical EC-2 Class Liberty Ship weighed about 3,380 tons empty (not sure which 'type' of tons, though) - see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SS_John_W._Brown
Deggesty Paul, this is displacement weight--how much water the ship displaces when it is empty. As it is loaded, it sinks down and displaces more water. If the weight of the water displaced is more than the weight of the vessel, the vessel floats; if the weight of the water displaced is less than that of the vessel, the vessel sinks (but you knew that) So, this does not tell you the actual weight of the vessel.
Paul, this is displacement weight--how much water the ship displaces when it is empty. As it is loaded, it sinks down and displaces more water. If the weight of the water displaced is more than the weight of the vessel, the vessel floats; if the weight of the water displaced is less than that of the vessel, the vessel sinks (but you knew that) So, this does not tell you the actual weight of the vessel.
That left me confused. Does not the weight of the displaced water exactly equal the weight of the ship?
Back in the 1970's Boeing pitched the Canadian Government a proposal for a fleet of very large cargo aircraft (much larger than a C-5 Galaxy or the Russian AN-224) for use as LNG tankers transporting Natural Gas from the Northwest territories back down to civilization...
"I Often Dream of Trains"-From the Album of the Same Name by Robyn Hitchcock
As far as the materials used in either a road or a railroad to Alaska is concerned, at the time the road was built it could not have cost much as it wasn't paved. It was supposed to be "cheap and cheerful" and really only intended to last the duration. I think it was finally paved in the 1970s or 80s, but I'm not sure. It was built as a gravel road by the US Army and there were some sovereignity issues regarding having American soldiers on Canadian soil.
Dakguy201That left me confused. Does not the weight of the displaced water exactly equal the weight of the ship?
54light15 As far as the materials used in either a road or a railroad to Alaska is concerned, at the time the road was built it could not have cost much as it wasn't paved. It was supposed to be "cheap and cheerful" and really only intended to last the duration. I think it was finally paved in the 1970s or 80s, but I'm not sure. It was built as a gravel road by the US Army and there were some sovereignity issues regarding having American soldiers on Canadian soil.
54light15:
You might enjoy this linked pdf of the Construction of the ALCAN HWY 1942 If is fairly brief but chock full of photos and specific facts on the Construction of the Hwy.
http://web.mst.edu/~rogersda/umrcourses/ge342/Alcan%20Highway-revised.pdf
And additionally you are correct. The Canadian Army did participate and then took over the Canadian portion for Maintainence ( in Canada it is the Northwest Hwy System.
Linked here to some resources for information: http://www.yukongenealogy.com/content/archives_database_sources.htm
FTL: "...17 Works COY Royal Canadian Engineers, who provided and maintained accommodation for the headquarters, the maintenance teams on the road and the supporting service units of the Northwest Highway System over an eighteen year period. Chapters 2 and 5 list seventy military personnel, commanding officers and civilian employees associated with 17 Works COY during this time period..."
Maintenance and construction on the Alaska Highway, 1946-1964 . 2 nd ed. [S.l.: Corps of Royal Canadian Engineers, 1964].
Location: 358.22 CAF
This history of the Royal Canadian Engineers' involvement with the construction and maintenance of the Alcan Highway highlights 1946 to 1964. The annexes list over 200 individuals involved including commanders, chief engineers, area superintendents, maintenance camp foremen, Royal Canadian Engineer officers and long service civilian employees
Me and Company “C”, by Robert P. Boyd. [ United States ]: R. P. Boyd, 1992
{The above two snippets are from the link listed above,FYI]
Now for the next materials questions? Since this would have been a very military strategic RR
1. How many 200 - 300 ton Steam Locomotives? Both line, Helpers, and then smaller switchers?? Maybe s)ome from north western RRs built for severe winter? From what I have heard even though Steam was worked very hard during the war useage was less than 50%???
2. If not steam would all Diesels built during WW2 and maybe some diesels already working various RRs have been appropriated from lower 48 RR.to be been assigned to this RR?.
3. If steam--Water towers, water spouts including some way to insulate from severe winters, Roundhouses every 100? miles to service broken down locos. Major repair shop about half way?
4. Cooper wire for telephone & telegraph communication dispatch? A very robust wire system for reliability and protection from snow and avalanches?
5. Passenger equipment for troup movements. 1000 miles probably 24 hr trip time??
6. Maybe once RR completed need for transport and escort ships reduced??
7. Would be interesting if some WW2 historian could give us a figure for tonage shipped from west coast (would include Victoria,Vancouver, Prince Rupert, and Skagway) to/from Alaska and all these points over some time frame??
8. Might have required heavier rail than 100# due to heavy military equipment???
9. Either large number of coal cars for steam or diesel fuel cars (maybe both?). Was tumbler coal deposits yet in service during this time? Also Alaska's coal??
During WW2 the government had to build the Alaska quickly due to the fear of the Japanese targeting our coastal shipping to Alaska which would crimp our effort in the north. A railroad can haul more than a highway, however time was the factor. Once the road was graded trucks could immediately begin traveling the road. If we built a railroad significant additional time would be required to lay the tracks, ballast, level, etc not to mention the additional steel that would be required which was in short supply at the time. Also the roadway would require more earthen work (and critical time) as trains cannot climb steep grades like trucks can.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.