Starting a new thread to explore this topic sounds like a splendid idea.
--Steven Otte, Model Railroader senior associate editorsotte@kalmbach.com
Fred M CainWill it ever happen?
Very few people care about a railroad connecting up across Canada on heroic earthworks, just to get to some of the areas in Alaska that might benefit from the... well, it certainly wouldn't be guaranteed, or cost-effective, or particularly high-traffic freight. It's only a practical bridge competing with existing routes if it goes to 'something' across the Bering Strait to a country we're economically boycotting, that's likely dependent on one of its neighbors we're having 'trouble' with building the (equally dramatic) counterpart up from the Trans-Siberian to their side.
This as nearshoring, shifts in world production, and increased investment in East Coast ports make even the rationale for a Bering Strait trunk line begin to look pale. We currently think a practical 'speedy' service is 12 days from Halifax to Monterrey. That begins to look like a (cheaper) ship-borne schedule to someplace like Tehuantepec where it gets on a proper container-bridge line. (Which won't be built under Belt and Road for internal Mexican political reasons - quel dommage as it's been recognized as valuable since the 1850s -- THAT is something to prioritize long before you manage A2A).
I suspect most 'First Nations' would allow A2A -- if they were asked politely, and as I said if they had real financial returns without assuming much of the risk. You will recall that while Trump generated the permit to reach the Canadian border, I don't recall any action taken by Canada to permit anything north of there. That's the current place to lobby if you want anything like this to move forward in any practical sense... and I don't see it becoming the sort of national priority that CP was.
Fred M CainAlaskans, many Canadians and native North Americans would probably support such a plan.
That's an interesting thought. Do you really believe Native North Americans would agree to new railroad tracks being laid across their land?
York1 John
Fred M CainI might just do that *IF* there’s enough interest in the subject.
C'mon its the TRAINS forum, all you have to do is post a fact that you know is absolutely true and like 10 people will disagree with you and try to drag you into an alternate reality. So start a new thread please without the name Trump in it so it has longevity.
charlie hebdo "A solution looking for a nonexistent problem"
"A solution looking for a nonexistent problem"
Speaking of Leona Helmsley, I stayed in a Helmsley hotel on 42nd street years ago. On the minibar were boxes of crackers and other snacks. A sign said that if you pick up a box and don't replace it in 15 seconds you will be charged. How much was that box of Carr's crackers? 20 bucks.
You must be paraphrasing Leona Helmsley who said that just before she went to jail.
charlie hebdo"A solution looking for a nonexistent problem"
I'm surprised I can still read about half the comments in this thread. It's only incidentally about the 'politics' of issuing a permit for the United States portions of the proposed line.
Perhaps we need a new thread exclusively about the prospective financing, construction, and operation of A2A or an alternative. Or resurrect a different necro thread that contains that discussion. Let this one die a deserved death.
.
Well, sorry to say, the proposed A2A (Alaska to Alberta) rail link now appears as though it's officially dead. But the idea still lives on and refuses to die.
Here is a more recent proposal from a little more that a year ago:
Open mining opportunities with a railroad (adn.com)
This is clearly nothing more than an opinion piece but the guy does bring up some interesting points.
Fred M CainAs I have mentioned on at least two other threads, it's the Alaska to Alberta (A2A) Railway. They have a nice website and I contacted them by e-mail.
I don't think that the Trumpster was providing any monetary assistance. He just authorized it.
I believe, if I'm not mistaken that the ARR has already graded some of the right of way east of North Pole
Flintlock76 rrnut282 I was under the impression that the Gateway Project was going forward, just with a larger chunk of funding from the local states. It is. A railroad to Alaska's been kicked around ever since WW2. Why it's going to be built (maybe) now I don't know.
rrnut282 I was under the impression that the Gateway Project was going forward, just with a larger chunk of funding from the local states.
It is.
A railroad to Alaska's been kicked around ever since WW2. Why it's going to be built (maybe) now I don't know.
As I have mentioned on at least two other threads, it's the Alaska to Alberta (A2A) Railway. They have a nice website and I contacted them by e-mail.
They are serious. Will they pull it off? Who knows? Several people have voiced their rather negative opinions about this but I'm not sure anyone knows for sure.
What will they carry? It's on their website. Would it be successful? I have no idea.
But, I don't think that the Trumpster was providing any monetary assistance. He just authorized it. That means that it only has a clear block from the ARR end of track near "North Pole" to the Alaska/Yukon Territory line. I don't know for sure if the Canadian government has done likewise or not.
Regards,
FMC
OvermodLikely as much for support as formal defense; the two would go hand-in-hand. The associated question for both A2A and G7G is how coordinated their 'development' projects or relationships/partners will be. Is Brightline an applicable model? A
I don't know. I think it is too early for someone like Brightline because Alaska lacks the population density. I think you would first need to have a similar development effort like we had in the West long ago. Incent private roadway builders and some private railway lines to build to the Western interior of the state, plat the land into townships and sell to immigrants or new settlers. What would the developments be centered around is another question. I don't think the land is overly suitable for farming but perhaps you can start manufacturing products in Alaska that Alaska currently imports and turn that around so then the product is exported. I would go with manufacturing first because that builds wealth and the economy faster then service. So maybe different settlements built around manufacturing capabilities or plants of some sort. They could ship by rail as well, inbound raw materials, outbound finished product and probably export to the Northern part of the Pacific Rim. Build some new ports in the West with rail lines leading to them. Look at the success Canada has had with Prince Rupert, BC. My first visit there it was a tiny town and the rail line leading to it was all single track with few passing sidings. Now look at the huge container port there and the line leading to it is a lot busier than it was in the past.
Also, it doesn't have to be 100% a United States effort, bring in Japan to invest. Maybe they can build some auto assembly plants or parts plants up there. I actually believe all the Pacific Rim countries would want to see Alaska developed vs maintain it's status quo as America's version of Siberia. It would open a world of new opportunities for all of them.
OM: Amazing how irrelevant much of the discussion becomes in spite of your valiant efforts to put it back on the logic track. I give up.
CMStPnPDevelop Alaska and you'll see DoD argue for a rail line connection for it's defense.
Overmod That might be less assured in cold and deep-snow conditions, in areas not amenable to heavy lift, where significant grading or heavy fill might be required even for slow speed.
If it was just RJ Corman I might agree but your going to see a pairing of DoD and private capabilities here if it was a vital rail line and it was wartime.
OvermodThe chief thing that has changed in the last 20 years or so is the development of precision-guided munitions. Repeated strikes even with low-level cruise missiles would make defense in depth of any mountain railway a crapshoot; with the innovation of long-loiter UAVs it becomes an interesting subject of just what even conventional air superiority might mean to a debilitating strike against traffic as well as bridges, tunnels, or areas where strikes might cause landslip or avalanche either above or below grade. While a MIRV or MARV strike is unlikely to me, it is likely there are many locations on the proposed railway where very large land movement, probably associated with radiological contamination, could render the railroad as a practical through route interdicted fir an extended time and perhaps permanently; I would suspect that appropriate nuclear ordnance could be delivered by cruise to similar effect.
I can't see them launching an ICBM against Alaska or Western Canada. There is no targets there high value enough. So onto the Cruise Missiles which are short range and you need to get really close to launch them with an Aircraft Carrier if your using Aircraft or a Sub. Surface ship would never get that close unless we lost most of the Pacific Fleet.
However, unrelated this military discussion is. It again underscores a main point of the thread that Alaska is not developed enough to represent anything other that a landing zone for paratroopers from Russia or China or for Special Forces sabotage missions. So it ends up being the same argument why a rail line is not built. Develop Alaska and you'll see DoD argue for a rail line connection for it's defense.
greyhoundsOh, Good Grief! This is so Charlie Hebdo. Since he can’t respond to the discussion, he attacks, seeks to discredit, or otherwise diminish the source.
In Daves Defense, I went through Infantry OSUT in 1982, Followed my Nephew through the course online via a webpage in 2007. Not a huge change in training. Attended a 101st Airborne reunion in 2009 with Veterans and Active Duty troops combined. I was still fully conversant in the MOS, most of the tactics and skillset. Not a whole lot has changed.....even on the Officer end. The new technology like the tap screens for confirming air strike targets, mobile LANs and EMail's between vehicles is all new but it doesn't require huge amounts of new training either, it's very inituitive and blends with the old skills well (that is how it was designed). Pretty sure you could put Dave as an Officer in a unit of today and he could ramp up pretty fast if he was in physical shape for it.
charlie hebdoand even then there does not appear to have been a plan to build essentially a military railroad.
I'm just curious because you stated you served before, why do you think that is? and why do you think DoD designates Hawaii and Alaska as being "overseas"?
daveklepperRegarding missiles...
I fhink that all English speaking countries will remain allies of the USA, and not just Canada, but some others might be shaky. Turkey and Iran were once allies.
And economic warfair seems upon us already, and that factors into this railway's construction.
1. Much of what you write about rail dangers also applies to heavy-duty highways.
2. The USA and Canada can be depended upon, in my opinion, to maintain air superiority. Regarding missels, the USA and Canada have all the equipment and technology that Israel has, and this keeps pace with what the intelligence operations of these three countries learn of develpments in China, Russia, N. Korea, and Iran. Based on what the Ayatollas seem to keep proclaiming, I would not be sitting at a computer writting this without those defensive capabilities.
charlie hebdo... there was no DOD plan to build a railroad line through Canada to Alaska for national security. Was there one?
No one has seriously considered operating forward air support using selective portions of a double-track main line as runways. Nor would it be effective to 'portage' even container traffic across a break in the railway, for a variety of fairly predictable reasons. And it is highly difficult to disguise, let alone hide a railroad of meaningful length from the air or space, even if you could obfuscate its existence (e.g. by pretending the Dease Lake extension was never finished) -- meaning it would be a 1400-mile sitting duck.
daveklepperActually easier to repair a railroad than a highway...
The chief thing that has changed in the last 20 years or so is the development of precision-guided munitions. Repeated strikes even with low-level cruise missiles would make defense in depth of any mountain railway a crapshoot; with the innovation of long-loiter UAVs it becomes an interesting subject of just what even conventional air superiority might mean to a debilitating strike against traffic as well as bridges, tunnels, or areas where strikes might cause landslip or avalanche either above or below grade. While a MIRV or MARV strike is unlikely to me, it is likely there are many locations on the proposed railway where very large land movement, probably associated with radiological contamination, could render the railroad as a practical through route interdicted fir an extended time and perhaps permanently; I would suspect that appropriate nuclear ordnance could be delivered by cruise to similar effect.
This is different from repairing railroads and yards in open country, where access is relatively simple and ordinary 'shoofly' construction easy. We have even a couple of recent examples of severe damage ameliorated in a short time where the repair equipment could be brought in and worked easily. That might be less assured in cold and deep-snow conditions, in areas not amenable to heavy lift, where significant grading or heavy fill might be required even for slow speed.
You did not respond to my point which was, since you didn't seem to get it, not that Dave was wrong, but that when he served or when you did, there was no DOD plan to build a railroad line through Canada to Alaska for national security. Was there one? That's the question and the point is that even in the depths of the Cold War there was no such plan. So why would you, Mr. Anti-government, want to spend a huge amount of public money now when it's doubtful private enterprise sees any reason to?
Just to be clear, I was not discrediting Dave. The reason I mentioned the time period was because it was in the Cold War and even then there does not appear to have been a plan to build essentially a military railroad. If you simply have some personal vendetta, that's your problem.
charlie hebdoYour ROTC training would have been approximately 65 years ago in the mid-50s in the midst of the Cold War, pre-ICBMs as weapons delivery systems, so more of a conventional war mentality. Yet there are no indications that there were any plans back then for the US to build a rail line mostly in Canada for defense purposes.
1. It's the Intracoastal Waterway.
2. It's pretty shallow in many places for modern shipping. Minimum depth is supposed to be 12 feet, but it's only 6-7 feet in some areas.
3. U-Boots? Doubtful. Let's see your documentation for that whopper. Of course they certainly operated off the Atlantic and Gulf coasts early in the war, sinking many ships in full view of people in cities, especially tankers at night prior to blackout restrictions.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.