Curious why Mont-Wright [on the Q-C] was not linked to QNS&L at Labrador City. The locations are about 25 miles apart, and yet a 260-mile railroad was built between Mont-Wright and Port Cartier, which is but 36 miles away from Sept-Iles. Anyone know why?
Quebec Cartier Rwy. was owned by US Steel Co. While the QNS&L was owned by the Iron Ore Co. of Canada (owned by Stelco and Dofasco). Competitors didn’t want to work with each other. By way of contrast Wabush Mining Co. (Pickands, Mather and Co.) which built the Carol Lake Mine, chose to work with the QNS&L, but had their own rail operations at each end with QNS&L providing the line haul in between, Wabush Mining Rwy at the Carol Lake Mine, Arnaud Rwy. serving the Pointe Noir port facilities on the St. Lawrence.
And QNS&L has another independent line feeding it, and maybe another one pending ? (Can’t remember the details - but the Feb. 2012 article pointed out that’s why it is a “common carrier”). Similar arrangements have been implemented on some of the Australian iron ore lines - different companies, though.
Which makes me wonder about the validity of some of the concerns about “open access” here in the US. Sure, a competitor is using your line without having to build his own - and from his standpoint, he’s relying on and paying a competitor to perform a vital transportation/ logistics function. But as long as it’s no more expensive than building your own line, the using competitor is that much better off. On the other side, the owning railroad ought to be getting its added variable costs fully reimbursed, plus a handsome contribution to its own overhead and profit which wouldn’t be there without the competitor sharing the tracks. THis should work better for both as long as the line can carry the traffic of both producers - compare with BNSF and UP coal trains on the Powder River Basin’s “Joint Line”.
- Paul North.
The following [Wikipedia] link sort of lays out what the situation is for then mining railroads in Labrador:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quebec_North_Shore_and_Labrador_Railway
you might check the links at the bottom of the Wiki article for maps of the railroads in Labrador.
And just for consideration is the Mary River RR. a $1.9 Billion dollar new construction in the same area ( Northern Quebect/ Baffinland] It is a150km railroad designed to move between 18 to 21 million Tons of ore to Europe.
I believe the Cartier was built in several stages, extending north as one mine closed and a new one was opened. Ultimately, as you noted, once it reached Mont-Wright it appears that building a connection between the two railways would be quite feasible. Further south I suspect the geography would have been a lot more challenging.
John
Paul: a very good point the joint line of UP - BNSF that is a great example. Certainly a portion of initial capital costs to the first RR and any capital to enable same operation metrics is needed. That is improve initial ROW such as more sidings, double track, signals, etc.
This type of operation has been proposed in NW Australia by a second RR of another mining company but Sydney has so far turned it down. Do not remember the details.
Interesting but that’s not remotely “the same area”. Florida and Maine are about as close to being “the same area” as each other.
Ok, Chris:
I concede your point![bow]
Maps can fool you when you’re tired.[:'(]
I guess it kind of like the old story about the saleman who is in Texarkana, Ar. gets a call from his boss that he needs to proceed to El Paso,Tx.
After a session with his road map the salesman calls his boss, in Chicago; tells his boss to go, because HE is closer.[:-,]
The typical Joint Facilities agreements - like for the Front Range, BSNF on UP Mojave-Bakersfield, and UP on BNSF San Berdoo-Barstow - involve both a Maintenance and Capital component. The Owner is made whole over time for his share of the original capital investment, plus any shared improvements, and periodic maintenance.
The payments might be on a car-count, ton-mile, car-mile, or tonnage basis - it’s all agreed among the parties, with the idea of not disadvantaging any of the parties.
The answer as to why no connection was built is that no traffic using such a connection is anticipated. But the article does indicate that electrically, they are connected to insure standby power for signals and communication. What would the traffic be?
Admittedly, The area covered in Labrador 9and in Baffinland(MRRR territory) is very sparsely populated. Not exactly sure what that demographic mix is(?) but it would seem that at some point there would have to be a component of a passenger moving operation.
IIIRC in some of the photos of the QNS&L RR there have been some equipment shown that would be for passengers (employees, at least,) possibly for some public, as well(?) The article on the MRRR mentioned that there was to be a parallel ‘service road’ built as well. With snowfall and weather, usage could be problematic.
There was also a posting referencing the incomplete line of the CNR that offered a limited service to the north on its line to Deese Lake. The ARR also provides “Flag Stop” passenger service for some of its passenger trains. As well at the Ontario Northland’s service area. The CN’s line to Churchill Bay, as well. So even in remote areas there seems to be a need for a sort of public passenger transport.
Does any one have any information about how the QNS&L handles its employee and pubic transport? These remote lines are by virtue of their locations somewhat of a question as to how they deal with their local needs and those of the public in the areas they serve. Remote, but interesting. [2c]
Regarding the connection between Q-C and QNS&L, between Mont-Wright and Labrador City, was that Mont-Wright ore would be sent to the river transfer on a railroad that already existed, rather than building a parallel line between Mont-Wright and Port Cartier.
According to the original Trains article in 1956, QNS&L cost about $250m - in 1956 dollars - to build. Q-C’s cost to build was likely less, as the distance was shorter, but an reasonable estimate would be $150m. A lot of money for a line about 50 miles further west.
But if you read what I posted earlier, they did not build a parallel line from Port Cartier up to the mine at Mont-Wright. In 1960 the line was built up to an earlier mine at Gagnon, which I believe is just off the the present rail line around Love. That would be well over 100 miles away from the QNS&L (if you could build it in a straight line). The railway westward off the original QNS&L into Labrador City was built later, opened in 1963.
As the ore at Gagnon on the Cartier was depleted, two more mines were opened further north and somewhat east. So what we should consider is only the 1972 extension. The additional distance to the further mine, Mont-Wright, would be about 80 miles. So while serving it by a connection to the QNS&L might have been somewhat shorter in new construction, it was not by a huge distance, and if the shorter lived intermediate mine was also to be served, probably a roughly equal distance would be required.
Extending the Cartier made sense. At times both routes have been quite busy, and a tenant usually gets the short end of the dispatching stick. Plus the harbour and processing facilities were already in place at Port-Cartier. Finding room to build new in the Sept-Iles area wou
USS wrote the book on charging themselves a lot on their railroad so that competitors would have to pay the same from when they owned the Missabe. They did not want to be on the other side of that equation at Mt. Wright. They knew the people from Hanna Mining who built the QNSL and ran IOC from coexisting with them in Minnesota and Michigan and knew they would do just that to help pay for their railroad and port.
Mt Wright at the time was expected to produce over 24 million tons per year, don’t know if they were ever able to reach it.