North to Alaska By Rail?

[Blazeman]

This would be monumental, but I can see lots of roadblocks, literally and figuratively. But would it be cost-effective?

https://www.progressiverailroading.com/short_lines_regionals/news/Alaska-Railroad-OKs-historic-pact-to-build-new-US-Canada-rail-connection--57921?

[learmoia]

Well Crude can be handled via Pipeline.

How much traffic is handled via Alaska Marine (Containers and Railcars) per trip?
Looking at a photo..
About 36 railcars, 48 double stacks, and 56 single stack containers.  So a decent size train.. weekly.. That doesn't include Transloaded Coal/Rock?..

And the trip (one way) could be done in 3 days vs 13? 
They run 1 ship a week.. 1 train could handle 4 trips in that time.
.. but you could run as many trains as you want.... So you could run 156 cars/day.. 7 days a week.. so now your 13x capacity.. Plus bulk commodity unit trains, Passenger service, ect..

They could run an Auto-Train style tourism thing up there..

Lots of possibilities.. ~Ian

[sirenwerks]

I think this is becoming more and more a necessity for Alaska. As the environment seems to be changing, effecting shipping, a rail connection would mean more guaranteed shipping and a redundancy of ports. And if the current outlook on Alaska as a cornucopia of natural resources for the harvesting, you're going to have to get them out somehow.

[nkalanaga]

Also, the port is subject to both earthquake damage and snow slides, which can disrupt rail and road traffic.  Since it's basically the only port serving interior Alaska, having an all-land connection would be very handy.

On the other hand, these plans seem to pop up every decade or so, and none have been built yet.

[narrowminded]

Alaska's climate, especially with permafrost and the resultant ground heaves doesn't lend itself to stable base for roads or for railroads.  It's very costly to build and also to maintain. 

[sundowner]

I am curious what route they will take. I guess the easiest would be east of the Canadian Rockies until they get pass them and then head west over the Northwest Territory and the Yukon into Alaska.

[GaryHinshaw]

That's about right: see the map in the link below.  It appears that they plan to connect to the North American network at Ft. McMurray AB, then head northwest through the northeast corner of BC (roughly along Hwy 97), up into the Yukon (roughly along Hwy 4), and across to Delta Junction and Fairbanks.  I have no idea how seriously any of this has been surveyed.

http://www.a2arail.com/resources.html

[nkalanaga]

Routes paralleling the Alaska Highway have been surveyed multiple time, so they should have a good idea of what's there.

With much of today's freight in containers, I wonder if the WP&Y will try to connect with them?  A container route from Skagway to the Interior would probably be viable, as opposed to routes from lower BC/Washington or Alaska.  And gauge wouldn't be a problem, container cranes are cheaper than regauging a railroad.

[cv_acr]

Well Crude can be handled via Pipeline.

Except that various political factions are doing their best to block the new pipeline from being built. Lots of fighting over it.

[sirenwerks]

The paint scheme A2A presents is kinda gross [http://www.a2arail.com/], they need to work on it. And shouldn't the railroad name be AK2Eh?

[nkalanaga]

Also, a pipeline is basically a single-use system.  Yes, it can handle a variety of petroleum products, but only in one direction, and to a limited number of destinations, and most other products can't be moved at all.  Then there's the problem of what to do when (not if) the oil runs out.  Oil fields do have a limited lifespan. 

A railroad can haul almost anything, the loads go in either direction, and they can go anywhere the North American rail network reaches.  Many refineries are receiving at least part of their oil by rail not because they don't have a pipeline, but because the pipeline isn't set up to bring oil from here today, there tomorrow, and somewhere else next week.  If market conditions change, oil can be brought in by rail from almost any source, or a train can be rerouted to another destination, if the original recipient doesn't want, or can't use, it.

[Missaberoad]

On the subject of pipelines...

I was having a conversation with one of our biggest customers, and a oil train takes 5 days to get from Edmonton to the ports in Texas, in order to ship that same amount of oil through the pipeline takes 2 weeks.

Now this customer can load a oil train every 8 hours and the only limiting factor is how fast the railroad can move those trains.

So it would have to be a massive pipeline to even come close to the potential volume of the double track, CTC possibly electrified railway they are proposing...

From my understanding the sticking point will be finding investors, which may be difficult considering that confidence in the Alberta oil patch is shakey, and oil prices are much lower then they were during the boom...

I would love to see it, but I imagine like any of the great Canadian rail projects it will require a great deal of government investment...

[CRL]

[ Guests cannot view attachments ]

The problem isn’t that shipping by pipeline is inherently slower than shipping by train, because it isn’t slower. The type of crude oil is what determines the speed it can be pumped through the pipeline. That heavy, tar-like oil you’re talking about is very slow to pump. You have to heat that stuff to get it to flow, and reheat it along the way.

As for the life span of oil fields, we’ve been extracting oil from the Permian Basin in West Texas and SE New Mexico since the 1920’s and current known reserves are larger than Saudi Arabia. Those first wells were only about 2,500 ft deep. Current technology allows drilling much deeper, plus running horizontal laterals averaging 8,000’ or more. The number of layers that can be accessed is rather dramatic.

[nkalanaga]

"we’ve been extracting oil from the Permian Basin in West Texas and SE New Mexico since the 1920’s and current known reserves are larger than Saudi Arabia."

Very true, and we're lucky to have such a field.  But eventually even it will run dry, as one can't recover an infinite amount of oil from a finite volume of rock. 

Unfortunately, most fields aren't that big, and last a few years to a few decades.

Interesting map.