Study due on Alaska-Yukon-CN railroad route

Trains Magazine General Discussion
1

Seattlw (WA) Post-Intelligencer:

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/apus_story.asp?category=1110&slug=North%20to%20Alaska

Alaska-Yukon Link Could Boost Economies

By JEREMY HAINSWORTH, Associated Press Writer
Sunday, May 8, 2005 (AP)

(05-08-2005) 10:32 PDT – VANCOUVER, British Columbia (AP) – A rail link
between Alaska and Canada,
proposed as a faster way to transport natural resources, would also enable the
United States to
support anti-ballistic missile silos and military bases, a new study says.

While supporters are playing up the economic advantages, and the Alaskan and
Yukon governments have
signed an agreement to study the idea, critics say the military uses are likely
to stir opposition
in Canada, where the continental missile shield project is unpopular.

The report by a Boston firm says the link would benefit the Canadian and U.S.
economies, and make it
easier for the U.S. military to move its troops through Canada to worldwide
theaters of operation
such as North Korea.

The link, which has been debated for years, would require 1,150 miles of new
track, from the current
Alaska railroad terminus near Alaska’s Eielson Air Force Base to Fort St. John
or Fort Nelson in
northeastern British Columbia. Those two cities are already linked to Canada’s
national railroad
system.

It would enhance support of missile-defense interceptor silos being built at
Fort Greeley in Alaska,
and missile-tracking radar on Shemya, one of the Aleutian Islands, says the
report by Charles River
Associates, prepared for the Yukon Territory provincial government and obtained
by The Associated
Press.

Steve Staples, a defense analyst with the Polaris Institute, an Ottawa think
tank, suggested Prime
Minister Paul Martin would be seen as “duping Canadians” and "a

2

Wow, in this day and age when it seems like track is being ripped up or abandonded all over, it would be cool to see such a large project take off. Not to mention, the route would be incredible to ride.

John k

3

As Mr Ambrose wrote “Nothing in the world like it.”

4

I don’t think this is a viable military option for the US.

  1. It would give Canada a veto over any action. They’d have to agree to let the military equipment move through their soveriegn territory. Maybe they would, maybe they wouldn’t. The US certainly couldn’t take a chance on their decision.

  2. From 1965 or so on forward, troops were not going to be moved by train to a port for embarkation on a troop ship.

  3. The US Navy can certainly keep three missle defense ships in operation any where they want to (OK, they need water) without building a rail line to Alaska.

I don’t know about the commercial benifits. Remember the Pacific Great Eastern/British Columbia Railway. It was built to “open up” its service area for economic development. Didn’t work well enough to make the railroad a commercial success.

But, with the growth of commerce between the Far East and North America, and the congestion of existing rail lines/ports, it may be feasible to develope a rail link to Alaska to handle container shipments. China to Anchorage by ship, then rail to eastern North America.

I just hope it doesn’t turn into another government boondogle that pee’s away money.

5

I don’t think Canada would forbid passage from one state to another. The only reason why we didn’t fully embrace the missle defence system during the cold-war was because we didn’t want nukes on our land.

I forsee a problem with conventional weapons and ordinance. As I believe dharmon said though, if the U.S really wanted to move a whole bunch of stuff in a hurry, they would use planes and by pass Canadian territory all together. I would believe this would be for non immediate threating reinforcements and training excerise transportation.

6

The coal reserves and other mineral wealth found along a line to Alaska would more than return the costs of opening such a line.
What a tourist mecca trains operating between the lower 48 and our largest state would become. If properly run they would definitly give the cruise ships a run for their money. JUst to please everyone they could operate a casino car or two in each consist. I would imagine that much like the Alaska RR the passenger equipment would sit largely unused in the winter months.
So maybe when Amtrak disappears we could operate the equipment on western routes such as where todays Coast Starlight and Empire Builders operate today during winter months.

7

First, Canada was largely on board with the missile defense system during the Cold War; the bulk of their—real—opposition has been under the Bush II administration. Second, the missile defense system would not be putting nuclear weapons on Canadian soil or anyone’s soil for that matter. In the 60s, they used to have anti-aircraft/anti-missile missiles that were tipped with small nuclear warheads. But that system has been abandoned (at least to the public’s knowledge). The nuclear defense missile shield shoots down nuclear weapons by non-nuclear means. Lasers and precision guided conventional warheads appear to be the future of this industry.

Second, I can’t find where Dan said what he did about aircraft. As Dan is pretty knowledgeable in this area—and others—, I wouldn’t take issue with it if he did. However, I would be surprised if he made as broad of a statement as you said he did.

Many of the implementations and resupplying of a missile defense system are too heavy to move by air and too time sensitive to move by ship. The military is the one really pushing the new route—contrary to popular belief, I am sure they studied alternate modes of transportation and concluded with good reason that rail is the superior mode of transport.

That having been said, Greyhounds’ political concerns are well founded and have concerned me a

8

We are Nato and Norad allies you know. If the U.S is attacked properly and formerly, we would be at war too so it is very doubtful that Canada would stop a through supply train.

I am almost certain that is what Dan who said it. Also I believe that some like systems would already be part of naval vessels that no doubt secretly patrol the area part of the Pacific Fleet.

I know that Canada was largely on board except for having nukes on our land as I stated. Anti-missle, ICBM; still nuclear.

The resupplying of the missle system would be fuel or something like that? Not a concern as it would be like moving LPG which trains do already. Large parts, well it is likely that would not be high on priority list if invasion was imment plus the military intelligence would have long ago been alerted to build ups and so the military would have already been building up defences in preparation. At any rate, large parts wouldn’t have opposition either. Warheads, or anything nuclear like that…likely not as long as it was guarded and it could be assured that no premature detonation occured.

9

As a former serviceman in the Canadian Armed Forces, I would think in the best interest of both Canadians and Americans that we do defend this continent we live on. let’s face it, there are a lot of crazed people around the world that are goin to continue attacking our way of life as we see it, and if people think that we are safe from these terrorists, they are just fooling themselfs. I am in favour of this new rail line, and I don’t have any problem with our friends to the south running military supplies up to Alaska.
Wake up Paul Martin and get with the programme.CNtrainman.

10

Put in Railroad Tycoon 2 and build this route as part of the 2nd Century. Too bad the program begins with a line from Seattle to Vancouver, then you have to build to Prince George & anywhere North. Probably should get the Great Patriot Railway to at least start up with the 1940 built rail system.