Is a railroad to Alaska crazy talk? I think so.

[Fred M Cain]

O.K.  I warn you all.  This is really off-topic here but I just want to share this.  If any of you like to read (as in books) I found the book Alaska's Wolfman a really super fun read.  I had never before thought much about Alaska but after reading this, and later Into the Wild, I concluded I'd love to go up there some time.  But I'm not sure that'll ever happen.

If I were in my 20s again, I might even try living up there.  What would be really neat is if someone could have a second home in Fairbanks or somewhere and just live there from mid March to mid October every year.  Then going "home" to northern Indiana would seem like going to Florida for the winter ~ !

Here you go:

Alaska's Wolf Man: The 1915-55 Wilderness Adventures of Frank Glaser: Rearden, Jim: 9781575100470: Amazon.com: Books

[Fred M Cain]

To bring this thread back on topic after my last off-topic post (I’ll let the moderator delete it if he so chooses), a golden opportunity to build a line to Alaska may have been forever lost.

 

“Opportunity knocks but once”, as the writer in the Anchorage online news stated.

 

I seem to remember that back in the late 1960s, the CNR, which was actually owned by the Canadian government at that time, was all prepared to build to Alaska.  Indeed, if I’m remembering this right, some preliminary work was actually done in British Columbia.

 

However, President Richard Nixon (aka “Tricky Dick”) was vehemently opposed to having a Canadian government-owned railroad build on American soil in Alaska, and he effectively killed the project.

 

I recall thinking at the time that this whole fiasco was beyond stupid.  Stupid, ‘cause Nixon failed to realize that the CNR already owned and operated four railroads in the lower 48 states. So, the precedent was already there.  Or, perhaps he did know and didn’t care or maybe he killed the scheme for some other reason and just used this as an excuse.

 

Are any of you on this list old enough to remember any of this?  If so, I’d like to hear clarification because I’m trying to remember something from over 50 years ago now.

I’ve tried “Googling” for information on this but turned up nothing.

[York1]

Fred M Cain

Are any of you on this list old enough to remember any of this?  If so, I’d like to hear clarification because I’m trying to remember something from over 50 years ago now.

 

From Wikipedia:

Calls were made to extend the branch more than 1,000 miles (1,600 km) north through the Yukon and into Alaska to join the federally-owned Alaska state railroad.^[27] An Alaska state study outlined numerous economic benefits from developing mineral resources and suggested it could become a trunk line to Alaska ports.^[28] Although preliminary studies showed the project financially feasible and environmentally sound, the BC government displayed no appetite for further financial commitments.^[29] It regarded financing as primarily the responsibility of the U.S. federal and Alaskan governments, with some contribution by the Canadian government.^[30] The prohibitive $2-billion cost put an indefinite damper on building the link.^[31]

[54light15]

Mr. Cain, so you choose not to go "North to Alaska" but rather "Back Home Again in Indiana?" 

[Backshop]

York1

 

 

Fred M Cain

Are any of you on this list old enough to remember any of this?  If so, I’d like to hear clarification because I’m trying to remember something from over 50 years ago now.

 

 

 

From Wikipedia:

Calls were made to extend the branch more than 1,000 miles (1,600 km) north through the Yukon and into Alaska to join the federally-owned Alaska state railroad.^[27] An Alaska state study outlined numerous economic benefits from developing mineral resources and suggested it could become a trunk line to Alaska ports.^[28] Although preliminary studies showed the project financially feasible and environmentally sound, the BC government displayed no appetite for further financial commitments.^[29] It regarded financing as primarily the responsibility of the U.S. federal and Alaskan governments, with some contribution by the Canadian government.^[30] The prohibitive $2-billion cost put an indefinite damper on building the link.^[31]

 

Just to clarify a point for Mr Cain, the "only $2 Billion" cost of the railroad was at a time when the total US Federal budget was around $150 Billion, depending on which figure you want to use.  So well over 1% of the federal budget, during the height of the Vietnam War, let alone the Cold War.

US federal budget history (areppim.com)

Annual Budget Message to the Congress, Fiscal Year 1968. | The American Presidency Project (ucsb.edu)

[SD60MAC9500]

Fred M Cain

 

 

Murphy Siding

For a bit of perspective, the north shore of Lake Superior reminds me of where we lived in Alaska- mountains, trees, and water.

 

 

 

I realize, of course, that this is off topic and I don’t wanna see this thread wander too far so no one need respond, but there is a reason why the north shore of Lake Superior reminded you of Alaska.

 

Due to a quirk in North American weather and climate, the most bitter cold air from the interior of AK and the Yukon, dips way down south in the interior of the continent to the vicinity of the Great Lakes.  If you go just a couple o’ hundred miles north of where I am (northern Indiana) it gets very nearly as cold as Fairbanks.

 

The all-time historic low for the state of Minnesota is in a little town called Tower (-60°F).  That is only a mere six degrees shy of Fairbanks’s all time record low of -66°.  In my mind’s eye, that’s still pretty doggone cold~!  Hearst, Ontario probably gets even colder than that.

 

When those bitter cold winds sweep down out of the northwest, in order to reach me, they have to first pass over Lake Michigan.  That moistens and warms the air somewhat. 

 

The result?  The worst I’ve ever seen it here is -26°F.  But in my book that’s still pretty doggone cold, especially with a 25-30MPH wind blowing~!  On a day like that, I stay inside and read by my wood burning stove. :)

 

It's not a quirk. North America has a massive geographic feature called the Interior Plain that stretches from the shores of Canada's Northwest Territory on the Beaufort Sea to a small northern portion of the Mexican state of Coahuila then up through the Great Lakes across Southwestern Ontario ending in extreme western New York. The Interior Plain includes the Great Plains. This is why we have such extreme weather compared to other continents. While having much colder and higher precip winters than Europe being at a lower latitude. It allows Arctic air to come rushing down into the Continent.

Any impetus for a rail line to Alaska would be to access natural resources in B.C., and Yukon. Both of which are loaded with; Coal, Iron Ore, Copper, Nickel, Magnesium, Natural Gas, Oil, Zinc, Titanium, Tungsten, etc.. One must remember Canada is our version of Russia when it comes to minerals and hydrocarbons.

[OWTX]

The extraction industries up there use trucks.

https://www.miningnewsnorth.com/story/2023/03/17/northern-neighbors/minto-to-stop-using-skagway-ore-terminal/7854.html

What was the last private extraction railroad built in North America?

[kgbw49]

The US Gypsum 3' narrow gauge railroad is still in operation on a 26-mile line between Plaster City, CA and a gypsum mine in Imperial County, CA.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=UAmsqGkOBkc

Southwestern Portland Cement operates an approximately 7-mile long standard gauge line from Victorville, CA to a quarry.

And while not exactly extraction, US Sugar operates a network of sugar cane gathering branches in south central Florida.

This video has their former Florida East Coast 4-6-2 No. 148 hauling some cane trains. Normally the cane trains are hauled by diesel.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ozHWO50g2j8

[CSSHEGEWISCH]

Minntac uses a mix of rail and trucks in its mining operations on the Range.  Diesel-electric dump trucks work the pits while rail is used between a transfer site and the beneficiation plant.

[Fred M Cain]

SD60MAC9500

 <SNIP>

Any impetus for a rail line to Alaska would be to access natural resources in B.C., and Yukon. Both of which are loaded with; Coal, Iron Ore, Copper, Nickel, Magnesium, Natural Gas, Oil, Zinc, Titanium, Tungsten, etc.. One must remember Canada is our version of Russia when it comes to minerals and hydrocarbons.

 

 

Well, I think most of us on this group can agree building such a long line would be astronomically expensive.  I mean, a THOUSAND miles of road?  That’s a lot of railroad construction.  Whether it would be really worth the effort and pay for itself over the long run is a question and involves a certain amount of speculation.  Would it or wouldn’t it?  I don’t think we really know.  But railroad history is full of lines that were built out of pure speculation.  Some panned out well; many did not.

 

One thing I’ve wondered about, if enough minerals and forest products were shipped south to the lower 48, that might actually benefit the railroads in the lower 48 states more than it would the line itself by providing a source of traffic that would be difficult for trucks to compete with.  100 carloads of lumber shipped from Alaska or the Yukon to New England or Florida would indeed boost traffic down here, not so?

 

One thing we haven’t discussed yet is the logistics issue of crossing an international border twice for traffic that would both originate and terminate in the U.S.  Isn’t that what at least  partly doomed the old New York Central route across southern Ontario?  Conrail acquired the line but later decided they didn't want to keep it.  I think it's since been abandoned.

 

However, depending on what kind of governments would exist in the U.S. and Canada, perhaps that issue could be ironed out but you cannot depend on that.

 

Once again,  I’d like to bring your attention to this article written just a little more than a year ago:

 

https://www.adn.com/opinions/2022/02/15/open-mining-opportunities-with-a-railroad/

 

I might actually attempt to contact that guy to see what his take is on this.  Just to satisfy my own wonder – his opinion probably won’t make all that much of a difference.

[PNWRMNM]

The article Mr. Cain refers to in his post below almost has some useful information. It talks of trucks 90 to 100 feet long running on 7.5-minute headways.

That headway is 8 trucks per hour, but how does the length convert to tons, which the reporter did not provide and are the basis of any economic analysis and mode selection?

The author does not tell us what kind of ore, but we know that concentrates are dense. SP bought new 100-ton 30 feet (maybe 35 feet coupled) ore cars to haul Kaiser ore in Southern California years ago so let's assume that 30 feet equals 100 tons. On that basis the trucks cited in the article would be 300 tons per truck.

8 loads per hour is 192 loads per 24-hour day. At 100 tons per load that is 19,200 tons, or one big unit train per day. If truck loads are really 300 tons, then the project is in the three trains per day ballpark. Even at one train per day, a railroad should beat trucks in this traffic with no trouble. 

Mac 

[Overmod]

Fred M Cain

... railroad history is full of lines that were built out of pure speculation.  Some panned out well; many did not.

It would pay you to look at which of these thrived, and which did not, and why.  Note that a principal reason for the Alaska Railroad construction was coal transportation -- nothing of the kind applies today, even for specialty refined products... and, we might argue, for sustained crude transportation from the terminal of the Alaska Pipeline.

There were certainly roads that survived in bridge traffic... but there has to be both the traffic to bridge, and the need to transport it directly by rail, before that model 'works'. 

One thing I’ve wondered about, if enough minerals and forest products were shipped south to the lower 48, that might actually benefit the railroads in the lower 48 states more than it would the line itself by providing a source of traffic that would be difficult for trucks to compete with.  100 carloads of lumber shipped from Alaska or the Yukon to New England or Florida would indeed boost traffic down here, not so?

How many hundreds of carloads would be necessary to justify construction of A2A just to facilitate logging in the 'isolated' areas served by the line?

One thing we haven’t discussed yet is the logistics issue of crossing an international border twice for traffic that would both originate and terminate in the U.S.

Much of the customs issue would likely be solved with reference to the type of traffic: either sealed in COFC/TOFC or in unit or bulk trains.

Isn’t that what at least  partly doomed the old New York Central route across southern Ontario?  Conrail acquired the line but later decided they didn't want to keep it.  I think it's since been abandoned.

And substantially torn out, in one of the worst examples of competitive abolishment in the history of capitalist action... but don't ask me how I really feel about what was done to the CASO.

Once again,  I’d like to bring your attention to this article written just a little more than a year ago:   https://www.adn.com/opinions/2022/02/15/open-mining-opportunities-with-a-railroad/   I might actually attempt to contact that guy to see what his take is on this.

"That guy" is an ex-Alaska governor who noted that he was instrumental in the privatization of the Alaska Railroad.  On the other hand, he does not note the extent of the 'metallurgical' and other reserves he identifies on the proposed route and the 'extension' to the Canadian border, and it is unclear to me that his proposed route within Canada conforms remotely to the current proposed routes to Alberta.  I for one would like to have you quiz him for more on these issues.

[Overmod]

CMStPnP

No agricultural land you say...

The original story that made me an AGW adherent in the early '70s noted that most of the United States wheat belt would be experiencing summer temperatures in excess of 140 degrees F by about 2050, and that grain production would be shifting to Canada as a result...

[Fred M Cain]

Overmod

"That guy" is an ex-Alaska governor who noted that he was instrumental in the privatization of the Alaska Railroad.  On the other hand, he does not note the extent of the 'metallurgical' and other reserves he identifies on the proposed route and the 'extension' to the Canadian border, and it is unclear to me that his proposed route within Canada conforms remotely to the current proposed routes to Alberta.  I for one would like to have you quiz him for more on these issues.

Sure.  How would you like me to phrase any possible questions?  I for sure don't want to offend the guy.  Especially if he might be of any help.

As for being a former governor, I recall that Alaska had a governor, maybe 20 or 30 years ago - I can't recall any more, who was strongly advocating a major expansion of the ARR.  He had one proposed east-west line that would connect with the existing ARR and extend all the way to Nome.  I'm thinking he had a couple of other routes in mind, as well, but I can't remember what they were.

Needless to say, none of this ever happened.  This wouldn't be the same guy, would it?

[Backshop]

With all the Environmental Impact Studies and court cases, how much would that add to actual construction costs?  A sizable proportion of the population wants to keep Alaska "pristine".  Remember the protests about the oil pipeline?  It would be many times worse in today's world.

[Overmod]

The 'guy' in question is Frank Murkowsky, and I would think (though without knowing him or his record firsthand) that he is qualified to understand what is involved with Alaskan transportation.

Before you contact anyone, carefully read through the actual technical material on the Manh Choh project and compare its details with what you have for A2A and G7G.  One thing you can definitely ask him is the basis (and, ideally, cites) for his assessment of logical online traffic generation and size and feasibility of mineral sites.

[CMStPnP]

Overmod

The original story that made me an AGW adherent in the early '70s noted that most of the United States wheat belt would be experiencing summer temperatures in excess of 140 degrees F by about 2050, and that grain production would be shifting to Canada as a result...

And even though the growing season in Alaska is short.........holy crap have you seen the size of some of the items they grow due to all that extended sun light????

[CMStPnP]

Backshop

With all the Environmental Impact Studies and court cases, how much would that add to actual construction costs?  A sizable proportion of the population wants to keep Alaska "pristine".  Remember the protests about the oil pipeline?  It would be many times worse in today's world.

Now I could counter with....

Do you really think cost will be that much of an issue in the near term future?   You do know that AI is comming and it has the potential to massively turn around our current thinking.    I forsee them paying off the National Debt by 2050 with the surplus in tax revenue if not sooner.    Everyone is focusing on doom and gloom around AI without looking at the benefits.

Anyhow, I might agree with you if the climate was stable and all items continued as today to the indefinite future but we are on the cusp of a major revolution here in how work is done and how much we all have to work.   I think we are going to see a significant jump in standard of living and a significant increase in National income and who knows............maybe the METRA Express will run efficiently and not block a parade of faster Amtrak trains behind it?

[zugmann]

CMStPnP

Anyhow, I might agree with you if the climate was stable and all items continued as today to the indefinite future but we are on the cusp of a major revolution here in how work is done and how much we all have to work.   I think we are going to see a significant jump in standard of living and a significant increase in National income and who knows

I dunno... I don't see it. 

[Murphy Siding]

Yep, huge cabbages. Potatoes, onions, carrots, radishes and other vegetables that grow underground thrive, but not much else does. I never saw any grains or plants that grew on vines until we moved to the lower 48. That was near Anchorage, where the proximity of the ocean kept temps a little more moderate. Go north to Fairbanks, where the ARR ends. That's an icebox. [quote user ="CMStPnP"]

 

 

Overmod

The original story that made me an AGW adherent in the early '70s noted that most of the United States wheat belt would be experiencing summer temperatures in excess of 140 degrees F by about 2050, and that grain production would be shifting to Canada as a result...

 

 

And even though the growing season in Alaska is short.........holy crap have you seen the size of some of the items they grow due to all that extended sun light????

 

[/quote]

[Murphy Siding]

zugmann

 

 

CMStPnP

Anyhow, I might agree with you if the climate was stable and all items continued as today to the indefinite future but we are on the cusp of a major revolution here in how work is done and how much we all have to work.   I think we are going to see a significant jump in standard of living and a significant increase in National income and who knows

 

 

I dunno... I don't see it. 

 

Agree. Does this wonderland show up before or after I get my flying car?

[CMStPnP]

Murphy Siding

Agree. Does this wonderland show up before or after I get my flying car?

Funny you should bring that up.......

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2usrLkRleV8

 

[Murphy Siding]

CMStPnP

 

 

Murphy Siding

Agree. Does this wonderland show up before or after I get my flying car?

 

 

Funny you should bring that up.......

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2usrLkRleV8

 

 

That's not even a car. 

[OWTX]

World War 2 is instructive to the logistical geography of the region. The Alcan Highway and Canol pipeline were built rapidly and at immense cost, yet the vast majority of men, materials and POL for the theater were short sea shipped to Alaska.

[Fred M Cain]

Ya know, I kinda wish the guy who started this thread would modify the subject line a bit where he stated “Is a railroad to Alaska crazy talk? I think so”.  Maybe he could say “Is a railroad to Alaska crazy talk? That depends.”  Or, “Is a railroad to Alaska crazy talk?  Maybe or maybe not”, or words to that effect.

 

My understanding of truly “crazy”, would be when some crackpot starts talking about going into a shopping mall and conducting a mass shooting.  That is truly crazy.

 

If building a rail connection to Alaska is really and truly a “crazy idea” then so was the laying of the first transatlantic telegraph cable, the building of the first transcontinental railroad, Hoover and Bonneville dams, the Interstate Highway system or the first man on the moon.  The ideas that spawned those events were somewhat radical in their ambition but surely, they weren’t “crazy”.

 

In my own personal, honest and humble opinion, taxpayers by and large would be happy to help pay for an Alaska rail connection *IF* they can see they will get something out of it.  Jobs, an improved economy, cheaper raw materials – whatever.  What goes down kinda hard is when they raise taxes to pay for stuff that we either see as having no real benefit or that the benefits are not explained very well.

 

Indeed, to build a connection to AK, this would have to be explained in a way that the average American and Canadian can understand.  Will it ever happen?  I’m a pessimist so I’m gonna say probably not but then again – it just might.

[CMStPnP]

Fred M Cain

My understanding of truly “crazy”, would be when some crackpot starts talking about going into a shopping mall and conducting a mass shooting

That happened 2 miles from my home and we really should not be talking about that here for obvious reasons that it will show up in a Google Search result now. 

[Fred M Cain]

CMStPnP

 

 

Fred M Cain

My understanding of truly “crazy”, would be when some crackpot starts talking about going into a shopping mall and conducting a mass shooting

 

 

That happened 2 miles from my home and we really should not be talking about that here for obvious reasons that it will show up in a Google Search result now. 

 

 

That's awful.  Tragic.  I probably should've used a better example of what strikes me as truly crazy.  It's not just because I might've offended someone (we are ALL offended by the action of these nuts anyhow) but rather, I fear I might've driven the subject off topic from rail to Alaska

[BaltACD]

Fred M Cain

 

CMStPnP

 Fred M Cain

My understanding of truly “crazy”, would be when some crackpot starts talking about going into a shopping mall and conducting a mass shooting 

That happened 2 miles from my home and we really should not be talking about that here for obvious reasons that it will show up in a Google Search result now.   

That's awful.  Tragic.  I probably should've used a better example of what strikes me as truly crazy.  It's not just because I might've offended someone (we are ALL offended by the action of these nuts anyhow) but rather, I fear I might've driven the subject off topic from rail to Alaska

The 2nd half of the 19th Century was the Railroad Boom Times - anyone that had money to invest wanted to get into 'railroads on the ground floor' - that floor, however, was not all that stable, because the ideas for most railroads of the period were like oil drilling wildcaters drilling everywhere on a wish and a prayer with no really know products in mind.

In the 1st half of the 21st Century, money in a railroad undertaking is not going to be invested 'betting on the unknown'.  Money invested these days in a 'mature' industry such as railroads MUST have a known product the will be transported in sufficient volumes to make the undertaking profitable.

[MidlandMike]

Fred M Cain

In my own personal, honest and humble opinion, taxpayers by and large would be happy to help pay for an Alaska rail connection *IF* they can see they will get something out of it.  Jobs, an improved economy, cheaper raw materials – whatever.  What goes down kinda hard is when they raise taxes to pay for stuff that we either see as having no real benefit or that the benefits are not explained very well.   Indeed, to build a connection to AK, this would have to be explained in a way that the average American and Canadian can understand.  Will it ever happen?  I’m a pessimist so I’m gonna say probably not but then again – it just might.

Any politician who tries to explain why a rail connection to Alaska would be in the national interest, would be drowned out by all the populists from everywhere (except Alaska) jumping all over the "Railroad-to-Nowhere".

[Murphy Siding]

Fred M Cain

Ya know, I kinda wish the guy who started this thread would modify the subject line a bit where he stated “Is a railroad to Alaska crazy talk? I think so”.  Maybe he could say “Is a railroad to Alaska crazy talk? That depends.”  Or, “Is a railroad to Alaska crazy talk?  Maybe or maybe not”, or words to that effect.

 

My understanding of truly “crazy”, would be when some crackpot starts talking about going into a shopping mall and conducting a mass shooting.  That is truly crazy.

 

If building a rail connection to Alaska is really and truly a “crazy idea” then so was the laying of the first transatlantic telegraph cable, the building of the first transcontinental railroad, Hoover and Bonneville dams, the Interstate Highway system or the first man on the moon.  The ideas that spawned those events were somewhat radical in their ambition but surely, they weren’t “crazy”.

 

In my own personal, honest and humble opinion, taxpayers by and large would be happy to help pay for an Alaska rail connection *IF* they can see they will get something out of it.  Jobs, an improved economy, cheaper raw materials – whatever.  What goes down kinda hard is when they raise taxes to pay for stuff that we either see as having no real benefit or that the benefits are not explained very well.

 

Indeed, to build a connection to AK, this would have to be explained in a way that the average American and Canadian can understand.  Will it ever happen?  I’m a pessimist so I’m gonna say probably not but then again – it just might.

 

No, I believe I'll just leave it as written. It's my opinion. I've yet to see anything to change that opinion. You said it best yourself. In order to get it built, someone would have to justify the expense to the masses. Nobody can do that because there's not enough income to be made off the line to even pay off the mortgage.