OvermodAnd you think that this would be defendable in any actual threatened confrontation for how many minutes? Sabotage, including strategically 'convenient' avalanches or landslips, would be far less avidly prosecuted or condemned as an act of war in Canada, I suspect, and United States assistance in getting the damage repaired might be slow to deploy or unwilling to work in what would be guerrilla-war conditions...
It's far easier and far less risky militarily to slip subs into the intercoastal waterway and sink very slow moving sea going rail barges then it is to land troops sabotage a rail line on a countries interior and pickup those same troops without being detected. I believe we discovered this on the East Coast during World War II .......wasn't the carnage so bad that Roosevelt ordered the news stories on the attacks as not to be reported on? He could do that under a Declaration of War and I believe I read somewhere he did with the close into the coast attacks so as to not cause a general panic. Same thing was done with the airborne Japanese fire bombs on the West Coast. They could not report on the resulting fires as it would only serve to assist the Japanese war effort.
So I would agree with the original post. In wartime the rail line is a more secure option from attack just via it being in a wilderness and so far inland in a inhospitable climate for a good portion of the year. Also, Canadian Naval patrol boats are......well nevermind, off in the weeds there, you can Google if interested. :)
daveklepper Charlie, I don't have time to look this up, but I simply recall it as part of my Army ROTC four years at MIT. Do you have contradicting info? Meanwhilem a reader that served in the Transportation Corps may wish to comment.
Charlie, I don't have time to look this up, but I simply recall it as part of my Army ROTC four years at MIT. Do you have contradicting info?
Meanwhilem a reader that served in the Transportation Corps may wish to comment.
Your 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.
daveklepperCharlie, administrations during the Cold War period relied omn USA military alliances and ties with allies. Can we rely on thosr two factors alone, now?
Yes - if we don't make our friends into our enemies. Making Canada an enemy will not benefit the project.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
Charlie, administrations during the Cold War period relied omn USA military alliances and ties with allies. Can we rely on thosr two factors alone, now?
daveklepper Actually easier to repair a railroad than a highway..
Actually easier to repair a railroad than a highway..
Actually? You state that as a fact. Evidence?
OM: You are right. My question would be why in 45 years of the Cold War with the Soviet Union, we had no need for a railroad to defend Alaska. Now Putin is no friend of ours (except with a high level few here), but we are now supposed to be persuaded that a much weaker Russia is such a threat that we need a railroad to Alaska for national security?
MJ4562A rail line from the lower 48 is highly desirable for strategic military reasons. Russia has been aggressively pushing its claims in the Arctic for many years and expanding its military presence in the region.
Victrola1Will tour operators be permitted to provide passenger service as a land cruise?
Finally, there could be a legit train called the North Pole Express. Dreamland though, all passenger services in Alaska are subsidized. I would really be curious in a side by side compare between Alaska railroad passenger services and say Amtrak on a financial basis but thats probably never going to happen. My hunch is Alaska does better in the Summer with the Cruise ships but then in the long winter looses it's shirt.
A railine from the lower 48 is highly desirable for strategic military reasons. Russia has been aggressively pushing its claims in the Arctic for many years and expanding its military presence in the region. Railroads are how the bulk of heavy equipment and supplies move.
adkrr64If it is sold as a land cruise, freight speeds would probably be sufficient. Think Rocky Mountaineer.
On the other hand, to get best return out of the very expensive project at least some of the bridge traffic might be fleeted at higher speed, this becoming higher priority if there is a full connection to Asia and Europe across the Strait. The cruise train might have to accommodate this in its operation.
If it is sold as a land cruise, freight speeds would probably be sufficient. Think Rocky Mountaineer.
I would opine that land cruises would be more palatable than scheduled service. The land cruises could be shoehorned into the regular flow of traffic.
There is also the question as to what class of track will be maintained. Class 3 would be sufficient for freight operations (40 MPH), and that would permit 60 MPH passenger operations, when open track was available.
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...
Victrola1Assume the link is made. Will tour operators be permitted to provide passenger service as a land cruise?
Will tour operators be permitted to provide passenger service as a land cruise?
If common-carrier rights are assumed, a case could be made that service for passengers could be. I'm not sure how delightful a 'cruise' it would be with a stream of CBTC-controlled stack trains going the other way at over 100mph relative speed, or keeping the cruise train on strict time-and-territory limits as it progresses. On the other hand it should be technically easy to compress traffic into blocks of traffic 'away' from a cruise train given the restricted number of these likely to 'financially survive' on a route that long, across a territory likely devoid of secondary destination attractions (including things like new First Nations casino-style complexes "co-located" with mining operations; should we call one 'Julesburg?) for a considerable and unpredictable time.
If the thing is built either fully or quasi-open access, as I think A2A and G7G are assuming in their financial planning so far, a cruise train would only have to fulfill the company's access provisions: equipment safety documentation, appropriate insurance coverage and passenger support enroute via helicopter or special vehicle, etc. There would be further support needed at points enroute and at endpoints that might involve switching or dwell; these would also be billed for. Expect bonding and escrow requirements above that for regular freight and perhaps more than for most types of hazmat.
I would like to imagine the dawn of new Chateau Lauriers (more specifically like the one at Port-au-Pic) as a kind of 'anchor location' for new town development in the current wilderness. I don't see the likelihood for necessary development remotely occurring from cruise-train traffic levels --pun intended -- but I'd be delighted to be proven wrong.
Assume the link is made.
BaltACDSame tactic that railroads use when valid contract violation time claims are submitted.
Your claim is without merit and therefore denied...
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
BaltACD tree68 ... On top of that, the insurance companies regularly refuse the first billing submission. That way they can hold on to your money (premiums) that much longer. Same tactic that railroads use when valid contract violation time claims are submitted.
tree68 ... On top of that, the insurance companies regularly refuse the first billing submission. That way they can hold on to your money (premiums) that much longer.
On top of that, the insurance companies regularly refuse the first billing submission. That way they can hold on to your money (premiums) that much longer.
Same tactic that railroads use when valid contract violation time claims are submitted.
Same tactic that most municipalities use when people submit claims for losses caused by municipal employees.
CM, I've come around to agree with you.
charlie hebdoAlaska was admitted to statehood about 60 years ago. Other than a boomlet during the north slope oil rush, there hasn't been anything of note commercially except tourism and fishing since. Why pour billions into infrastructure? To support what? A land bridge to Russia and the rest of Asia?
How did we get our first transcontinental railroad again? Why did the government spend any money on it?
Did you know the first locomotive over the newly laid Milwaukee and Waukesha railway in Wisconsin was named "Westward Ho!".....why did the people at the time feel the need to name it that? They had plank roads to Waukesha that were sufficient and profitable, why build a railroad? Very expensive and not needed at the time plus it would undoubtedly only compete with the plank road /hotel system already established and make that less profitable.
BTW, historical note: Brookfield preserved it's plank road hotel. When I was a kid growing up it was still a residential home located on Bluemound road but then the last owner of the bloodline died, and they relocated it and moved it about a mile down Pilgrim Road. I believe Fond Du Lac also has preserved it's plank road hotel as well.
As a provider I can only say that we have a ridiculously inefficient system in which insurance companies are wasting billions of the public's money.
BaltACDWhat we have is the insurcance company full profits health system.
Indeed - and insurance drives everything. I'm on the board of a not-for-profit ambulance. Some insurance will pay nearly the whole bill - others might pay $50 for a ride to the hospital that will be billed at $600. It's tough on the patients.
Some of the major insurance companies will gladly pay us directly (many of the smaller ones already do) but will only do so with a contract that pays significantly less than we would otherwise expect.
54light15Regarding health care, in Canada it's paid out of your taxes. Everyone has it no matter whether or not you are employed. You want to go to the doctor? Call and make an appointment. You go, show your provincial health card and that's all. Everyone has a health card. Bums in the street to millionaires. You need care, you get it. When I lived in New York for the first 40 years of my life, health care is managed. Managed by insurance companies. My wife could not go to her own doctor because he wasn't on my plan at work. She had to get a referral from a doctor who was on my plan. Then the deductible was this much instead of that much. She had various health problems and we were constantly writing checks to various insurers, not to the doctors themselves. In almost every case the deductible was this, the deductible was that. They would pay 100% on this one, 70% on that one. Constantly filling out forms, writing checks and mailing them here and there. It was nuts! Abot 7 years ago, my urine was red. I went to the doctor and eventually it was found that my right kidney had a large tumour. Cancerous! I went to the hospital that is almost across the street. I went on a Friday morning and by Tuesday I was home with only one kidney. They said I could stay longer if I wanted but the food was nasty. What did it cost me? Nothing. A friend in New York donated a kidney to his sister and went through the same process as I did. A nephrectomy. It cost his sister $60,000.00 on top of what her insurance paid. My point is, the health care you get in the States may be great but it's how it's paid for that makes no sense. Having lived in both countries, I much prefer the system we have here. People and there are many, like to call it "socialised medicine" like that's some terrible thing. Here it's called national health insurance. Yes, taxes are high in Canada but clearly we get something for it. Are taxes low anywhere?
When I lived in New York for the first 40 years of my life, health care is managed. Managed by insurance companies. My wife could not go to her own doctor because he wasn't on my plan at work. She had to get a referral from a doctor who was on my plan. Then the deductible was this much instead of that much. She had various health problems and we were constantly writing checks to various insurers, not to the doctors themselves. In almost every case the deductible was this, the deductible was that. They would pay 100% on this one, 70% on that one. Constantly filling out forms, writing checks and mailing them here and there. It was nuts!
Abot 7 years ago, my urine was red. I went to the doctor and eventually it was found that my right kidney had a large tumour. Cancerous! I went to the hospital that is almost across the street. I went on a Friday morning and by Tuesday I was home with only one kidney. They said I could stay longer if I wanted but the food was nasty. What did it cost me? Nothing.
A friend in New York donated a kidney to his sister and went through the same process as I did. A nephrectomy. It cost his sister $60,000.00 on top of what her insurance paid. My point is, the health care you get in the States may be great but it's how it's paid for that makes no sense. Having lived in both countries, I much prefer the system we have here.
People and there are many, like to call it "socialised medicine" like that's some terrible thing. Here it's called national health insurance. Yes, taxes are high in Canada but clearly we get something for it. Are taxes low anywhere?
I have never understood the US 'healthcare system'. What is the benefit to the country of having a sizeable 'sick' population that cannot afford to get well. The overall economic cost of sickness has to be many times the costs of proper care.
What we have is the insurcance company full profits health system.
Regarding health care, in Canada it's paid out of your taxes. Everyone has it no matter whether or not you are employed. You want to go to the doctor? Call and make an appointment. You go, show your provincial health card and that's all. Everyone has a health card. Bums in the street to millionaires. You need care, you get it.
Alaska was admitted to statehood about 60 years ago. Other than a boomlet during the north slope oil rush, there hasn't been anything of note commercially except tourism and fishing since. Why pour billions into infrastructure? To support what? A land bridge to Russia and the rest of Asia?
zugmannSo a question - have you ever lived in Europe?
Yes I have and it has changed radically since I was living there. So I cannot really take my experiences from the 1980's and apply them today. For example in the 1980's. Stores were all closed by 5:00 or 6:00 p.m. each day in West Germany due to Federal regulations. They were opened I think every other Sat vs every Sat. Every store closed all day Sunday. They also had a brief rest period in which they would also close 12 noon to 1 or 2 p.m. I think restriction on operating hours is gone now or at least partially gone.
Trains were graffitti free and spotless back then as well and the rail system was not open to private operators each country had a National System and in a lot of cases that National System would stop their trains from crossing the border instead of running through as they do now in a lot of cases.
However, I have encountered it again and again on the Internet where recent emigre neighbors (NextDoor App again) that constantly contradict the wishful thinking posts of those people that have never left the United States commenting on how their Health Care system is better, How their minimum wage is better (they pay for that in lack of diversity and locations of fast food places.....plus noticeably higher prices at each location that exists). Americans will cite their job training programs are better and Americans always cite the machinst program as an example (the best one of course), How many Germans go through the machinst program each year compared to the other ones? What are the success rates of the other job training programs? What is the structural unemployment rate for each age group compared to the United States? How does their post retirement pay compare with ours? Questions Americans never ask.
Anyways, my two cents on comparisons with Europe.
Back on topic on this whole Alaska thing. I think a large part of the problem we have with Alaska is distance and that a large part of the population in the lower 48 think of Alaska as a developed state or National Park vs a Frontier. So the development programs that need to happen there do not gather any support among the lower 48 states. Which is too bad because the state has a lot of potential given it's geographical position alone between the Russian Far East and the West Coast of the United States (also, much farther Northward). I think for future development the rail link makes sense. Initially it might not be financially viable but over time as the state grows it will cross that threshold at some point. Especially if we add in other infrastructure projects to Alaska's development like building a decent and expansive road network in Alaska, allowing immigrants to settle there with land grants like we handled Western Settlement long ago. Platting & Building towns and villages, etc.
EuclidI wonder if the project is now scheduled to start, or is it just being called for as a proposal.
Neither of the companies looks to me like a California consultant porkfest that produces little beyond million-dollar studies restating the obvious incorrectly. I think there might be less 'indigenous objection' to the G7G version, but any actual groundbreaking on parts of construction, even in noncontroversial places or ways, is unlikely to be for years.
It will be interesting to see if the Chinese Belt and Road Initiative comes into this anywhere, as they have both the available capital and the demonstrated poor-condition construction equipment to build the necessary line correctly. They may have an interest in developing mineral assets along the route, but I rather suspect the focus would be on through traffic...
I might have missed that detail, but generally, the news seems to be focused on justifying the need and the ability to make a profit by talking about all the different types of freight that need hauling. Somewhere I read that A2A RAIL will need to run ten large trains a day in order to make the business pay.
Overmod Euclid Without further information, I cannot rule out the possibility that this project will be publically financed by the U.S. and Canada. Without further information, I would rule it out definitively as, even if there were no issues with year-round operation or maintenance, there is little effective use for the line economically unless it is extended across the Bering Strait coherently and coordinated either with some aspect of Belt and Road or ... Russian operation. As a friend of mine used to say, I've got a real clear picture that Trump getting any financing whatsoever even approved for a Russian connection, no matter how prospectively far in the future, will receive positive consideration in those areas of government that allocate financing... I believe the A2A RAIL people have bent over backward to keep the financing private, even to the extent of having the American or Canadian governments provide access to cheaper or better guaranteed financial terms. Someone remind me what their currently touted routing is, and whether it changed in response to the First Nations controversies a few months ago or the weaselry inherent in some of the supposed Canadian-government responses to them.
Euclid Without further information, I cannot rule out the possibility that this project will be publically financed by the U.S. and Canada.
Without further information, I would rule it out definitively as, even if there were no issues with year-round operation or maintenance, there is little effective use for the line economically unless it is extended across the Bering Strait coherently and coordinated either with some aspect of Belt and Road or ... Russian operation. As a friend of mine used to say, I've got a real clear picture that Trump getting any financing whatsoever even approved for a Russian connection, no matter how prospectively far in the future, will receive positive consideration in those areas of government that allocate financing...
I believe the A2A RAIL people have bent over backward to keep the financing private, even to the extent of having the American or Canadian governments provide access to cheaper or better guaranteed financial terms.
Someone remind me what their currently touted routing is, and whether it changed in response to the First Nations controversies a few months ago or the weaselry inherent in some of the supposed Canadian-government responses to them.
CM: I wish to weigh-in to support you. I have lived, counting visits, more than 25 of my 88+ years in Israel, more than a half year in South Africa and ditto in Europe and ditto Canada. In the USA, New York. Boston, and the Chicago area have been long-term homes, plus worked in all continental 48. You cannot cherry-pick one feature of particular country's social and economic and political system.
Back on Oct. 02 on this discussion, I made this comment:
" Here we go again. A couple of weeks or so ago I changed my signature back to one I use for the political season. It applies to all sides. It's Ben Franklin's, so I don't want to change it, but I would want to change the "do" at the end to "believe."
I'm repeating it.
_____________
"A stranger's just a friend you ain't met yet." --- Dave Gardner
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.