The TRAINSNewswire of this date March 22,2012 carries the above headline. Apparently CNR and a Pension fund manager are in discussions to commit to a new ore carrier railroad to run from the Port of Sept Iles to a location in Northern Quebec on the Labrador Trench.
The line is to run some 800 Km (equals about 498 miles) . Apparently, the existing railroads and operators currently hauling up in that area are not part of the discussions.
Thread was another thread referencing the the current rail operations up in Quebec and there was a discussion about possibly extending those lines to new areas. So apparently this new effort between CNR and potential investors is a reflection of those efforts.
The following linked article from canada.com goes somewhat more deeply into the whys and wherefores and the potential rewards for the projects potentials.
Seems like an unusual play for a railroad like the CNR to get involved in something like this project. Particularly, with some major organizations already in the area (Rio Tinto, QNSL, and Cartier ) . [2c]
I’m wondering if more details are available. Is this a completely new line all the way from Sept-Isles, or connecting with the existing QNS&L somewhere in the north, with capacity expansion (more sidings and some double track) on the latter? It may be challenging to find an easy route for a third railway line in the southern part since the QCR is already not far away to the west.
The news seems to indicate the other two RRs are not involved. The other 2 are owned by mining companies, and maybe Cliffs wants a more neutral carrier. They already use CN for hauling iron ore in Michigan and Minnesota. However, other independent miners are already questioning the new line.
800 km = 500 miles, +/-. The $5 Billion budgeted = about $10 MIllion per route-mile, which seems a little high for a project of this size even allowing for the remote site, difficult terrain (lots of rock and rivers) and weather, etc.
For a project of that scope, why not connect it to the rest of the North American rail network as well/ instead, while they’re at it ? That way, the ore could go by rail to the West Coast before being loaded onto ships for China, the likely buyer. Even conceding that ocean-going ore ship transportation may be cheaper than by rail on a mile-for-mile comparison, orginating the seaborne move on the West Coast would allow the use of larger ships than could fit through even the widened Panama Canal. Starting the ocen move at a western Canadian port instead would eliminate a lot of circuitry that would also be needed to utilize the Canal, so by staying on rail that far west may still be cost-competitive.
Paul, as an alternative to an all-rail route to the west coast, they could put the ore in lake boats and ship it as far as Thunder Bay for forwarding by rail from there. The boats could even have a back-haul move of Superior ore to the lower lakes.
Sept-Îles has a deep water port. It’s east of the St. Lawrence Seaway and Great Lakes system and can accomodate much larger vessels than those that can access the Seaway system (Limited to 740’x78’ there). Vessels significantly larger than the present Panamax size routinely call there so I’m sure it will be competitive even with the Panama Canal expansion project. Even if the port wasn’t outside the Seaway, companies like Canada Steamship Lines have successfully been transfering cargo for many years. 5 Seaway max lake freighters will routinely unload their coal cargo off Sept-Îles into the holds of a large ocean going bulk carrier for instance. And what do you mean eliminate a lot of circuitry that would be needed to utilize the Panama canal? Not sure what you’re saying here.
Hauling heavy haul iron ore trains across most of North American certainly was never in their plans.
By the time the railway and mines are built, the faster sea route to China may be up over the top. In fact, it makes me wonder if they wouldn’t be better off building the line to the east, to the Labrador coast.
I thought the same thing about the Northwest passage being more ice free these days. Instead of building east, I was thinking of north. The Labrador Trough mineral belt continues north to Ungava Bay. By building the new line about 200 miles to the north from the presently planned upper terminus, they would reach the bay.
In the above mentioned earlier thread on the QNS&L and QC Ry, someone suggested linking the two at the north end. It’s only 5 miles from Mt. Wright mine to a point on Google Earth identified as “Site de la mine du lac Bloom”. While there might not be any compelling reason to do that alone, there may be good reason to do that and also build a connection at the south end, where they are separated by just 13 miles in the Port Cartier/Sept Iles area. By connecting both ends you would create a paired trackage arrangement, ie. loads south by which ever line has the most favorable grades, and empties north on the other line. Presently the QNS&L road crew out of Sept Iles takes a train half way to Labrador City, rests, continues on to LC, rests and repeats back to Sept Iles. Operations could be similar, other than crews would have to be qualified on both lines. With one-way running,the 2 lines may be so efficent, that they would not need the 3rd planned line.
North of the Labrador city area the Tshiuetin Transportation line seems to be underutilized, so it would hardly seem needed for CN to duplicate that part of the line.
The concept of heavy railroading on Baffin Island is a bit mind-blowing to me - I knew of Baffin Island for years, from books about Artic exploration, and later images of the place (especially an image of a Stewart Valley Glacier that looked cool enough that I used it as computer wallpaper for years).
And now GE locomotive hauling long unit trains are planned to eventually rumble across the desolate NW area - amazing if it happens.