From the trains news wire…folks are proposing to build a 68 mile long tunnel. Doesnt say who they want to pay for it…or how they would arrange financeing.
I am guessing it would cost almost as much to connect the point at wales, AK to Faribanks via rail as to build the whole tunnel…and just as much on the russian side. (Perhaps someone should send this guy a copy of December Trains, about how “Easy” it is just to take pictures of trains in Alaska, let alone run them!)
I believe it was in this last year in Trains, the issue about shortlines, that stated a “rule of Thumb” for shortlines of needing 100 car loads a year to pay for each mile of track…I am just wondering how what they think they will get for traffic…anyone know how many containers are unloaded in Alaska each year?
The head of the project says that a rail link is the key to unlocking the treasures of the artic resources…so perhaps they are expecting more outbound loads than inbound…
But, hey…there aren’t that many back yards to go through, so how many NIMBY’s could there be for a project like this?!
Does anyone know how many original RR’s went through bankruptcy, there by invalidating any value to the original stockholders, before becomeing a viable operating entinity?
I seem to recall even the Chunnel, the most recent project of this type, has had to restructure the debt more than one, due to delays and cost overruns…I would be very suprised to see Warren Buffet putting much money into this one!
While I’m not an expert on the logistics or feasibility of such a project in today’s world (both economically and with a volatile political climate), a concurrent/post natural progression would be to finally complete a link from Canada to Alaska.
Someday it may happen. However, there may not be anyone alive today who will be around to see it.
Connecting Alaska to the Lower 48 through Canada has been a topic for years, yet it remains just an idea, despite being obviously a much less challenging task (both technically and financially) than a link to Russia.
Opening a rail link to conduct more trade with the Russians would be a great thing to see someday, but it certainly looks like a remote goal right now. I think I’d be delighted just to see ARR and the Canadians make a connection.
The Alcan Highway and Alaska Pipeline are exceptions, but without some special push (like WW2 or OPEC), things don’t get built up there too fast. I’m reminded that the funniest and most apt nickname for the old PGE Ry. was “Prince George, Eventually.”
What is being refreed to is a Modern Marvels program on engineering suggesting how such a tunnel under the Bearing Sea MIGHT be built. It would cost billions of dollars and what would it accomplish with the tempertures in Alaska and Siberia in the winter. Put that one with the proposed space elevator that they say is theoretically possible also.
Alaska through Canada to the U.S. ? For what reason? What would be the economic benefit? You sure can’t haul oil that far and what other products come out of Alaska that would justify a trillion dollar rail line? Now it might make sense to supply military bases, but I think ships do that now, along with oil. Find an economic product or natural resource then cost the need for a railway, don’t build a railway just “because”
I have to concur with this assessment. building a line through sparsely settled territory, then boreing a tunnel through a seimically active region, only the surface and then build through over 1,000 miles of unsettled wilderness with no significant population centers, in inhospitable terrain, just to connect two land masses and shorten the shipping routes ? There are forum members here who will enlighten the original poster to the effect that the costs are so enormous that they dwarf whatever benefits there might be.
I have to agree completely. Add in the problem of a fixed structure crossing a moving geologic plate boundry, 50+ active volcanos, and a region noted for VERY large (8.0+) earthquakes and a tiny consumer population. This looks like theory only. Besides, it would have to have the rail link to Canada and the rest of the U.S. built first, otherwise I don’t think that there are enough Wal-Marts in Alaska to sell all the stuff in those China Boxes. [#oops]
Every six months to a year, this proposal hits the airways. I think the folks who continue to throw this idea out there really need to spend some time up here. A few years ago before the modern transportation structure was in place, it made allot of sense to consider doing the connection with Alaska to the lower 48. There have been 8 studies done on this over the last 30 years. Everyone has sucked up a bunch of money to say, “yeah great idea, but really!” I have read a few of the drafts. They make some excellent points and possibilities. But in the long run, you are talking about something that is on the magnitude of building the Trans-Alaska Pipeline. The original idea in 71’-72’ time period, was to build a rail link to haul the oil to the refineries down south. (Canada & mid-west). It would have opened up large areas of the NW to possible expansion. But the pipeline made better sense.
There is a millennium of coal reserves up here in the arctic, but who wants to pay the cost of transporting all that cold rock south, when you can get higher-grade coal from the Powder River Basin? It is economics. The population base of Alaska will never be the driving force for the expansion, and it would only be the connection with Russia that would produce the base needed. But again the environmental element to over come is far greater than these planners understand.
For those who have not lived and LIVED through the icy cold grip that nature has on things up here, these ides are just that ideas. To watch years of work washed away in moments, cause the ice flows are changing the course, or the ground decides to move, daily, would consider this a far greater challenge than what a video on Discovery Channel feeds ya.
Sorry WM7471 & CG9602, your postulation that the Bering Strait region is seismically active is incorrect. The nearest geologic plate boundry is over 1,000 miles to the south, as are the high magnitude quakes. Also, the straits are comparatively shallow, and the sea floor is hard rock, not clay as in the case of the troublesome “Chunnel.” The economics of a “Bering boring” can provide enough debate fodder for a dozen threads. Let’s go that route.
Yep, I researched the subject. My short treatise can be found in TRAINS, November 1991.
Extreme Engineering? Isn’t that the same program that aired a proposal to build a big pyramid in Tokyo - which IS in a tectonically active zone?[%-)]
The whole thing sounds like the kind of, “Gee, Whiz, I bet we could…” discusions that happen in the pubs where engineering undergraduates gather while their football-playing peers are getting better acquainted with the cheerleaders…[}:)]
There are any number of things that are possible - given unlimited funds, world peace and the goodwill of every person on the planet. Realistically, there is no reason for serious planning, never mind construction, of this transportation link - and there won’t be in the forseeable future. I suspect that humans will be mining asteroids and launching interstellar expeditions before this idea is both practically and economically feasable.[:-^]
Interesting engineering idea, but its one of the stupidest economic ideas I’ve ever heard. Whats on each end of the tunnel, a Igloo? Someone need to look at a map of Russia.
This is kind of like building a house from the roof down.
No rail connection from Alaska to the Canada or the lower 48, how about building that first. How about the rail connection between the Siberian side of the Barren Straight to Vladisvostok, the eastern terminus of the Trans Siberian-RR?..its only a mere 2000+ miles away. Both are one hellova long long way for a train to go…what about the weather? And what in the hell would you ship? Vladisvostok isnt Shanghai when it comes to shipping exports…these proposals invariably emphisis faster European trade, but our primary market is not Europe anymore, its China, and dont forget, Russia is 5 foot gauge, we and China are 4’-8 1/2", so EVERYTHING coming thru each way would need to be transfered to new trains. Now add the Russian and the Chinese really dont like each other very much, that would make transfering cargo problematic at best.
So your now going to ship from China, into Russia, changing rail cars in the process, then up the long slug to Alaska, thru the 100 billion dollar tunnel and into Alaska, changing rail cars yet again and then make the slug over the Rockies into Canada and the lower 48? All the time lost compared to simply loading them on a boat which can carry a hellova lot more containers than even the longest trains. Neat idea, but but I dont think so.
PS the engineering challenges building under the straight itself alone would doom this project, remember this is one of the most earthquake prone regions on earth.
The economic reality for the transcontinental railroads were there were markets at both ends and the competition was the wagon routes across the landmass and the sailing and steam ships all the way around South America.
The Siberian-Alaskan route runs from an area with no market to no market. Once the resources get to Alaska they then have to move to the markets to the south. Alaska has all the coal, timber and copper they need on hand. They do not need what is in Siberia. Besides, there are steamships and barges which can do what the underwater railroad can do for much of the year.
Fine idea, great engineering exercise, no practical application at this point.
The original Trans-Siberian railroad went from somewhere to maintain political control over nowhere. It was done at great cost. The oppressed peasants were taxed even more, which made them rather sore. Some say the Tzar got more than he bargined for.
There was similar political motive to building America’s pacific railroad. Making a nation from sea to sea with a railroad. If I remember correctly, both Russia and America did so on the cheap and it was years before both were rebuilt to higher standards.
With no market to support it, just the rail link to Alaska would require massive government support. A tunnel from continent to continent would be on par with going to the moon.
Without some widely perceived national need, I do not see it happening. It may pay off in decades to come by opening up new territories. The immediate cost to political leaders pushing a project without broad based support could at best be just their careers, at worst their heads.
There WAS a very real need for the Transcon in 1865. Remember in 1865, there was no Panama canal, it took 6 to 8 MONTHS for a boat to get from NYC to San Francisco in the newly admitted state of Callifornia. Which is why the desperate need for up to date communications led to first, the Pony Express and then the telegragh, the Transcon pretty much followed both those routes.
One of the primary driving forces for the transcon was, like now, a shorter route to the orient. During this era the country was crazy for all things oriental and there was a huge market for art, cloth, and pretty much anything asian. Prior to the transcon products coming out of China, Japan and Southeast Asia had to be shipped by sail around Cape Horn, a very dicey course in any sea, then up the atlantic to the US or Europe, boats returning had to go back down and fight their way around Cape Horn or goaround the Cape of Good Hope in Africa (hopefully not encountering the “Dutchman”) and across the Indian Ocean along the Roaring’ 40s then up to their asian ports, these voyages could take up to a year ONE WAY depending on the boat. By the opening of the transcon, ships could cross the Pacific in a couple of months to San Francisco, load onto a train and two weeks later be in NYC, thats a hellova time savings. Plus add the ability to now ship products from California to the east and products from the east to a west coast that was desperate to be seen as the cultural equal of any east coast state even if they had to import it.
But then, some corporate executives could give a LOT of money to key politicians campaigns who could all of a sudden justify this project, thus seek money for it from the government. Corporation thus would give more money to said politicians campaigns as this moves foreward. Project gets moving creating jobs AND votes for said politicians. Creates more income taxes coming into fed/state/local governments. Project hits hurdles and cost overruns and more money flows in from the government.
There is more to add to what I said above. I’m tired and can’t remember the rest of this story we often see going on in its strange way.
Then the other Party wins the election, some ‘Watchdog’ throws up his hands in horror, some ‘Environmentalist’ discovers that the project will reduce the habitat of the tundra ground snail by 0.01% and it gets grabbed for a, “Fleecing of America” sound bite on NBC news. The money is abruptly rerouted to some other sinkhole and the project is cancelled, leaving a $$$$ TBM stuck at the end of a 3,000 foot bore that rapidly fills up with water, followed by an investigation, much finger pointing and a media circus.