Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR
c933103 wrote:That terrain is some of the most rugged in the world. It would cost untold billions of dollars and environmental impact studies to do it. There isn't that much rail traffic to begin with.Hence, wouldn't it benefit a lot that if the freight track is to be further extended to connect directly to the Anchorage airport, and allow cargo between Asia and North America to change between planes and trains there? It would be more resilience and also.more environmentally friendly.
Are there still unresolvable technical challenges of doing so as of year 2022?
c933103 wrote:Currently, the Northwestern most point of North American continental network stop in the middle of Canada, failed to make it to Alaska.
Alaska, especially Anchorage with its airport, is an important stopping point for air freight crossing the Pacific.
The lack of rail connection from there to Mainland US mean freight have to first flown from Lower 48 to Anchorage before continuing toAsia on another leg of their flights, or the other way round.
Alternatively they can be shipped on cargo liners directly.
But amid the coronavirus pandemic, given the thinned out air and maritime transportation capacity, rail transportation seems like a more reliable choice. Amid the clinate change, rail is also a lower emission mode of freight transportation, comparatively.
Hence, wouldn't it benefit a lot that if the freight track is to be further extended to connect directly to the Anchorage airport, and allow cargo between Asia and North America to change between planes and trains there? It would be more resilience and also.more environmentally friendly.
Are there still unresolvable technical challenges of doing so as of year 2022?
johns624 wrote:c933103 wrote:That terrain is some of the most rugged in the world. It would cost untold billions of dollars and environmental impact studies to do it. There isn't that much rail traffic to begin with.Hence, wouldn't it benefit a lot that if the freight track is to be further extended to connect directly to the Anchorage airport, and allow cargo between Asia and North America to change between planes and trains there? It would be more resilience and also.more environmentally friendly.
Are there still unresolvable technical challenges of doing so as of year 2022?
Kiwirob wrote:You’re forgetting that Canada is in middle, what benefits would they have in linking Alaska to the lower 48?
c933103 wrote:Kiwirob wrote:You’re forgetting that Canada is in middle, what benefits would they have in linking Alaska to the lower 48?
Pretty sure ownership of North American rail network have already transcended national boundary
ACDC8 wrote:c933103 wrote:Kiwirob wrote:You’re forgetting that Canada is in middle, what benefits would they have in linking Alaska to the lower 48?
Pretty sure ownership of North American rail network have already transcended national boundary
BNSF operates into Canada, going into various points across the Washington/BC border into the Metro Vancouver area such as DeltaPort and New Westminster. Not sure about all the legal, bureaucratic, technical jargon behind it though.
Amtrak also ran between Vancouver and Seattle pre-pandemic, currently I believe the service is operated by motor coaches. Sure hope the train makes a return in the future - its part of a bucket list trip I've had for a few years now, its not crucial, but would be nice to complete the trip with it.
DIRECTFLT wrote:If there's an economic case for it, we'll do it. Connecting Alaska to the lower 48 doesn't make sense. Look how much infrastructure construction was done to access the Powder River Basin to extract coal back in the 80s and 90s.johns624 wrote:c933103 wrote:That terrain is some of the most rugged in the world. It would cost untold billions of dollars and environmental impact studies to do it. There isn't that much rail traffic to begin with.Hence, wouldn't it benefit a lot that if the freight track is to be further extended to connect directly to the Anchorage airport, and allow cargo between Asia and North America to change between planes and trains there? It would be more resilience and also.more environmentally friendly.
Are there still unresolvable technical challenges of doing so as of year 2022?
We're not China, so forget about it!
We do airports and highways. China does that and rail.
It's just not what we do in the US. The glory days of westward railroad expansion are done.
frmrCapCadet wrote:Marine shipping is cheaper than rail. Labor costs. Fuel. Maintenance. The later includes both track and moving equipment. CN already has service to Prince Rupert, just south of the US pan handle.
CowAnon wrote:frmrCapCadet wrote:Marine shipping is cheaper than rail. Labor costs. Fuel. Maintenance. The later includes both track and moving equipment. CN already has service to Prince Rupert, just south of the US pan handle.
Still, linking Prince Rupert (a recent development) to the rest of the Canadian rail network must have been very expensive. So why is adding Prince Rupert to the Canada's rail system considered more important than connecting Alaska to the US rail network?
niagara484 wrote:ACDC8 wrote:c933103 wrote:Pretty sure ownership of North American rail network have already transcended national boundary
BNSF operates into Canada, going into various points across the Washington/BC border into the Metro Vancouver area such as DeltaPort and New Westminster. Not sure about all the legal, bureaucratic, technical jargon behind it though.
Amtrak also ran between Vancouver and Seattle pre-pandemic, currently I believe the service is operated by motor coaches. Sure hope the train makes a return in the future - its part of a bucket list trip I've had for a few years now, its not crucial, but would be nice to complete the trip with it.
As you know the rail connections are far more extensive than that. Canadian National has long owned railroads in the US and in the past 25 years purchased additional lines including the Wisconsin Central, Illinois Central, and Elgin, Joliet & Eastern to gain direct access to Chicago and to the Gulf Coast. Same with Canadian Pacific. It is in the process of merging with the Kansas City Southern for direct rail access to the Gulf and Mexico (currently in review by US regulators). Years ago KCS took over full ownership of a substantial part of the Mexican railway network. If the CP/KCS merger goes through, it will truly be the first "North American" railroad.
A direct rail line to Alaska is going to connect into the Canadian rail network, likely somewhere north of Edmonton, Alberta. That means all those trains would end up on the CN or CP networks for at least part of the trip. I can't see either railroad saying no to the potential traffic. The overwhelming question remains just how much traffic there really would be. Even the A2A proposal shows that transferring containers/cargo from ship to rail in Alaska only saves about 4 days transit time to the Lower 48.
There's potential for new rail construction in N. America, but certainly not to the extent there was a century ago. The last big play for freight (the subject here) was the construction of the Orin Line in Wyoming in the late 1970s to access the massive low-sulphur coal deposits in the Powder River Basin. A more recent proposal for a new 80+ mile rail line into the Uinta Basin in Utah recently passed environmental review.
niagara484
CowAnon wrote:Prince Rupert has turned into a large container port. What would adding a rail link to Alaska do? There isn't enough commercial business there to make a profit. All the oil goes by tanker.frmrCapCadet wrote:Marine shipping is cheaper than rail. Labor costs. Fuel. Maintenance. The later includes both track and moving equipment. CN already has service to Prince Rupert, just south of the US pan handle.
Still, linking Prince Rupert (a recent development) to the rest of the Canadian rail network must have been very expensive. So why is adding Prince Rupert to the Canada's rail system considered more important than connecting Alaska to the US rail network?
c933103 wrote:niagara484 wrote:ACDC8 wrote:BNSF operates into Canada, going into various points across the Washington/BC border into the Metro Vancouver area such as DeltaPort and New Westminster. Not sure about all the legal, bureaucratic, technical jargon behind it though.
Amtrak also ran between Vancouver and Seattle pre-pandemic, currently I believe the service is operated by motor coaches. Sure hope the train makes a return in the future - its part of a bucket list trip I've had for a few years now, its not crucial, but would be nice to complete the trip with it.
As you know the rail connections are far more extensive than that. Canadian National has long owned railroads in the US and in the past 25 years purchased additional lines including the Wisconsin Central, Illinois Central, and Elgin, Joliet & Eastern to gain direct access to Chicago and to the Gulf Coast. Same with Canadian Pacific. It is in the process of merging with the Kansas City Southern for direct rail access to the Gulf and Mexico (currently in review by US regulators). Years ago KCS took over full ownership of a substantial part of the Mexican railway network. If the CP/KCS merger goes through, it will truly be the first "North American" railroad.
A direct rail line to Alaska is going to connect into the Canadian rail network, likely somewhere north of Edmonton, Alberta. That means all those trains would end up on the CN or CP networks for at least part of the trip. I can't see either railroad saying no to the potential traffic. The overwhelming question remains just how much traffic there really would be. Even the A2A proposal shows that transferring containers/cargo from ship to rail in Alaska only saves about 4 days transit time to the Lower 48.
There's potential for new rail construction in N. America, but certainly not to the extent there was a century ago. The last big play for freight (the subject here) was the construction of the Orin Line in Wyoming in the late 1970s to access the massive low-sulphur coal deposits in the Powder River Basin. A more recent proposal for a new 80+ mile rail line into the Uinta Basin in Utah recently passed environmental review.
niagara484
Wasn't there already some sort of rail line connecting from BC to Whitehorse which see its plan abandoned due to parallel road being sufficient to transport the mineral/wood supply they were aiming for? While Whitehorse is a small city and likely wouldn't justify completing the line just from the demand of that city itself, If the rail rail from BC can expand as far north as Whitehorse, then probably there could be some case from within Alaska of financing a construction of the line from Anchorage/Fairbank to White horse, which would have eventually justified the construction of the full section?
niagara484 wrote:c933103 wrote:niagara484 wrote:
As you know the rail connections are far more extensive than that. Canadian National has long owned railroads in the US and in the past 25 years purchased additional lines including the Wisconsin Central, Illinois Central, and Elgin, Joliet & Eastern to gain direct access to Chicago and to the Gulf Coast. Same with Canadian Pacific. It is in the process of merging with the Kansas City Southern for direct rail access to the Gulf and Mexico (currently in review by US regulators). Years ago KCS took over full ownership of a substantial part of the Mexican railway network. If the CP/KCS merger goes through, it will truly be the first "North American" railroad.
A direct rail line to Alaska is going to connect into the Canadian rail network, likely somewhere north of Edmonton, Alberta. That means all those trains would end up on the CN or CP networks for at least part of the trip. I can't see either railroad saying no to the potential traffic. The overwhelming question remains just how much traffic there really would be. Even the A2A proposal shows that transferring containers/cargo from ship to rail in Alaska only saves about 4 days transit time to the Lower 48.
There's potential for new rail construction in N. America, but certainly not to the extent there was a century ago. The last big play for freight (the subject here) was the construction of the Orin Line in Wyoming in the late 1970s to access the massive low-sulphur coal deposits in the Powder River Basin. A more recent proposal for a new 80+ mile rail line into the Uinta Basin in Utah recently passed environmental review.
niagara484
Wasn't there already some sort of rail line connecting from BC to Whitehorse which see its plan abandoned due to parallel road being sufficient to transport the mineral/wood supply they were aiming for? While Whitehorse is a small city and likely wouldn't justify completing the line just from the demand of that city itself, If the rail rail from BC can expand as far north as Whitehorse, then probably there could be some case from within Alaska of financing a construction of the line from Anchorage/Fairbank to White horse, which would have eventually justified the construction of the full section?
The only rail line I know of that actually made it to Whitehorse is the White Pass & Yukon running inland from Skagway, Alaska. The WP&Y was built and has always operated as a narrow gauge railroad isolated from the rest of the North American network. Nowadays it's a popular tourist attraction for the cruise ships that stop in Skagway. However, the passenger trains only go as far as Carcross, Yukon and there hasn't been any freight traffic since the early 1980s.
I'm sure the Canadians have had proposals to build a railroad north into the Yukon from BC or Alberta but I've never seen any of them. My suspicion is that at this late point in the game, if you're going to Whitehorse, you might as well be pushing to do the whole thing the rest of the way to Alaska. It's pretty evident that neither the Canadian nor American governments have any great interest. And that gets back to the core argument: are there enough sources for traffic (international containers, minerals, forest products, etc.) to make this a viable operation that someone would be willing to invest in?
johns624 wrote:c933103 wrote:That terrain is some of the most rugged in the world. It would cost untold billions of dollars and environmental impact studies to do it. There isn't that much rail traffic, to begin with.Hence, wouldn't it benefit a lot if the freight track is to be further extended to connect directly to the Anchorage airport, and allow cargo between Asia and North America to change between planes and trains there? It would be more resilient and also more environmentally friendly.
Are there still unresolvable technical challenges of doing so as of the year 2022?
pune wrote:johns624 wrote:c933103 wrote:That terrain is some of the most rugged in the world. It would cost untold billions of dollars and environmental impact studies to do it. There isn't that much rail traffic, to begin with.Hence, wouldn't it benefit a lot if the freight track is to be further extended to connect directly to the Anchorage airport, and allow cargo between Asia and North America to change between planes and trains there? It would be more resilient and also more environmentally friendly.
Are there still unresolvable technical challenges of doing so as of the year 2022?
If that were the excuse taken up, we wouldn't have half the railway networks the world has. Most of China has mountainous terrain and they were able to do it. Even India has been trying to have Pir Panjal tunnel which we opened a few years ago and is part of the Jammu-Baramulla line that is hoped to be linked to the rest of India.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pir_Panjal_Railway_Tunnel
That whole project is known as Jammu-Udhampur-Srinagar-Baramulla rail link and was supposed to be done last year but due to pandemic may be done in few years from now.
c933103 wrote:pune wrote:johns624 wrote:That terrain is some of the most rugged in the world. It would cost untold billions of dollars and environmental impact studies to do it. There isn't that much rail traffic, to begin with.
If that were the excuse taken up, we wouldn't have half the railway networks the world has. Most of China has mountainous terrain and they were able to do it. Even India has been trying to have Pir Panjal tunnel which we opened a few years ago and is part of the Jammu-Baramulla line that is hoped to be linked to the rest of India.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pir_Panjal_Railway_Tunnel
That whole project is known as Jammu-Udhampur-Srinagar-Baramulla rail link and was supposed to be done last year but due to the pandemic may be done in a few years from now.
Not really. The only rail lines in China that can be said as somewhat comparable are only those into Tibet. And even then that's still a whole different set of challenges.
ACDC8 wrote:The technology may be there, but the bureaucratic red tape to build a new rail line through the mountains of BC would make such a project near impossible.
Environmental studies, agreements with First Nations groups, NIMBYs, endless protests by environmental groups, and so on and so forth.
Better spend that money and build up the rail lines we already have, as the last year has shown, they're in desperate need of some major overhauls.
pune wrote:Not comparable at all. You're comparing one long tunnel with at least a 1000 mile rail line. You're also talking about one line connecting two populated areas with one crossing wilderness with almost no habitation or economic prospects. What is this line to Alaska supposed to transport?
Are you saying it would be more than the Gotthard tunnel that took so many years to be made ???
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gotthard_Base_Tunnel
johns624 wrote:pune wrote:Not comparable at all. You're comparing one long tunnel with at least a 1000 mile rail line. You're also talking about one line connecting two populated areas with one crossing wilderness with almost no habitation or economic prospects. What is this line to Alaska supposed to transport?
Are you saying it would be more than the Gotthard tunnel that took so many years to be made ???
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gotthard_Base_Tunnel
johns624 wrote:You still haven't said what you propose that a railroad to Alaska would haul. The entire state has a population of 750,000. 400,000 of that is in the Anchorage area. That's a hint "Anchorage". It's on the ocean and receives merchandise by sea. Fairbanks, the next biggest metro area, is also on the Alaska Railroad line from Seward/Anchorage. No other population centers in Alaska would be on the line. So once again, what would this railroad provide?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alaska_statistical_areas
pune wrote:There is a ferry service between Alaska and Seattle. It has enough capacity (that should tell you something right there) for the limited traffic moving to and from Alaska. I doubt if "arts and crafts" would move by rail and even if they did, it would be a miniscule amount.johns624 wrote:You still haven't said what you propose that a railroad to Alaska would haul. The entire state has a population of 750,000. 400,000 of that is in the Anchorage area. That's a hint "Anchorage". It's on the ocean and receives merchandise by sea. Fairbanks, the next biggest metro area, is also on the Alaska Railroad line from Seward/Anchorage. No other population centers in Alaska would be on the line. So once again, what would this railroad provide?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alaska_statistical_areas
Well, atm I am extremely sleepy so would have to raincheck but I would find it hilarious and tragic if there is a railway route and wouldn't have the needs and wants of both communities. Time and history have shown again and again . that people do get incentivized to ferry things that people would want For e.g. Indians mak such fabulous arts and crafts and perhaps and whatnot. In either of the two places. This is where the trade experts come in. India, if there is a little space people tend to use it one way or the other.
johns624 wrote:pune wrote:There is a ferry service between Alaska and Seattle. It has enough capacity (that should tell you something right there) for the limited traffic moving to and from Alaska. I doubt if "arts and crafts" would move by rail and even if they did, it would be a miniscule amount.johns624 wrote:You still haven't said what you propose that a railroad to Alaska would haul. The entire state has a population of 750,000. 400,000 of that is in the Anchorage area. That's a hint "Anchorage". It's on the ocean and receives merchandise by sea. Fairbanks, the next biggest metro area, is also on the Alaska Railroad line from Seward/Anchorage. No other population centers in Alaska would be on the line. So once again, what would this railroad provide?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alaska_statistical_areas
Well, atm I am extremely sleepy so would have to raincheck but I would find it hilarious and tragic if there is a railway route and wouldn't have the needs and wants of both communities. Time and history have shown again and again . that people do get incentivized to ferry things that people would want For e.g. Indians mak such fabulous arts and crafts and perhaps and whatnot. In either of the two places. This is where the trade experts come in. India, if there is a little space people tend to use it one way or the other.
ACDC8 wrote:So, if the original case argument is using this new rail line to ship freight from Alaska to the Lower 48 through Canada, the question is, how would this benefit Canadians?
c933103 wrote:Business profit from through traffic and the connection of numerous towns along the line to rail network?
Like how the US could have profited from a oil pipeline from Canada to Texas Gulf
ACDC8 wrote:c933103 wrote:Business profit from through traffic and the connection of numerous towns along the line to rail network?
Like how the US could have profited from a oil pipeline from Canada to Texas Gulf
If its just through traffic, how would businesses benefit? I could understand if it was a passenger train, but freight thats not stopping here, I just don't see it.
If they built a major freight hub along the way somewhere that creates jobs, like in Edmonton, Calgary, Kamloops or if a large amount of freight was staying within Canada, sure, but not if the freight is being loaded in Alaska and being unloaded in the Lower 48.
Take the current BNSF line going up from Washington State to DeltaPort just south of Vancouver, that I can understand because it creates a lot of jobs and revenue from unloading the ships and loading the US bound trains within Canada.
As far as numerous towns, yeah, there's not much up there.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not disagreeing, I'm just not seeing the logic that would get Canadians to support such a project.
c933103 wrote:Look at the population figures compared to Alaska. Then look at the distances. Then get back with me...Both Channel Tunnel to UK and Seikan Tunnel in Japan were linked with ferry service before the tunnels with rail tracks in them were built.