Has there been much talk about a connection to the lower 48? Isn’t there one or two narrow gauge lines in Alaska?
Alaska has two very active railroads:
Alaska Railroad, 470 route miles, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alaska_Railroad
White Pass & Yukon Railway, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Pass_and_Yukon_Route
There are active, state-funded feasibility studies for a rail connection between the Alaska Railroad and the Lower 48.
RWM
I like that Alaska RR barge in Seattle.
How would Alaska be connected to the rest of the U.S. ? ? Wouldn’t it have to go through a country to the north called Canada? What would be the benefit to Canada? also permission to run a foreign railway across Canada may not be permitted eh? Or maybe, just maybe, Canada may be plotting to run a railway corridor from Canada to Mexico down the middle of the U.S. I wonder if that would be permitted by the U.S. government. What products shipped from Alaska to the motherland would constitute such an enormous and expensive cost/ (fisheads?) there is already a pipeline to Valdez, I hope they aren’t going to start shipping oil by trains again are they? and what will the lower 48 ship to Alaska by train? coal? new cars? fur coats? All exciting questions eh???
…Guessing the line from Alaska would be connected to existing lines in Canada and the appropriate line{s}, down in the USA. Of course some additional lines {new}, may have to be integrated into the system.
Products to haul would most likely be similar to general merchandise hauled here in the 48.
I suppose it would be a combined project between Canada and the USA.
Well then how big is the gap between the nearest Canada line and the closest one in Alaska? Really do you think Canada would resist that idea very much. They rely on our money and military protection. We have missile tracking systems up there. I think maybe the permafrost would be more difficult to deal with than the Canadian government.
…Distance…I don’t know, but I’d bet someone on here can come up with a close figure. How about it Dale…
There are several viable routes all of which, as you point, out, traverse Yukon Territory and British Columbia. The Alaska endpoint is Delta Junction, near Fairbanks; the connection with the continental rail system is considering points such as Fort Nelson, Hazelton, Minaret, and Mackenzie, B.C., which are all CN system. An all-U.S. route is not viable as Alaska is disconnected; besides, a coastal route that followed the Alaska Panhandle is utterly infeasible unless virtually the entire length was in tunnel, much of it suboceanic.
Canada and the U.S. are very much partners in this and many other endeavors and commercially, politically, and socially they are as closely linked as two nations have ever been. Differences exist but for practical purposes they are far smaller than the alarmists, nativists, and ideologues would have us believe.
Traffic sources considered in the feasibility studies are centered on mineral resources in inland Alaska and Canada. Shipping crude oil by rail from Alaska to the continental U.S. is not one of them, however; as ocean transportation is vastly less expensive. Besides, Prudhoe Bay’s oil outp
Hi Quentin,
It would be over 1,000 miles from CN (ex BCR) in Fort Nelson, BC, to the end of Alaska Railroad. State and Federal funding would likely cover the 200 to 300 mile US portion if the Canadian portion was built. I believe a large majority of the people along the Canadian section would be in favor of the connection. I really can’t see anyone in this Country, or in yours, that would be willing to cover the cost of the Canadian section. $5 billion ? It will only be built if American taxpayers pay for it, therefore, it is not going to happen.
You’re probably right, Dale, about the lack of funding of $5 billion for the project. It’s a shame, really, especially since four times that amount was spent on the Osprey helicopter, and it still doesn’t work right. - al
Back in the 80s, BCR planned to build an extension to Dease Lake, BC. The RoR was purchased and graded, but forestry tanked so the project was canned. The graded roadbed still exists and is still owned by RR. At the time, I believe the line was billed as an way to connect Alaska by rail in the future.
With the possible exception of the fish-heads (or any other part of their anatomy), I presume that most of the commodities you mentioned would be prospective candidates. Fur coats would probably go in intermodal vehicles of some sort.
But why not oil? The pipline from Fairbanks (or thereabouts) to Valdez probably costs almost as much to maintain as the northernmore half, and a rail pipeline (unit trains) probably wouldn’t cause nearly the potential environmental problems (haven’t we been reading about pipeline leaks that are causing oil proices to go up?). Who knows? Perhaps the availability of rail transportation might make refining operations feasible somewhere along the line.
Here is one for all of you. There was a preliminary study made by a consulting firm, I believe A.T. Kearney to haul the Prodhue Bay oil via rail. Really! Bare with me, because it was around 40 years ago, but I think the idea was to barge the oil over to and up the Mackenzie River to a barge to rail transfer terminal on the south shore of Great Slave Lake. Somehow the minor matter of a five month navigation season for the coastal/river move was dealt with (Very Large storage tanks?) and a proposal was made for facilities to rapidly load a train of 20,000 gallon tank cars. And, as I recall, there was also a suggestion for the general routing of the rail line. I don’t recall the proposed routing beyond the new rail line.
Would it be a surprise to learn that nobody showed very much enthusiam for the plan?
I’d have to believe, that oil moves a lot faster and cheaper in a pipeline, than on a railroad. How many gazillion gallons have shipped down the Alaska pipeline? Currently, there is a proposal to run an oil pipeline from Canada to Oklahoma. I haven’t heard any mention of any rail alternative there, even though there are probably rail lines from Canada to Oklahoma already in place.
Unfortunately, I don’t remember numbers but I seem to recall that there appeared to be some merit from the cost standpoint. As I am sure you know, the Alaskan Oil Pipeline is far from the run-of-the-mill crude pipeline. One thing I remember about the proposal was that it would take years longer to build than the pipeline. It was suggested that a delay in bringing the oil to the market might not be so bad, as at the time imported oil would be cheaper to the refineries than the Alaskan Oil. Anyway, oil people think pipes for transportation and it probably would have required a huge cost advantage to change the mindset.
Even with the benefit of hindsight, I doubt that the barge/rail proposal would be found to be a major lost oppurtunity.
Speed isn’t important; the opportunity cost of the transit time for the oil is not large.
Cost is important. Operating costs are about 1.5 cents per ton-mile for a new, large-diameter pipeline vs. 2.5 cents per ton-mile for a new, heavy-haul railway. You would only consider rail haulage if it was very short term and the rail line already existed.
RWM
Track was laid on about 1/3 of the Dease Lake Extension and the remainder was partially constructed and some bridges built. The project had two goals, (1) to open northern B.C. to development (principally mineral) and (2) serve as an eventual connection to Alaska.
Lumber prices didn’t stop the Dease Lake Extension; what stopped it was the province ran out of enthusiasm for paying for immensely expensive public works projects. Lumber at that very long distance from consumers is not profitable to produce except when market cycles are at their peak. The forests at that latitude do not produce high-quality trees or large-diameter trees.
RWM
I can accept that operating cost differential, and I would be willing to wager that the capital cost of the new pipeline could be less that of a new heavy-haul railroad. At least that would be the case if the pipeline didn’t have to go over several mountain ranges and be built in a way to keep perma frost from melting.
Permafrost isn’t much of an issue on this route; it’s too far south. Permafrost is a north-of-Fairbanks issue. Where it’s encountered locally the practice is to excavate and backfill.
The estimates are $8 million/mile for new rail construction on this route. The estimate for the Prudhoe Bay-U.S. gas pipeline varies from $12-$24 million/mile but that includes the very expensive construction north of Fairbanks. Mile for mile in equivalent terrain the cost is probably around $12 million/mile for the pipeline.
Bids were received for the gas pipeline concession last week. This could prove very interesting.
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/headline/biz/5343623.html
RWM
[quote user=“Railway Man”]
Permafrost isn’t much of an issue on this route; it’s too far south. Permafrost is a north-of-Fairbanks issue. Where it’s encountered locally the practice is to excavate and backfill.
The estimates are $8 million/mile for new rail construction on this route. The estimate for the Prudhoe Bay-U.S. gas pipeline varies from $12-$24 million/mile but that includes the very expensive construction north of Fairbanks. Mile for mile in equivalent terrain the cost is probably around $12 million/mile for the pipeline.
Bids were received for the gas pipeline concession last week. This could prove very interesting.