Rail to Alaska?

[Striker]

I've always wondered why a rail line wasn't constructed from Vancouver up to Anchorage. I know a lot of people use ferries to ship freight that far north and I know that the initial cost would be very high, but it seems to me that more people these days want to travel to Alaska and this might be a decent way to do it. Once connected to Anchorage, people could then board the Alaska Railroad and head up on to Fairbanks if they want.

Thoughts?

 

[MrFSS]

I've always wondered why a rail line wasn't constructed from Vancouver up to Anchorage. I know a lot of people use ferries to ship freight that far north and I know that the initial cost would be very high, but it seems to me that more people these days want to travel to Alaska and this might be a decent way to do it. Once connected to Anchorage, people could then board the Alaska Railroad and head up on to Fairbanks if they want.
Thoughts?

Find a topographic map of that part of the world. Alaska's state capital isn't even accessible by road, only water and air. There has been talk in the past about a railroad much further east that would come into Alaska, but you won't ever see one from Vancouver to anchorage. Too many mountains and glaciers.

 

[jackal]

There is a railroad as far north as Prince George (or one of the other Princes in BC--can't ever keep 'em straight), so any railroad connecting to Alaska would probably branch off of that one and follow the Alaska Highway north through Whitehorse, YT and then up to Fairbanks (then coming down to Anchorage via the current Alaska Railroad).

There has actually been more talk about it in the last couple of years--see here for more info:

http://www.alaskacanadarail.com

There's a good bit more info out there, too, that you can find by searching. I have some proposed maps saved on my computer--I'll see about uploading them and posting links sometime.

It'd be an expensive proposition, and frankly, because shipping by barge is twice as fuel-efficient as by railroad, there's not a huge push to do it, but it would be an awesome thing if it did happen. Tell your senators and representatives to support it!

 

[printman2000]

Alaska's state capital isn't even accessible by road, only water and air.

Not sure what you mean by this. Google shows some roads leading into Anchorage from Canada.

 

[MrFSS]

Alaska's state capital isn't even accessible by road, only water and air.

Not sure what you mean by this. Google shows some roads leading into Anchorage from Canada.

Anchorage isn't the capital.

 

[the_traveler]

Alaska's state capital isn't even accessible by road, only water and air.

Not sure what you mean by this. Google shows some roads leading into Anchorage from Canada.

Anchorage may be a large Alaskan city, but it is not the capita of Alaska. Juneau is - and is surrounded on 3 sides by glaciers! Only the 4th side is water - thus you can only get there by ferry or by air!

 

[Green Maned Lion]

I'd wonder whose jurisdiction such a railroad would fall into, passenger wise. Amtrak? Alaska? An old-style joint-handling?

 

[jackal]

I'd wonder whose jurisdiction such a railroad would fall into, passenger wise. Amtrak? Alaska? An old-style joint-handling?

That's been a question of mine--if the rail line were built, would passenger service ever start, and if so, who'd do it? Maybe even VIA?

 

[George Harris]

What does this subject have to do with Commuter/Subway/Light Rail?

As to passenger service if any, it would probably run like the train to Toronto: Amtrak on the US side and Via on the Canadian side, maybe by the Alaska RR on the Alaskan end. The Alaska RR is not part of Amtrak. Like the Canadian remote areas services, there is no way something like this coule be expected to cover its costs.

 

[Rail Freak]

What does this subject have to do with Commuter/Subway/Light Rail?
As to passenger service if any, it would probably run like the train to Toronto: Amtrak on the US side and Via on the Canadian side, maybe by the Alaska RR on the Alaskan end. The Alaska RR is not part of Amtrak. Like the Canadian remote areas services, there is no way something like this coule be expected to cover its costs.

Reading here reminds me of the "Bridge To Nowhere" controversy. Maybe the Bridge was like an Alaskan Stimulus Package!!!!!!! :unsure:

ps That was Alaska right?

 

[Green Maned Lion]

I'd say its different then the bridge because its connecting serious locations. Alaska isn't as empty as you're suggesting xD

 

[JobMatchNow]

That is a good idea I think the USA should invest in something like this, they could benefit from this by collecting more money through Alaska tourism since it would be easier for more people to travel there.

 

[Joel N. Weber II]

I'm not sure if ``there isn't even a road there'' is a valid argument here. ISTR that the Hurricane Turn Train in Alaska goes where no automobile does.

Also remember that Alaska makes a huge amount of money taxing oil production, such that they send checks out to their citizens instead of collecting an income tax. That means that the State of Alaska is in a stronger position to fund infrastructure projects than most other states.

That said, I have no idea what building and maintaining a railroad there would cost, and whether it would make any sense.

 

[jackal]

I'm not sure if ``there isn't even a road there'' is a valid argument here. ISTR that the Hurricane Turn Train in Alaska goes where no automobile does.
Also remember that Alaska makes a huge amount of money taxing oil production, such that they send checks out to their citizens instead of collecting an income tax. That means that the State of Alaska is in a stronger position to fund infrastructure projects than most other states.

That said, I have no idea what building and maintaining a railroad there would cost, and whether it would make any sense.

If I weren't busy at work (what am I doing reading AU? :lol: ) and weren't flying out in two hours, I'd do some digging and try to answer some of these questions. I have a folder with 1GB of data on the Alaska-Canada rail project on my computer.

However, I will take a second to address Joel's second paragraph:

Yes, Alaska is a resource-rich state. Yes, Alaska earns a good deal of oil royalties. Yes, Alaskans do receive a check (averaging about $1,000 and occasionally almost $2,000) each year (times roughly 400,000 applicants--total given away is about $400 million).

But like many states, Alaska has actually had several budget crises over the last few years. That oil money doesn't go directly to the state's coffers--it's placed in the Permanent Fund, which is a now-$40-billion fund that was set up to provide for Alaska's future if and when oil is unable to support the state anymore.

The dividends that we get are actually a portion of the earnings of that fund (which is invested in stocks, bonds, real estate, and all kinds of other investments). A certain portion of the earnings are used for inflation-proofing the fund, and then the earnings after that are split 50/50, with 50% going to Alaskan residents and 50% going to the state budget. $400 million is a tidy sum but not nearly enough to power the entire state budget for a year.

Now, with a constitutional amendment, the state might be able to tap into the Permanent Fund for a capital project like building the railroad, but Alaskans most decidedly do NOT like politicians tampering with the Fund. So for the forseeable future, the State of Alaska will most likely not be able to support such a huge venture single-handedly and will likely require substantial federal investment. (However, with the Canadians starting to support it and the Russians starting to become serious about a trans-Bering Strait link to the U.S., Alaska could well become the crossroads of Pacific trade, and we might stand to benefit substantially if we invest in such a link.)

Oh, and thanks, GML, for clarifying that Alaska isn't completely empty. While we do have the lowest population density (by far) of any state, we are indeed quite civilized...

 

[printman2000]

Alaska's state capital isn't even accessible by road, only water and air.

Not sure what you mean by this. Google shows some roads leading into Anchorage from Canada.

Anchorage isn't the capital.

Okay, I feel like an idiot. :blush:

 

[MrFSS]

Alaska's state capital isn't even accessible by road, only water and air.

Not sure what you mean by this. Google shows some roads leading into Anchorage from Canada.

Anchorage isn't the capital.

Okay, I feel like an idiot. :blush:

Naw - don't feel that way, when a lot of people are asked what's the capital of Kentucky, where I live, they say Louisville or Lexington, but its Frankfort!

 

[Green Maned Lion]

Oh, and thanks, GML, for clarifying that Alaska isn't completely empty. While we do have the lowest population density (by far) of any state, we are indeed quite civilized...

Seems to be a misconception of snowbirds and other Floridians. They seem to think Alaska's population consists of disfavoured oil workers and a few dozen people with inuit names living in igloos. I guess because they have come to believe the NYMA is too cold for them, that nobody can live in a place as cold as Alaska, etc. Well we all experience temperature differently. Except for the period of December through early february, I tend to find New Jersey too hot. I've considered moving to Alaska many times, the only reason I don't is I'm worried about the cost of shipping for any of my businesses to the CONUS. *shrugs* When I retire, maybe- or if this rail link is built.

 

[jackal]

Oh, and thanks, GML, for clarifying that Alaska isn't completely empty. While we do have the lowest population density (by far) of any state, we are indeed quite civilized...

Seems to be a misconception of snowbirds and other Floridians. They seem to think Alaska's population consists of disfavoured oil workers and a few dozen people with inuit names living in igloos. I guess because they have come to believe the NYMA is too cold for them, that nobody can live in a place as cold as Alaska, etc. Well we all experience temperature differently. Except for the period of December through early february, I tend to find New Jersey too hot. I've considered moving to Alaska many times, the only reason I don't is I'm worried about the cost of shipping for any of my businesses to the CONUS. *shrugs* When I retire, maybe- or if this rail link is built.

Indeed. Try convincing businesses that we are domestic and they don't need to charge "offshore" or "international" shipping.

Actually, for shipping south, because it's backhaul and barges and planes go down less full than they come up, shipping TO the Lower 48 isn't that bad--it's coming up where they'll get you. Depending on your shipping needs and how much shipping you do, shipping by barge is downright dirt cheap; it's the small package services (UPS, FedEx, DHL) that are spendy (although, again, southward isn't much more expensive than NY to L.A.). And the USPS ships Priority Mail for the same price nationwide and Parcel Post for pennies on the dollar (though Parcel Post travels on the slow boat to China and can take two to three weeks to cross the country).

All right, I'm exhausted, having been up for 32 hours straight on 5 hours of sleep. I'm in my motel room a half mile from DEN Union Station, listening to train whistles to help me fall asleep. (And I board one of those trains in 9 hours!)

Anyone in the UT/CO area between now and the 20th...I'm always up for meeting up! (And RobertF, don't forget about Thursday!)

 

[George Harris]

the Russians starting to become serious about a trans-Bering Strait link to the U.S., Alaska could well become the crossroads of Pacific trade, and we might stand to benefit substantially if we invest in such a link.)

There are two proposals out and about.

A bridge - which I regard as a fantasy concept

A tunnel - this is feasible as an engineering project. It would be about the same as two English Channel tunnels end to end.

However: Economically it is highly questionable. Putin likes it, but that does not mean mean a lot with the Russian checkbook firmly kept in pocket.

The major problem with the tunnel (or bridge should engineering fantasy ever happen) is not the tunnel itself, but building the facilities required to get to it on both ends. Figure about 2000 miles of railroad - or road - on the Alaska side and another at least 2000 miles on the Russian side. The terrain on both side is some of the most difficult to build through in the world. In particular, on the Russian side the mountains go straight down into the sea. That I have seen a couple of times on Detroit to Tokly flights. And, oh by the way the Russian system is at a different track gauge. It would make sense as a railroad to China, which isn't that far from where you would connect to the Russian system, and the Chinese system is at the same track gauge as the US, and in fact very close in equipment standards.

 

[jackal]

the Russians starting to become serious about a trans-Bering Strait link to the U.S., Alaska could well become the crossroads of Pacific trade, and we might stand to benefit substantially if we invest in such a link.)

There are two proposals out and about.

A bridge - which I regard as a fantasy concept

A tunnel - this is feasible as an engineering project. It would be about the same as two English Channel tunnels end to end.

However: Economically it is highly questionable. Putin likes it, but that does not mean mean a lot with the Russian checkbook firmly kept in pocket.

The major problem with the tunnel (or bridge should engineering fantasy ever happen) is not the tunnel itself, but building the facilities required to get to it on both ends. Figure about 2000 miles of railroad - or road - on the Alaska side and another at least 2000 miles on the Russian side. The terrain on both side is some of the most difficult to build through in the world. In particular, on the Russian side the mountains go straight down into the sea. That I have seen a couple of times on Detroit to Tokly flights. And, oh by the way the Russian system is at a different track gauge. It would make sense as a railroad to China, which isn't that far from where you would connect to the Russian system, and the Chinese system is at the same track gauge as the US, and in fact very close in equipment standards.

Good points. Only thing I wanted to address was the facilities on either side: from what I've seen, it's 1,200 miles to Vladivostok on the Russian side (closest road/rail connection) and only 800 miles on the Alaskan side (to Fairbanks or somewhere near there--maybe Nenana, as it's a bit west of Fairbanks, and the route could follow the Tanana River).

Still not disputing it being some of the hardest (and most remote) terrain in the world to build in--probably only Antarctica would be more difficult. The Alaskan side should be a bit easier, though, as there are no major mountain ranges in the way--the route would probably follow the fairly flat Yukon River basin and then turn up the similarly-flat Tanana for the connection to the Parks Highway and Alaska Railroad at Nenana. Try this Google Map terrain view.

Edit: Hmm...dragging that map I linked to the left, it might be more than 1,200 miles to Vladivostok--it looks a lot further than Nome-Fairbanks (but maybe it's just a quirk of the map projection). And, at least for the railroad portion, a good bit more building will need to be done on the American side, as the connection from Fairbanks to Prince George (or whichever Prince it is) would, of course, need to be built. (Maybe your 2,000-mile figure accounted for that.)

 

[Joel N. Weber II]

Are the Russians going to eventually adopt the same track guage as everyone else? Whether or not an Alaska to Russia railroad ever gets built, there's also the Europe to China shipping problem...

 

[the_traveler]

Alaska's state capital isn't even accessible by road, only water and air.

Not sure what you mean by this. Google shows some roads leading into Anchorage from Canada.

Anchorage isn't the capital.

Okay, I feel like an idiot. :blush:

Naw - don't feel that way, when a lot of people are asked what's the capital of Kentucky, where I live, they say Louisville or Lexington, but its Frankfort!

And when you say you're from New York, they think you must be from New York City :angry: ! No - I lived in New York State (180 miles north of New York City) for 34 years! I very seldom went to New York City - except to change trains of course!

 

[Rail Freak]

Oh, and thanks, GML, for clarifying that Alaska isn't completely empty. While we do have the lowest population density (by far) of any state, we are indeed quite civilized...

Seems to be a misconception of snowbirds and other Floridians. They seem to think Alaska's population consists of disfavoured oil workers and a few dozen people with inuit names living in igloos. I guess because they have come to believe the NYMA is too cold for them, that nobody can live in a place as cold as Alaska, etc. Well we all experience temperature differently. Except for the period of December through early february, I tend to find New Jersey too hot. I've considered moving to Alaska many times, the only reason I don't is I'm worried about the cost of shipping for any of my businesses to the CONUS. *shrugs* When I retire, maybe- or if this rail link is built.

Come on down and visit the Snow Birds and other Floridians in August! Come to think of it the Snow Birds are closer to Alaska then.

Seriously, I would LOOOOVE to visit Alaska by rail!

PS, GML, the point of Russia & Pacific shipping route is a very interesting subject!!!

 

[George Harris]

Are the Russians going to eventually adopt the same track guage as everyone else? Whether or not an Alaska to Russia railroad ever gets built, there's also the Europe to China shipping problem...

Our track gauge (Canada, US, Mexico) is the same as most of Western Europe, but that is a far cry from everybody else.

Following is a list of places that use other gauges, just off the top of my head.

Thailand, Malaysia, Vietnam, parts of Bangladesh and India, and a few other places: 1.000 meters (3'-3 3/8")

Japan, Taiwan, Philippines, Indonesia, South Africa, New Zealand, parts of Australia and some other places: 3'-6"

Russia, Ukraine and most of the rest of the former Soviet Union" 1520 mm - really close to 5'-0"

Brazil, Ireland, parts of Australia: 5'-3"

Spain and Portugal: 1668 mm - really close to 5'-6"

Argentina, Chile, India, Pakistan, parts of Banladesh 5'-6"

In southern Africa, most former British colonies have 3'-6" gauge, most former French colonies have one meter gauge, most places north of the Sahara are at standard (4'-8 1/2") gauge

Otherwise, most places have "standard" gauge, including parts of Australia, and the Shinkansen lines in Japan.

Several of these places listed have some railroads at other track gauges than their main one.

Since India Railways carries more passenger volume both in pure numbers of people and passenger miles than anybody else, in fact I heard once more than all of Europe put together, does that mean that the whole world should convert to 5'-6" track gauge?

 

[gswager]

How wide is our American track gauge which it came from the width of horse chariot?