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?

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.

c933103 wrote:

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?

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.

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?

You may be surprised to learn that railroad cars currently do move between the Lower 48 and Alaska. It's done using a carferry that operates between Seattle and Whittier, AK. Obviously it's not a very quick service; an internet search reveals that the trip takes about 6 days each way. But yes, railroad cars are regularly interchanged between the Alaska RR and the other railroads in N. America.

There's no major technical challenge that I know of to building a railroad all the way up to Alaska. However, there simply hasn't been enough economic justification to spend the money. A recent proposal from 2020 put the price tag at $15 billion. BTW, that proposed rail line would actually run to Fairbanks where it would connect to the Alaska RR.

Air freight and rail freight serve very different markets and in N. America very little if any is ever transferred from one mode to the other. In my view it's essentially a binary choice: if your cargo needs to move quickly, it will go by air the entire distance albeit at a premium price. If speed isn't critical, it's far cheaper and more efficient to use a shipping container and send the cargo via ship/train. I'm struggling to figure out what products would benefit from being shipped in a "1/2 air, 1/2 rail" model as you've proposed. All that said, I'm certainly curious to know if air/rail cargo service is prevalent elsewhere in the world.

niagara484

Rail would be very difficult to getting to Alaska. Let’s forget the terrain and borders. You’d have trains traversing long stretches of nothing, and locomotive engineers and conductors do have a maximum number of hours they can work. It’s not like there are a lot of options for places to swap crews up there.

Marc

johns624 wrote:

c933103 wrote:

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?

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.

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.

Like niagara484 said going from air to rail doesn't make much sense. You pay a premium for the air service, then lose time doing long distance, slow freight rail.

When climate change will be taken seriously, I expect air freight to be mostly banned, with exceptions for things like medicines, medical equipment, blood and organs, all in passenger aircraft holds... The rest can take a ship (preferably wind/solar powered) and road/rail.

You’re forgetting that Canada is in middle, what benefits would they have in linking Alaska to the lower 48?

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

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.

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.

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

DIRECTFLT wrote:

johns624 wrote:

c933103 wrote:

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?

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.

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.

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.

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?

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?

In fairness, the line to Prince Rupert has been operational since at least the 1910s. I'll speculate that it may have been very expensive to construct at the time and one of the factors that pushed CN's predecessor Grand Trunk Pacific into bankruptcy in 1919. It's of course far easier and cheaper to upgrade an existing rail line to handle increased traffic than try to build one from scratch, especially nowadays with the various environmental reviews/approvals, negotiations with First Nations groups, etc. that an Alberta to Alaska rail line will encounter.

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

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?

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?

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.

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?

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?

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?

I'm referring to the 1970-1999 section of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canada%E2 ... ka_Railway

johns624 wrote:

c933103 wrote:

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?

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 pandemic may be done in few years from now.

pune wrote:

johns624 wrote:

c933103 wrote:

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?

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 pandemic may be done in 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.

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.

Possible. But there are many such projects around the world. Sharing about a bridge that has been part of the Jammu-Udhampur-Srinagar-Baramulla line that will be linked to the rest of India. The project has been in the works for the last 15 odd years (part of the reason is of course the Himalayas, part of it is also terrorism that happens in Kashmir.)

https://www.khaleejtimes.com/world/look ... e-in-india

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

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.

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.

Both of those things I can't argue against, whether it is first nations, or environmental groups, or the fact that Railways as any infrastructure needs maintenance. It would need somebody who is ambitious but yet at the same time is known to be honest and persuasive and patient unless of course, you can roughshod as now Indian Railways has done last few years. How many animals are killed nobody knows as many routes have been taken through national parks and whatnot. And it is now illegal in India to ask about those numbers as it is illegal to talk or share about import-export data. This is 'New India'

pune wrote:

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

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?

johns624 wrote:

pune wrote:

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

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?

That is actually what hindered both the Chinese infrastructure in Tibet and similarly Indian infrastructure into the Himalayas. For that matter, IIRC, even Australia has few and far places but they are connected by trains and I believe there are hundreds of kilometers of nothingness in-between. The other part that most people think is that Railways is supposed to be profit-making. That is the reason you see most private Railways in UK suffering and many have for over years and decades, the Govt. and people keep subsidizing them with higher and higher fares. Now is that due to mismanagement in the UK or greed or corruption or the combination of the trio I leave for UK citizens to answer. And that actually would be probably whole another debate. It is also the reason why most nations nationalize their railway assets. I remember a documentary where it showed that at the time before privatization happened, they were telling/showing, or making people dream that privatizing the railways would be the best in Europe and now they are pretty far behind their European counterparts. In fact, IIRC, some European national railways owned some of the franchises in the UK.

And to know that they were the first to develop steam engines. https://www.asme.org/topics-resources/c ... trevithick

How the mighty have fallen

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

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.

pune wrote:

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.

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:

pune wrote:

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.

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.

Ferry service being sufficient in capacity doesn't mean much. 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.

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?

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?

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

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.

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.

This is where the whole venture gets dicey; it came as no surprise to learn that the A2A group (https://a2arail.com/) is in receivership. You'd obviously create jobs through construction of the line. And you'd need a Canadian workforce operating under Transport Canada regulations to run the trains and maintain the equipment/infrastructure. But it's really potential online traffic sources that make or break this. I don't know anything about the Yukon to know if there are oil deposits, coal, other minerals, etc that could be viably extracted if there was an economical way to transport them. Are there timber reserves to harvest like further south in BC (forest products)? The original suggestion in this thread was transloading cargo in Alaska to run south. However, I doubt very much container ships would be diverted to Alaska in significant numbers vs. existing ports. To the best of my knowledge airfreight to rail has never been a significant traffic generator (despite recent trends in the US of locating intermodal terminals on or next to airports like Huntsville, Charlotte, and Columbus).

A2A as proposed would connect to the CN rail network around Ft. McMurray and any trains for the Lower 48 would by default run over CN or CP for at least part of the trip. Either railroad would get a chunk of the revenue for the haul as well as needing additional workforce to handle an increase in traffic (trains).

Is all of this enough benefit to Canada to support the $15 billion investment (take your pick on USD vs CSD)? Obviously the numbers haven't closed yet and building a railroad to Alaska has never gone past the proposal stage.

c933103 wrote:

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.

Look at the population figures compared to Alaska. Then look at the distances. Then get back with me...