wrw: I believe the tracks already go north of Ft.St. John up to Fort Nelson. this would make the logical route. CARNEGE1 : what were all those missile silos in North Dakota and the DEW line and Pine tree Line, just where did all those missiles go ? ? so we are to believe the U.S. has no outward defence protection or early warning detection system ???
That is a delightfully tempting idea. Just one small problem with a Tunnel. The Bearing Straights is a part (correct me if I am wrong) of one of the most active earthquake zones in the world. Further thoughts on this idea would of course be interesting in the least and exciting at the most.
wrw, just checked out CNR maps, I would guess there are 3 routes conceivable: Ft.Nelson, Dease Lake(Minaret) and north out of Prince Rupert. The route will be chosen strictly by geography and that will be very controversial, mountains versus muskeg versus foothills versus river crossings and on and on and on… This project just might be a long long time in the future but will spark plenty of interest on this forum.
The ABM-system in Dakota is either mothballed or dismanteled.
During the Cold War, neither the US nor the USSR had ABM-systems to protect the entire population. It was only for ICBMs and government.
Putatively the missiles would come from a rogue state such as North Korea. An anti-missile interception destroys the warhead before it can explode. Canadian politicians are being disingenuous if they say that Canada can be declared a flyover country in the event of a nuclear war. Do they think any country envisioning an attack on the US would honor such a declaration? It didn’t work for Holland and Belgium in the World wars. Do they honestly believe the US is going to wait for permission to launch anti-missiles that would intercept over Canadian airspace? We’re talking of a situation where seconds are critical.
—It has been said by many a wise man “They who do not heed the lessons of History, are doomed to repeat them.” Well said sir.
the geography challenges will be very interesting. A friend of my father’s helped build the Alaska-Canadian Hwy during the 40’s and a cousin hauled produce over it in a reefer for many years. The challenges of a 12% grade at 40 below (C or F they are the same).
dd
SOUNDS LIKE WHAT WHAT STEPHEN AMBROSE CALLED “NOTHING IN THE WORLD LIKE IT!!!” PART II. Would’nt that be a great construction job to be on. Last of its kind with all the hopes and possibilites of greatness that come from such great works. PL
Transportation economic theory for bulk movements puts it like this: If the cargo is low value and/or not particularly time sensitive, you try to get it to the closest water port available and let the megaships handle it from there. If the cargo is high value and/or time sensitive, you keep it on the rails to the farthest port away toward the eventual destination (or conversely from the farthest away port which is also closest to the point of origin by rail to the eventual destination). That’s why it makes sense to send southern Midwest grain to either the Gulf Coast or a Mexican Pacific port, while it makes sense to currently send East Coast bound imports from Asia through Vancouver/Puget Sound. If an Alaskan rail connection came about, it would make sense to bring most Asian imports to North America via an Alaskan port and sending it on East by rail.
Very good post Dave: What we have not looked at is the net result of having greater economic activity due to the increase in volumne from such an expansion of rail access to the entire area of that part of North America. The increase in economic activity associated to rail going into undeveloped territory has historically been very strong in the long run. An undertaking like the one in this thread would be more than a blessing to stockholders, employees and customers of the railroads but in the ever expanding prosperity of the economic community in all of the Americas.
How many studies must their be before ground breaking actually takes place. I posted on another forum about a study sometime around 1980 that was to parallel the Alcan Highway as they would be able to supply the construction much faster and could build a complete line in three years. That was constructing a twelve mile long tunnel as well. This was to avoid lengthy grades and some forty miles of track as I recall. For years their has been talk along the Alcan about vast untapped coal reserves and even large iron ore deposits virtually untapped. The iron ore deposits was somewhat of a surprise as I had never heard of iron ore deposits along the Rocky Mountains. If their are these and other mionerals along the Alcan then that would probably be the best route and I only wonder what other minerals there are or will be found. Remember the Nickel find at Sudbury when the CP built the transcontinental. Maybe they will discover more minerals alonng this the line to the last frontier. In any event it will be a very expensive proposition if it ever gets built and it would be nice to see in my life time. Having spent six years driving the Alcan I for one will buy a train ticket soon as itr opens to passenger traffic.
It sounds like that if it will be givin the green light, large tunnels will have to be constructed to avoid large grades. If I’m not mistaken, 3% grades are going out of style.
Oh, that is not true.
Railroads still look for 3% grades whenever possible. In the past and before Surface Transportation Board regulation, railroads attempted to direct their lines toward grades of 4-6% with reckless abandon to curry favor with scores of rail fans. Now that construction has slowed and in the face of baneful STB regulation, railroads have backed off this stance somewhat and only seek the adulation of rail fans with 3-4% grades.
Of course, this has always been a problem for railroads who operate on the Great Plains. Railroads who are cursed with flat, smooth land require less horsepower, tractive effort, and locomotives. Such railroads have had to spend hoards of money to find old Indian mounds to create steeper grades to allow them to compete with their mountaineering counterparts. Some such prairie railroads have even been forced to “bring the mountain to the prairie.”
The lack of mountains in the prairies has even been faulted for the failure of many granger railroads. Apparently, the lack of sharp curves and sharper grades in combination with the abundance of fertile soil has just been too much for such cursed lines.
Fortunately, the lack of such grades will not be a problem if a rail extension is built to Alaska.
Gabe
Gabe-Your analogy is quite humerous although some truth in it. Fan trips sell out quicker in the rockies than the great plains. A lot of the initial railroads were built as cheaply as possible. This meant steeper grades to avoid costly tunnels, etc. Look at CP’s Kicking Horse Pass with its 7%+/- grades before the spiral tunnels or the Moffit route before the Moffit tunnel.
Back to the potential routing. I guess I should have looked at all of my files before spouting off about routes.I pulled out my BC Rail map and yes, Tatans, the BC Rail route does go to Fort Nelson, which is on the Laird River. A potential extension north of Fort Nelson could follow the Laird River to Watson Lake on the Yukon-BC boundary. Do not know what would happen then as my map stops at that point. Also do not know about the river course. It could possibly be a meandering river on a broad plane or a fast running river through a steep “V” shaped valley (Fraser River valley?)
The Dease Lake line (Excuse me for mispelling it as Deese earlier) is operational to Chipmunk and is reported as graded to Dease Lake. North of Dease Lake the rail line could follow the Dease River or the Stewart-Cassiar Highway through the Cassiar Mountains again to Watson Lake. Again do not know the topography of the Cassair Mountains.
The line from Prince Rupert would likely branch off near Terrace where the branch to Kitmat leaves the main line. The line would skirt the eastern slope of the Coast Range essentially along the Stewart-Cassiar Highway. Again I do not know the topography along this line.
Now, if you really want a cheap and short railroad to Alaska build from Terrace to Meziadin Junction then turn west along Highway 37A to Stewart. Cross the international boundary and you are in Hyder Alaska!. Total distance about 175 miles. Of course this also is in the middle of Misty Fjords National Monument. I am sure that the Sierra Club would like this right of way. Also it is quite a distance to c
From an engineering standpoint, the most logical route would be to follow the Rocky Mountain Trench, which runs in a mostly unwavering alignment from Kalispell Montana NNW through Kimberly BC, Golden BC, just east or Prince George BC, up through Mackenzie BC to Watson Lake BC, then continues through Ross River, Stewart Crossing and Dawson Yukon, and on up through Eagle and Circle Alaska. The best aspect of this alignment is that it avoids most grades. The bad thing about it is that it misses most of the major cities and settlements such as Whitehorse or Fort Nelson. The new additions to the Alaska Railroad east of Fairbanks parallels the Alcan route, which is roughly 150 miles southwest of the Trench from Fairbanks to Whitehorse. The old Dease Lake extension of BCRail is 100 or so miles west of the Trench, while the Fort Nelson extension is 100 or so miles east of the Trench.
Secondly, with how many existing railroads do you want to have a physical connection? You can assume Alaskan interests would want a route through Whitehorse for a possible connection with the narrow gauge line to Skagway (assuming it could eventually be standard gauged), so that they can then build a line on down to Juneau. The BC interests might prefer a connection to Dease Lake rather than a more easterly routing. Then do you just want to build until you reach the closest Class I connection e.g. CN, or do you want to keep building on south/east until you can connect with CP? Or do you want to build on down to the States and connect with BNSF and/or UP? If the primary enterprise is the Alaska Railroad and/or the State of Alaska, you probably don’t trust having only a CN connection, you’d probably feel safer with a CP connection to prevent bottlenecking actions by CN.
Do both countries realize the CITIZENS have already mapped out routes and alternative routes for this new railway, when will WE be consulted? I’m sure our fees will be 78,000 times cheaper than a 6 year feasibility study. I’m sure the Canadian Government has some scheme to hook up the Alaskan Railway across northern Canada and tie it into Churchill Manitoba on Hudson Bay then south to Winnipeg -------Keep up the good work men! !
Before we get to far ahead of ourselves. Remember the admonition of the former Editor of Trains M. Hemphill; railroads are by their nature economic in their concept and serve the interest of business (read profit) by their design. Transportation historically has been more in line with economic and national interest than to the public as a service provider. The interstate highway system while used by the general public, are set aside in design and purpose (following General later President Eisenhower’s admiration of Hitlers autobauns) as military and national security highway routes. The kind political support and agreement provided by the trucking and now lately the railroad industires should not be overlooked. But to give the citizens their due, we do get to either pay for it with taxes or back (guarantee) the debt needed to build the rail line.---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------However in the long run let us not get to down about this. What we are looking at in this thread is the claiming of the last frontier in North America. That is both exciting and wonderfull for the growth and prosperity of both the U.S. and Canada. A great project with all kinds of things to be done and seen by the lucky few that get to build it. Nothing in the world like it!!! So I agree with you tatins on this much, keep up the good work and may it be expidited to the mutual prosperity, good business opportunity and yes services as a dividend for those citizens that had the for-thought , immagination and courage to get behind this idea and bring it to its wonderfull conclusion.
There must be some great reason for this. CN particular tends to not like to spend money unless for a good reason if that is who will be involved. My estimate is that the revenue potential from mining and the forestry industries are the target of this engineering possibility with a small intermodal interest maybe.
Sounds like a good start to me.
There is a new article yesterday on the CBC News website about the Alaska rail link. It quotes a rail expert who says there isn’t any economic justification for the rail line.
http://north.cbc.ca/regional/servlet/View?filename=yukon-rail-study-02052005