# How about a train to Alaska? Talk about experiential!



## cocojacoby

President Donald Trump said late Friday that he expected to issue a permit for a rail line connecting Alaska and Canada, citing the influence of two members of Alaska’s congressional delegation on his decision.

“Based on the strong recommendation of @SenDanSullivan and @repdonyoung of the Great State of Alaska, it is my honor to inform you that I will be issuing a Presidential Permit for the A2A Cross-Border Rail between Alaska & Canada. Congratulations to the people of Alaska & Canada!” the president tweeted Friday around 8 p.m. Alaska time.


----------



## ehbowen

It could be done, and frankly it's worth doing; still, I'll believe it when I see it.


----------



## crescent-zephyr

There won’t be a passenger train and this isn’t good news if you care about the environment.


----------



## west point

A 4 - 5 day trip one way. If by Deanease Lake then start in Seattle. The old BC rail line no picnic. If by Fort Nelson ( more likely ) then Jasper to Seattle or Edmonton ( good Via servicing ) then on to CHI ?
Then there is the problem of enough reliable Amtrak equipment.
I would not like to dispatch train without at least 4 preferrably 6 P-42s that would be winterized. That includes fuel tank heaters for diesel and DEF. Passenger cars with protected water systems. Cars built to scandavaniation winter protocols, VIA type HEP distribution system. Real dinning meals for all passengers.


----------



## flitcraft

If this promise is anything like the promise before the last election of loads of infrastructure projects, I doubt we see anything more of this than the bare promise. I guess Alaska isn't as dependable a red state as I would have thought.


----------



## AmtrakFlyer

“President Donald Trump...” anything after that is irrelevant at this point.


----------



## jruff001

Won't happen in my lifetime but it may some day (especially as global warming makes the Far North more inhabitable). If it ever does the purpose will be as a N. America - Asia freight bridge to ship cheap Asian junk to U.S. and Canadian consumers and wheat / soybeans / oil to China. So it would likely (at least at first) be an inland alignment, Edmonton - Ft Nelson - Watson Lake - Pelly River valley - Faro - Stewart Crossing - Yukon River valley to around Koyukuk - Seward Peninsula - Bering Sea crossing at the Diomedes - Siberia - China.

Secondarily, maybe later or as a branch, it might include Fairbanks, via a branch at Tanana from the west, or maybe east from Fairbanks via the Tanana valley - Tok - Whitehorse - Watson Valley (to Edmonton as above) or BC. But I see this as primarily an Asian - N. American freight link so it will not go out of its way to include Seattle, Vancouver, Fairbanks or Anchorage. Routings to include those locations would involve much more difficult engineering; and those areas already have major ports with good sea connections to Asia (except Fairbanks but there isn't a big enough market there to make a difference).

I don't see any type of regular passenger trains as being viable on such a route, at least for a long time, so not part of Amtrak; but I could definitely see an American Orient Express type of thing as a novelty to do for the rich which could happen occasionally during the summer.


----------



## jiml

This has been proposed and discussed many times. CN owns trackage all the way to Hay River, NWT, through northern Alberta (former NAR). The top portion of this route has changed hands many times, but was reacquired by CN in 2006. I believe the tracks are still in place, but have no idea what shape they're in - certainly not up to passenger train standards. However, this would be the logical starting point of an Alaskan connection. Some of the land this route and any extension crosses is unstable and would require creative construction methods. (The existing tracks used to require special lightweight locomotives at certain times of the year.) Costly and environmentally-unfriendly construction methods are not likely to win approval from the Canadian government nor native groups whose land would have to be crossed. The thought of 200-car oil trains traversing this pristine wilderness doesn't really paint an acceptable 2020 picture for most people. 

You can pretty much exclude from the discussion extending the existing line from Dawson Creek, BC. British Columbia is California North, where environmental concerns and aboriginal land issues have even more traction. Alberta and the NWT would be much friendlier to job-creating development if it ever gets that far. My guess is it won't.


----------



## jiml

west point said:


> A 4 - 5 day trip one way. If by Deanease Lake then start in Seattle. The old BC rail line no picnic. If by Fort Nelson ( more likely ) then Jasper to Seattle or Edmonton ( good Via servicing ) then on to CHI ?
> Then there is the problem of enough reliable Amtrak equipment.
> I would not like to dispatch train without at least 4 preferrably 6 P-42s that would be winterized. That includes fuel tank heaters for diesel and DEF. Passenger cars with protected water systems. Cars built to scandavaniation winter protocols, VIA type HEP distribution system. Real dinning meals for all passengers.


P-42's don't work in cold weather. Just ask VIA. All long-distance passenger trains in Canada run with reliable GM locomotives.


----------



## Dakota 400

cocojacoby said:


> “Based on the strong recommendation of @SenDanSullivan and @repdonyoung of the Great State of Alaska, it is my honor to inform you that I will be issuing a Presidential Permit for the A2A Cross-Border Rail between Alaska & Canada. Congratulations to the people of Alaska & Canada!” the president tweeted Friday around 8 p.m. Alaska time.



Since both Senator Sullivan and Representative Young are on the ballot for November 3rd, this Tweet doesn't amount to much. Never have heard of a "Presidential Permit". What's that all about?

We can't get Cleveland-Columbus-Dayton-Cincinnati rail service. Rail service to/from Alaska and the USA?


----------



## jis

cocojacoby said:


> President Donald Trump said late Friday that he expected to issue a permit for a rail line connecting Alaska and Canada, citing the influence of two members of Alaska’s congressional delegation on his decision.
> 
> “Based on the strong recommendation of @SenDanSullivan and @repdonyoung of the Great State of Alaska, it is my honor to inform you that I will be issuing a Presidential Permit for the A2A Cross-Border Rail between Alaska & Canada. Congratulations to the people of Alaska & Canada!” the president tweeted Friday around 8 p.m. Alaska time.


More Presidential BS. 

I'll believe it is not BS when he signs a bill with funding for realizing it. It is quite easy to scribble you John Hancock on any piece of crap, and get a picture taken doing so. But that does not mean anything without real money and plan behind it.


----------



## WICT106

This effort to connect Alaska with the rest of the North American railroad network has been proposed time and again. Just to get to Alaska would require building track across 1500 miles or so of _very_ sparsely settled land. Then there is the construction across ground that is permafrost. Then one would have to ask what was to be shipped. Tough going, all around.


----------



## jiml

I stand by my prediction this won't happen, but after doing more research I realized this has more momentum than I originally thought. Some of the approvals have apparently been obtained and it would be the route I detailed above from Hay River, NWT. The original proposal was made in 2015 and has support from some native groups whose land is involved. The primary purpose would be to move Alberta oil to Alaska. It's still a monumental undertaking that requires approval from a Canadian government that tries to look "green". Right now that government is in a minority position - held in power by the socialist NDP party and the official Green party. I don't think anyone realistically expects approval of a major infrastructure project with environmental overtones. A change in Washington in November would likely bring this discussion to the same end as the controversial Keystone XL pipeline - previously vetoed by the Obama White House. 

As an aside, the discussion of passenger service on this route is fascinating. I think some are visualizing something like the Trans-Siberian Railway with equipment like the Alaska Railroad's summer services or the Rocky Mountaineer. It's important to note that for the majority of this route there is no scenery. It is flat, boring tundra with almost no population enroute. Other than railfans recording rare-mileage runs there is no realistic market for passenger service. Here is a shot of the last passenger train to run on the existing tracks:


----------



## WWW

This is NOT a build it and they will come !
The existing rail service - Marine Car Ferry to the port of Whittier and thence Alaska RR to the interior works fine.
Passenger Service is best served by airplanes getting into places only Swiss RR engineers building multiple tunnels and loop arounds
to get over and through mountains. 
And the Weather - there is a reason the Cruise ships only visit in the Summer.

Any rail service with Canada best consider high speed rail with sleeper accommodations for the 1500 mile non-scenic RockyMountaineer trip.

Sort of compare it to the service from Winnipeg to Churchill - track laid over boggy permafrost and with global warming
engineers best plan for an elevated rail causeway.

Is there really an interior railroad service of this magnitude necessary ?


----------



## ehbowen

jiml said:


> It's important to note that for the majority of this route there is no scenery. It is flat, boring tundra with almost no population enroute.



Sounds like a natural for the overnight portion of a sleeper train!


----------



## me_little_me

The Alaska ferry provides this service. Rooms available; decent food; nice scenery.

They could probably offer a bundle that included food in the price.


----------



## Palmetto

me_little_me said:


> The Alaska ferry provides this service. Rooms available; decent food; nice scenery.
> 
> They could probably offer a bundle that included food in the price.




Put the word "rooms" in quotes. They are quite spartan, and basically contain bunks.☺


----------



## ehbowen

Palmetto said:


> Put the word "rooms" in quotes. They are quite spartan, and basically contain bunks.☺



Oh, unlike the queen beds you find in Amtrak roomettes (/sarc)?


----------



## Anderson

I posted this elsewhere, but basically I don't see this actually panning out unless there's a serious push on the Bering Strait project. Otherwise, I'd have to question there being enough freight coming out of Alaska to really justify this.

I don't see "regular" passenger service on the line, but I _could_ see an occasional/semi-regular excursion service.


----------



## jiml

Here is one of many Financial Post articles on the subject: Trump-backed Canadian railway to Alaska could free landlocked oil, faces high hurdles

This seems to confirm that the primary purpose of the line would be to move Alberta oil to Alaskan ports, rather than freight in the other direction. It sounds like supplementary freight traffic would just be a bonus. While this article is more positive than most, there's certainly a consensus that the political and physical obstacles might be insurmountable. If the US election in November brings a more environmentally conscious government, whether through the Legislature or at the top, this project is so dead.


----------



## ehbowen

IMO the Bering Strait connection is a non-starter; it's just too remote and there's not nearly enough traffic. It would take nearly as long for freight trains to take the roundabout route from China through Siberia to the Strait and down through Alaska and Canada as it would to send a fast container ship direct from Asia to Seattle...and ocean shipping is dirt cheap. Passenger transit is an even more blue-sky idea; you'd get more travelers by putting a couple of dozen passenger cabins on those container freighters.

On the other hand, having a rail connection capable of operating through winter to the 49th state is a worthwhile goal from a public policy standpoint in and of itself, and if it can mostly pay for itself by transferring oil from our good friend and ally to existing infrastructure (pipeline/Valdez terminal) in Alaska then so much the better. Believe me, I'm all for it; I'm just skeptical that there's enough will to do it to sustain it until completion.


----------



## jis

ehbowen said:


> IMO the Bering Strait connection is a non-starter; it's just too remote and there's not nearly enough traffic. It would take nearly as long for freight trains to take the roundabout route from China through Siberia to the Strait and down through Alaska and Canada as it would to send a fast container ship direct from Asia to Seattle...and ocean shipping is dirt cheap. Passenger transit is an even more blue-sky idea; you'd get more travelers by putting a couple of dozen passenger cabins on those container freighters.
> 
> On the other hand, having a rail connection capable of operating through winter to the 49th state is a worthwhile goal from a public policy standpoint in and of itself, and if it can mostly pay for itself by transferring oil from our good friend and ally to existing infrastructure (pipeline/Valdez terminal) in Alaska then so much the better. Believe me, I'm all for it; I'm just skeptical that there's enough will to do it to sustain it until completion.


Good observations @ehbowen, and given the mindset in the US, I am almost convinced that a rail link to Alaska will probably never happen.

If this was Russia, China or India, this would be considered a strategic link project and no one would demand that it pay for itself. It would be built and run as a strategic link (sort of like the intterstate system is in the US). China really does not expect the Tibet link to pay for itself, and India does not expect the Kashmir Rail Link to pay for itself, as Russia did not for building the northern trans-Siberia route.


----------



## AmtrakBlue

Well, we all know how well Trump knows his geography. He probably thinks Alaska is across the border from Washington.


----------



## Siegmund

I will be amazed to see any progress on it. It had a good chance in the 70s and a semi-decent chance once in the 90s. 

The state of the Alaska economy (worse now than at any time in the past 50 years) is going to be a sizable part of the problem - I can't imagine the Alaska Railroad being given money to build or operate the within-Alaska portion of the line. That's pretty much the same thing that happened in the 70s, Canada started building their part, we didn't build ours. If I were the Canadian prime minister I would want to see people with shovels digging in Alaska before did a thing.


----------



## bms

Seems like a waste of money. Oil is cheap right now, and demand for it will decrease over time. I can't imagine the capital costs are worth it with oil at $40 a barrel.


----------



## hlcteacher

Palmetto said:


> Put the word "rooms" in quotes. They are quite spartan, and basically contain bunks.☺


bunks work for me


----------



## jis

bms said:


> Seems like a waste of money. Oil is cheap right now, and demand for it will decrease over time. I can't imagine the capital costs are worth it with oil at $40 a barrel.


As I was saying.... the current mindset does not support such an expansion of rail infrastructure in the US.


----------



## Dakota 400

jiml said:


> The primary purpose would be to move Alberta oil to Alaska.



Why? I thought there were Canadian plans on building a pipeline that would carry that oil to a port located in British Columbia..


----------



## jiml

Dakota 400 said:


> Why? I thought there were Canadian plans on building a pipeline that would carry that oil to a port located in British Columbia..


I could tell you the tale, but it would involve a foray into forbidden political discussion. The story is out there - Google "Trudeau buys a pipeline" and draw your own conclusions. If you remember the rail shutdown in Canada before Covid, that's what caused it. With environmental and first nations' opposition, the pipeline has about as much chance of being completed as the railway we're discussing here.


----------



## cocojacoby

jiml said:


> Costly and environmentally-unfriendly construction methods are not likely to win approval from the Canadian government nor native groups whose land would have to be crossed.
> 
> Alberta and the NWT would be much friendlier to job-creating development if it ever gets that far.



You know there is a growing "Wexit" movement in Alberta to leave Canada, right? This just may be the stimulus that makes it succeed. There is even talk of some of the western provinces joining the USA. 

_*Alberta’s secession movement spells trouble for Justin Trudeau*_
*
The Americas
Dec 5th 2019 edition
EDMONTON
*
_*The 700 people who gathered on a recent Saturday night at the Boot Scootin’ Boogie Dancehall in Edmonton, the capital of the western Canadian province of Alberta, came not to boogie but to vent. Baseball caps for sale bore such slogans as “Make Alberta Great Again”, “The West Wants Out” and “Wexit”. On stage, before a Canadian flag held between hockey sticks and pointed upside down, Peter Downing recited the grievances that drew the crowd: cancelled plans to build oil pipelines, subsidies paid to the rest of Canada and snobbery towards Alberta from the central Canadian provinces.*_


----------



## jiml

cocojacoby said:


> You know there is a growing "Wexit" movement in Alberta to leave Canada, right? This just may be the stimulus that makes it succeed. There is even talk of some of the western provinces joining the USA.


Yup.


----------



## MARC Rider

ehbowen said:


> On the other hand, having a rail connection capable of operating through winter to the 49th state is a worthwhile goal from a public policy standpoint in and of itself, and if it can mostly pay for itself by transferring oil from our good friend and ally to existing infrastructure (pipeline/Valdez terminal) in Alaska then so much the better. Believe me, I'm all for it; I'm just skeptical that there's enough will to do it to sustain it until completion.


I'm not sure that enabling the entrance of more petroleum into the world market is such a good public policy goal. Our long-term goal in terms of both mitigating climate change and protecting our national security should be to reduce the amount of petroleum available to the markets, so that alternative technologies regimes can get a competitive advantage. In that way. greenhouse gas emissions are reduced and the strategic value of petroleum is also reduced. That Canadian oil should be staying in the ground where it belongs.


----------



## WWW

The existing system works just fine !

Imagine all the tunnels that would have to be made to get to where float planes fly to -
Track space for a locomotive and 1 coach car at the dock - no wye to turn around -
Building tracks into pristine wilderness not now not even in the distant future -
Oil talk about moving it from Canada across the USA upper mid west fraught with problems -
What is different here -
There is a pipeline - isn't that enough movement of the oil without further environmental damage -

Count this as a rich man's toy train set dream - to what end - - - - - Yes I like to dream too !


----------



## Bob Dylan

jiml said:


> Yup.


I'll renew my previously Posted idea for the US and Canada to swap Alaska for Alberta and British Columbia.

Win! Win!


----------



## jiml

Bob Dylan said:


> I'll renew my previously Posted idea for the US and Canada to swap Alaska for Alberta and British Columbia.
> 
> Win! Win!


You'd be getting some very pretty country (and great rail routes), but the two new "states" are polar opposites in everything from politics to environmental issues. Think Texas and California with everything that entails.


----------



## Exvalley

Bob Dylan said:


> I'll renew my previously Posted idea for the US and Canada to swap Alaska for Alberta and British Columbia.
> 
> Win! Win!


Definitely won't happen now that the Northwest Passage is looking like a viable shipping route in the future.


----------



## Bob Dylan

jiml said:


> You'd be getting some very pretty country (and great rail routes), but the two new "states" are polar opposites in everything from politics to environmental issues. Think Texas and California with everything that entails.


Having lived in BC,Alberta,California and Texas, I know what you mean!

My late Canadian wife, an NDPer and proud Canuck, used to get upset when I would tease her with this proposal!


----------



## neroden

ehbowen said:


> IMO the Bering Strait connection is a non-starter; it's just too remote and there's not nearly enough traffic. It would take nearly as long for freight trains to take the roundabout route from China through Siberia to the Strait and down through Alaska and Canada as it would to send a fast container ship direct from Asia to Seattle...


It's faster. "Nearly" means quicker. It's not that roundabout because of, you know, the shape of the globe.



> and ocean shipping is dirt cheap.


....not with the tightening of regulations on fuel-burning. Ships are substantially less fuel-efficient than rail. Currently it's cheap because it uses very cheap fuel, but they all have to upgrade to refined marine diesel under the new international treaty regulations. And more regulations will come down the pike after that. I suspect that that changes the calculation of how cheap it is. A LOT.



> Passenger transit is an even more blue-sky idea; you'd get more travelers by putting a couple of dozen passenger cabins on those container freighters.


The container freighters actually do sell passenger cabin space. 

To Jis's point regarding strategy, Russia already considers this a strategic plan and is building the rail line out towards the Bering Strait all on its own with or without US support.

I don't think the plan to export oil from Alberta has a chance. The Bering Strait plan will probably be revived, though. By Russia.


----------



## Seaboard92

Honestly I have always seen this as a low hanging fruit. Yes it is a very expensive and complicated fruit. But it is something that would be relatively difficult. 

Imagine if you could load an intermodal train in inland China and run all the way to inland USA without having to change railcars. Just locomotives. 

Now I'll list all of the problems this has. 

-Gauge: China, Canada, and the USA are standard gauge, Russia is on Russian Broad Gauge
-Ring of Fire: This is one of the most active volcanic and earthquake prone regions in the world
-Mountains: Alaska has a ton of mountains one would have to fight to get anywhere near the current Alaska Railroad, and then even more to reach a Canadian Railway. 
-Lack of population: That part of Russia and Alaska is scarcely populated. Which means there are no services available to maintain the line. The lack of population is more than about passenger services, but the fact you have to have employees every so many miles for maintenance inspections, signal maintainers, and others. They need to have an ability to get food in, and schools for the kids. It would be a massive undertaking. 

That being said I would be the first person to board a train in Chicago to go to Beijing. And I would jump off at every extended dwell stop to photograph the journey.


----------



## snaebyllej

neroden said:


> The container freighters actually do sell passenger cabin space.



Some of them do, but none for more than 12 passengers; if they carried more they'd be required to have a doctor on board.


----------



## Siegmund

Seaboard92 said:


> Honestly I have always seen this as a low hanging fruit. Yes it is a very expensive and complicated fruit. But it is something that would be relatively difficult.
> 
> Imagine if you could load an intermodal train in inland China and run all the way to inland USA without having to change railcars. Just locomotives.
> 
> Now I'll list all of the problems this has.
> 
> -Gauge: China, Canada, and the USA are standard gauge, Russia is on Russian Broad Gauge
> -Ring of Fire: This is one of the most active volcanic and earthquake prone regions in the world
> -Mountains: Alaska has a ton of mountains one would have to fight to get anywhere near the current Alaska Railroad, and then even more to reach a Canadian Railway.
> -Lack of population: That part of Russia and Alaska is scarcely populated. Which means there are no services available to maintain the line. The lack of population is more than about passenger services, but the fact you have to have employees every so many miles for maintenance inspections, signal maintainers, and others. They need to have an ability to get food in, and schools for the kids. It would be a massive undertaking.
> 
> That being said I would be the first person to board a train in Chicago to go to Beijing. And I would jump off at every extended dwell stop to photograph the journey.



I have to disagree with the Ring of Fire and Mountains objections.

These are issues with BC, and the southern coast of Alaska. There doesn't have to be a 1% grade anywhere between Edmonton and the Bering Strait.

You can have a water level route all the way across Alaska if you want one. (A choice of two, whether you go up the Yukon or the Tanana. Going up the Tanana gets you the Alaska Railroad connection for free.) You can save a lot of distance in western AK by climbing very gradually to 1500 feet and back down (for instance via the Nulato and Shaktoolik rivers), and a bit more if you are willing to climb a little farther.

Getting from the Yukon river drainage to the Mackenzie river drainage involves a pass on the Alaska Highway east of Whitehorse -- which is why the old proposals (and I assume the newer ones too) go through Carmacks roughly parallel to the the Campbell Highway rather than the Alaska Highway, and why the new proposals come in via the Peace River country rather than following the 70s BC rail route to Dease Lake. 

You do have some modest earthquake risk if you follow the Alaska Highway's route through the Yukon - though the 2002 earthquake was as big as was possible in the region and did almost no damage to highways or the pipeline.

Really the only problem, on the North American side, is the long distance with no population centers or sources of traffic.


----------



## jiml

I believe the current proposal - the one that has received recent attention on both sides of the border and spawned this thread - does not enter British Columbia at all. The two most prevalent past ones did originate in BC (connecting at Dease Lake - parts of route incomplete or abandoned) or cross the corner via Fort Nelson. The latter (2015) also started with a connection to the existing Northern Alberta Railway (now CN) at Hay River, NWT, like the current one.



Siegmund said:


> Really the only problem, on the North American side, is the long distance with no population centers or sources of traffic.



That's a really good point, even if you're not worried about passengers or supplementary freight traffic enroute. From a railroad operations perspective, how do they handle crew changes or rescue a disabled train in the middle of nowhere?


----------



## jiml

Further to this discussion, the following excerpt from an NWT government transportation document may be helpful in understanding some of the history and hurdles faced by any proposal. The bolded sections are of particular interest and were reflected in earlier posts in this thread.

"The NWT is connected to the national rail system by CN Rail, which operates a 311 kilometre single-track line extending from High Level, Alberta, to Hay River, NWT. This is the northernmost rail service in Canada, constructed by the Government of Canada in 1961 to 1964 to support base metal mining operations along the southwestern shore of Great Slave Lake. CN Rail reacquired the Meander River Subdivision in 2006 in recognition of the revenue potential for the line related to future resource development in the NWT. Rail equipment personnel and operations are regulated by Transport Canada.
- Approximately 3,000 rail car loads deliver cargo, mainly bulk fuel, from southern Canada to Hay River each year.
- *There is minimal return cargo on rail cars routed back south to Alberta.*
- *Speed limits, weight restrictions and capital investment are continually required by CN Rail to operate and maintain the Meander River Subdivision, especially over sections underlain by permafrost, making it one of the most costly subdivisions to operate in CN Rail’s system.*
- Future expansion of the rail system serving the NWT is dependent upon resource
development needs.

Although an extension of the NWT rail system is not anticipated in the near future, rail traffic on the existing line may increase beyond current levels in response to resource development activities. CN has plans to continue investing in the current rail system to maintain and incrementally improve existing capacity of the line."


----------



## jis

Seaboard92 said:


> -Gauge: China, Canada, and the USA are standard gauge, Russia is on Russian Broad Gauge


Given today's gauge change on the fly technology, different gauges is not as big a problem as it as has been assumed to be in the past Heck China just announced a gauge changing HSR based on Velaro too. As time passes gauge change will tend to be become much less of a problem. Yes it will require specially equipped cars, but not an insurmountable issue. 

There really are much bigger and more insurmountable issues of no enroute traffic, and expensive issues of laying stable track on permafrost. The Russians can inform as at length of their trials and travaials on the latter as they progressively build out their system towards Bering Strait.


----------



## Siegmund

jiml said:


> I believe the current proposal - the one that has received recent attention on both sides of the border and spawned this thread - does not enter British Columbia at all.



The politics of entering BC must be incredible, to make them zigzag up and down and all around in far eastern Yukon rather than building up the Liard River where any sane surveyor would place it. That 200 miles will have more curves and grades than the next 1000 beyond it.


----------



## Devil's Advocate

cocojacoby said:


> You know there is a growing "Wexit" movement in Alberta to leave Canada, right? This just may be the stimulus that makes it succeed. There is even talk of some of the western provinces joining the USA.


Any attempt to separate will likely to experience the same result as Quebec, but for the sake of argument let's consider how the British strategy is going. Brexit is becoming an obstacle and distraction to economic recovery and is likely to further weaken Britain's negotiating leverage over time. So far as I can tell the only winning move required a chain reaction of successive breakups within the EU followed by a big push for more favorable terms in a series of hastily negotiated bilateral agreements. Since that outcome does not appear to be in the cards most of Brexit's potential upside is unlikely to ever be realized. At this point Britain's bargaining position looks increasingly precarious, both in terms of forcing their will upon EU countries and dissuading further division from within the UK itself. It's hard for me to see the appeal of following in such footsteps but maybe that's just me.


----------



## sttom

jiml said:


> That's a really good point, even if you're not worried about passengers or supplementary freight traffic enroute. From a railroad operations perspective, how do they handle crew changes or rescue a disabled train in the middle of nowhere?



One solution would be to give people a free housing....but that still won't take away from them being hundreds of miles from nowhere. My guess would be you'd have to rotate people up there since I would imagine it would be very boring living several hundred miles from towns with a population greater than 1000 people.


----------



## railiner

“If you build it, they will come”, (with apologies to “Field of Dreams”).

When they built the Pacific Railroad a century and a half ago through the wilderness, they had to bring their own labor and supplies with them. And they had to establish settlements at intervals, to provide permanent support for operations and maintenance. Many of these grew into villages and cities over time.

While the land along this proposed railway does not have the same potential for agriculture and use, as some of the Pacific Railroad did, I can still envision some development.... probably more than say a pipeline would have...


----------



## ehbowen

railiner said:


> “If you build it, they will come”, (with apologies to “Field of Dreams”).
> 
> When they built the Pacific Railroad a century and a half ago through the wilderness, they had to bring their own labor and supplies with them. And they had to establish settlements at intervals, to provide permanent support for operations and maintenance. Many of these grew into villages and cities over time.
> 
> While the land along this proposed railway does not have the same potential for agriculture and use, as some of the Pacific Railroad did, I can still envision some development.... probably more than say a pipeline would have...


Agreed, with provisos. If you want them to "come" you need to find a way for "them" to earn a profit. And more of a profit than one can make working for a railroad...if that's the "top of the food chain", then your growth will be limited. The kind of society you build will depend on what kind of a profit "they" can make...if it's possible, and encouraged, to make and to retain an honest profit, then you will attract honest people and build an honest society. But if the only way to make a profit is through graft, or cronyism, or exploitation...well, you do the math.


----------



## jiml

railiner said:


> “If you build it, they will come”, (with apologies to “Field of Dreams”).
> 
> When they built the Pacific Railroad a century and a half ago through the wilderness, they had to bring their own labor and supplies with them. And they had to establish settlements at intervals, to provide permanent support for operations and maintenance. Many of these grew into villages and cities over time.
> 
> While the land along this proposed railway does not have the same potential for agriculture and use, as some of the Pacific Railroad did, I can still envision some development.... probably more than say a pipeline would have...


While that certainly used to be the case, it's important to remember that historically railroads were built by what amounted to slave labor - whether domestic or imported (from China for example). They were underpaid and often lived in squalid conditions. That's not going to fly today. Remote work premiums are common now and would add exponentially to the cost, and workers aren't going to live in tents trackside during the build. I presume we'd see a situation similar to the "mobile homes" on flatcars often seen at railroad worksites, but even keeping those supplied with provisions and fuel for generators, etc., is not a cheap proposition.


----------



## railiner

Mechanisation and modern technology have vastly reduced the need for armies of labor in construction. Being a railway, solves most of the supply issues.


----------



## jiml

railiner said:


> Mechanisation and modern technology have vastly reduced the need for armies of labor in construction. Being a railway, solves most of the supply issues.


Even allowing for that, once you factor in a dramatically shortened building season and the topography over which almost 1000 miles of railroad track must be laid, we're talking a project on a scale not seen in a very long time. It may take armies of labor if there's any hope of completing it in a reasonable time. Of course I'm one who believes it's not going to happen.


----------



## JC_620

So, how would the route be built from Alaska and into Eastern Russia/Siberia? A railroad bridge across the water?


----------



## Siegmund

JC_620 said:


> So, how would the route be built from Alaska and into Eastern Russia/Siberia? A railroad bridge across the water?



Tunnel is a lot more likely than bridge. It is really hard to build bridges that can withstand icebergs. (More likely in the epsilon vs. epsilon/10 sense - if we can't build a tunnel between Los Angeles and Bakersfield it's gonna be a long time before we build one in the middle of nowhere.)



jiml said:


> Even allowing for that, once you factor in a dramatically shortened building season....



"Building season" for roadbed and oil drilling platforms is often winter -- when the ground is frozen hard enough to drive the dozers and heavy trucks across it without having them sink out of sight into the mud.
Things like paving still have to be done in summer.

It's been a while since anyone tried to build a railroad that far north, winter or summer, so I don't really know what approach they plan to take.

I have my doubts this project will get off the ground. That said, there IS money for big projects in Alberta... as we've seen on this side of the border, with the Keystone XL pipeline being built pretty much entirely with Canadian money.


----------



## jiml

Siegmund said:


> "Building season" for roadbed and oil drilling platforms is often winter -- when the ground is frozen hard enough to drive the dozers and heavy trucks across it without having them sink out of sight into the mud.
> Things like paving still have to be done in summer.
> 
> It's been a while since anyone tried to build a railroad that far north, winter or summer, so I don't really know what approach they plan to take.


And therein is the quandary. You're entirely correct, but that's also why many sections of the Alaska Highway were not paved until the '90's when paving technology caught up to the freeze and thaw cycles. Before then it was a simpler matter to regrade gravel when frost heaving occurred. Oil platforms require a supporting framework that descends below the frost line, but not in the continuous manner that hundreds miles of track would. The closest parallel I could find was the construction of some of the northern railway lines in the UK by George Stephenson. North American tundra is not dissimilar to the boggy terrain they had to cross, minus the total freezing component. It was still unstable and prone to seasonal heaving. The solution found was to sink timber pilings attached to bales of cotton many feet into the ground all the way along the right of way. It must have worked since some of those lines are still in use over a hundred years later. The document posted earlier from the NWT government states that capital investment is continually required by CN Rail to operate and maintain the portion already in place to Hay River, "especially over sections underlain by permafrost, making it one of the most costly subdivisions to operate in CN Rail’s system" in addition to speed and weight restrictions. Multiply that over the distance of the extension.

Here is an excerpt from the CN timetable illustrating those points, including the higher weight limits in winter and the restricted speeds:


----------



## me_little_me

Siegmund said:


> if we can't build a tunnel between Los Angeles and Bakersfield it's gonna be a long time before we build one in the middle of nowhere.)


Two biggest problems with those kind of projects are ecology and NIMBY. The latter wouldn't seem to be the problem in Alaska and Alberta as it would be in L.A. so that would leave the ecology which could be a big issue.


----------



## JC_620

Can someone detail how they believe that the route might go from Canada and where the stops in Alaska also might be (provided we are talking about passenger services as well as freight)? 

Certainly there might be (notice that key word again: might) a very profitable amount of money to be made in the summer months as that is when the Alaska tour season is.


----------



## daybeers

I think a train going all that way in the middle of nowhere is fantasy. That land is some of the most remote and harshest in the world, affecting not only construction but maintenance and operations as mentioned. The land disruption would be immense through lots of nature sanctuary, and let's be honest, it's gonna cost an awful lot to use lightweight equipment and make sure it can still run when land inevitably floods.

I think it's a cool idea and I agree, I would be on the first train but the obstacles and harm are too great for too little reward and benefit.


----------



## WWW

me_little_me said:


> Two biggest problems with those kind of projects are ecology and NIMBY. The latter wouldn't seem to be the problem in Alaska and Alberta as it would be in L.A. so that would leave the ecology which could be a big issue.



We won't be building a tunnel thru an earthquake fault zone -
Just the thought of building one would trigger the movement -

Really there are other satisfactory solutions to going from point "A" to "B"
Bridges to nowhere (Ketchikan Alaska) - well how did that work out - no tunnel (channel too deep) - no bridge - simple ferry taxi suffices

There are huge ships carrying over 5000 modular containers at a wack -
there are just so many train consists to move this volume on the limited track available -
Then watch the train delays on the Amtrak LD trains -

Panama Canal has been widen for the PanaMax container ships -
Slow moving huge ships probably a good idea - just the right amount of supply meeting the demand -

Air Cargo very expensive - perhaps just right for the absolutely positively needed overnight stuff -

And in the current state of affairs need to think of DIY manufacturing things here locally in the USA (JOBS !)
then we don't need to think of ways to move imported goods across the country !

Well I think I will be off fighting windmills if that will help - solar may even be of some help here !


----------



## railiner

WWW said:


> Well I think I will be off fighting windmills


Sally forth!


----------



## jis

WWW said:


> We won't be building a tunnel thru an earthquake fault zone -
> Just the thought of building one would trigger the movement -


I am sure the Japanese would tend to disagree with your most learned position on this


----------



## Siegmund

JC_620 said:


> Can someone detail how they believe that the route might go from Canada and where the stops in Alaska also might be (provided we are talking about passenger services as well as freight)?
> 
> Certainly there might be (notice that key word again: might) a very profitable amount of money to be made in the summer months as that is when the Alaska tour season is.



Details on the proposal are at https://a2arail.com; maps at a2arail.com/resources/

New track is proposed to run Fairbanks - Delta Junction - Tok - Carmacks (YT) - Watson Lake - Fort Liard (NWT) and intersect the existing line to Hay River somewhere around High Level or Meander River (AB), about 450 miles NW of Edmonton, and then to continue across northern Alberta to a 2nd connection with existing track somewhere around Fort McMurray. IMO there must be some high value export that they think they are going to ship from the Lake Athabasca region to China. (And this suggests that, when financing falls through, they will build the part from their new mine to Fort McMurray, ship it to Prince Rupert or Vancouver via CN, and forget about the connection to Alaska.)

Compared to a coastal or through-northern-BC route the scenery will not have much to recommend it (yes, it's pretty, forested rolling hills, but its not what people "go to Alaska for."


----------



## WWW

Siegmund said:


> Details on the proposal are at https://a2arail.com; maps at a2arail.com/resources/
> 
> New track is proposed to run Fairbanks - Delta Junction - Tok - Carmacks (YT) - Watson Lake - Fort Liard (NWT) and intersect the existing line to Hay River somewhere around High Level or Meander River (AB), about 450 miles NW of Edmonton, and then to continue across northern Alberta to a 2nd connection with existing track somewhere around Fort McMurray. IMO there must be some high value export that they think they are going to ship from the Lake Athabasca region to China. (And this suggests that, when financing falls through, they will build the part from their new mine to Fort McMurray, ship it to Prince Rupert or Vancouver via CN, and forget about the connection to Alaska.)
> 
> Compared to a coastal or through-northern-BC route the scenery will not have much to recommend it (yes, it's pretty, forested rolling hills, but its not what people "go to Alaska for."


Perhaps could compare it to the rail service from Winnipeg to Churchill - nothing touristy till at the destination (viewing Polar bears).
From a passenger service point of view - a night sleeper train to get to Alaska without flying there.
Not even a casual mention of extending the White Pass and Yukon RR or a connection although not in the same league.

Interesting viewing the (https://a2arail.com; maps at a2arail.com/resources/) link:
The A2A is supposed to save 4 days shipping time by routing traffic thru Valdez-Whittier-Seward to the Alaska interior Fairbanks
connecting with the proposed A2A service
Having taken the Alaska RR from Seward and also Whittier to Anchorage and thence to Fairbanks the travel times:
Seward to Anchorage - around 4.5 hours
Whittier to Anchorage - around 2+ hours
Anchorage to Fairbanks - 12 hours 
Of course the trains can move rain or shine night or day unlike the Alaska RR daylight scenic tourist trains Denali Star Coastal Classic

Thinking of imported goods arriving this way - would the return trips be taking exported agri-products (soy wheat other etc.)
different rail cars - logistics of that equation - there is a limit to empty rolling stock making money !


----------



## Siegmund

WWW said:


> Not even a casual mention of extending the White Pass and Yukon RR or a connection although not in the same league.



The 1970s proposal included extending the White Pass from Whitehorse to Carmacks to connect with the new Canada-to-Alaska line.

The big traffic driver 1969-82 was the huge mine at Faro east of Carmacks, which trucked ore to Whitehorse then loaded it onto the railroad to be taken south. I don't recall offhand whether the proposal was for Whitehorse-Carmacks to be narrow gauge or standard gauge; a one-car ride would be desirable but I don't recall anybody wanting to widen the White Pass.

The closure of that mine was the end of the White Pass as anything other than a tourist operation... I daresay that it was probably a signficant nail in the coffin of the larger Alaska-Canada project too (and the reduced likelihood of a bunch of similar mines opening along the route.)


----------



## Dutchrailnut

building a railroad from Canada to Alaska would be equivalent of New York to northern Florida, only not as flat , just sayinn.


----------



## cocojacoby

JC_620 said:


> So, how would the route be built from Alaska and into Eastern Russia/Siberia? A railroad bridge across the water?



Some info for you:



INTERBERING - International Bering Strait Tunnel and Railroad Integration Portal











Bering Strait tunnel: pipe dream or game-changer for US-Russia-China ties?


Hopes have arisen anew that a link can be built across the icy 85km strait, with backers of such a project seeing potential for a global shipping and trade nexus and a new era of international cooperation.




www.scmp.com


----------



## ehbowen

Dutchrailnut said:


> building a railroad from Canada to Alaska would be equivalent of New York to northern Florida, only not as flat , just sayinn.


The right-of-way would be a helluva lot cheaper...


----------



## neroden

jiml said:


> The closest parallel I could find was the construction of some of the northern railway lines in the UK by George Stephenson. North American tundra is not dissimilar to the boggy terrain they had to cross, minus the total freezing component. It was still unstable and prone to seasonal heaving. The solution found was to sink timber pilings attached to bales of cotton many feet into the ground all the way along the right of way. It must have worked since some of those lines are still in use over a hundred years later.



That design's called a "land bridge", and was also proposed for the railroad line from Madison, WI to Milwaukee which almost got built (dammit Scott Walker). Obviously we use somewhat more modern piling systems, but the idea is the same. It works.


----------



## WWW

neroden said:


> That design's called a "land bridge", and was also proposed for the railroad line from Madison, WI to Milwaukee which almost got built (dammit Scott Walker). Obviously we use somewhat more modern piling systems, but the idea is the same. It works.



Obviously something got into the fray - politics money and a host of other issues.
Something radically wrong with the routing of the EB bypassing Madison (WI Capitol City) and going rural Portage Columbus and thence motor coach
aka "THE BUS" ! The portion from Madison to the EB at Portage was made but as noted the Madison Milwaukee left hanging. Trains work best when
there is a volume of passenger traffic between city centers not between rural outposts - and bus connections - DAH !

On another note what happen with the 7 day EB service between Chicago and Minneapolis/St.Paul - so it is operating 3 days for its entire length Seattle to
Chicago - one thing trains 7 & 8 could operate on time between Chicago and MSP without the delays and interruptions in the Dakotas and Montana.
There was some discussion about operating an additional Chicago MSP trip again some bone headed decision - politics money and issues holding it up.
There are 4 or more airlines operating air service from MSP to ORD - MDW daily - should be room to make money and offer people pleasing travel
between the cites and those along the route - not exactly a time savings but fewer hassels than air travel and its restrictions and no darn middle seats !

Not my job to run a railroad but if it doesn't make a profit run on time guess who catches h-e-ll and suffers - the consumer traveling public.

Maybe the new administration can tweak the rail service for better results and crowd pleasing service ?


----------



## b1xn00d

Looks like the naysayers were right on this one, unfortunately - the Alaska to Alberta Railway Corp. filed for bankruptcy protection last year and its founder is under investigation for some manner of financial misdeed.


----------



## WWW

After two years the thread comes alive {briefly} - still watching it ? - to what end ? 
With global warming the thought of constructing a railroad across thawing permafrost and potential rising ocean levels
and then maintenance of same.
Probably goes back to the sneaky idea of moving oil by railroad instead of pipeline ? How did that work out ?

There is a limit to the movement of modular container freight by ship and then rail -

BUT what about the railroad labor problem ?

Container ships anchored off west coast ports waiting for trains to take the goods across the country - - -
Are you sure that you are getting this years holiday goods and not last year ?


----------



## Dutchrailnut

Distance between closest rail in Canada to closest rail in Alaska is about same as New York to Orlando Florida let that sink in .


----------

