Posted on 06/30/2019 6:02:29 PM PDT by KC_Lion
JUNEAU—The Alaska Railroad Corp. board of directors has approved an agreement with a firm seeking to link Alaska and Canada by rail. The board voted unanimously Thursday morning to approve the deal, which does not require the state-owned railroad corporation to fund the project.
Construction is estimated to cost $13 billion, according to a presentation given to the Alaska Legislature earlier this year, and is years away.....
Under the agreement, the Alaska-to-Alberta Railroad Development Corp. —known as A2A Rail — receives an “exclusive right” to operate a cross-border railroad and the ability to use Alaska Railroad’s existing network as it seeks to build a railroad line between Alaska and Fort McMurray, Alberta. The agreement calls for the Alaska Railroad and A2A rail to obtain a right-of-way across state land between the Canadian border and the end of the railroad’s existing track. The two groups will draft a cost-sharing agreement.
“A rail connection between Alaska and Canada and the rest of the United States is a project that has been talked and dreamed about for close to a century,” said Alaska Railroad President and CEO Bill O’Leary in a prepared statement. “Completing that connection has amazing potential for Alaska and this agreement between the Alaska Railroad and A2A Rail is an important first step to get the project underway.”
Sean McCoshen, co-founder of A2A Rail, said by phone that Thursday’s agreement will unlock right-of-way negotiations which in turn will encourage President Donald Trump to approve a presidential permit needed for the railroad. Gov. Mike Dunleavy has already asked the president to issue a permit, and so has the Alaska Legislature.
With a permit in hand, the project becomes much more attractive to potential shippers, and with shipping agreements in hand, A2A Rail would have an easier time finding financing.
(Excerpt) Read more at adn.com ...
Alaska Ping.
I want to be on that first train.
which does not require the state-owned railroad corporation to fund the project.
doesn't seem to match this:
The two groups will draft a cost-sharing agreement.
And does "ability to use" the existing track mean that the new entity gets control, or is it just getting trackage rights?
Importantly, are those going to be closed trains with no stops in Canada, so passengers going either way won’t have to carry passports?
Seriously, flying from CONUS to Alaska and having to have a passport to do so is just dumb.
Me too.
VIA Rail through the Rockies has always been on my bucket list...and now the list is longer.
Thank OBL & GWB.
I hate to say this but I believe this is a freight railroad. don’t know if they have passenger plans at all.
Nope. No passenger plans at all.
Just FYI, Canada would need to build a lot of railway to link this up, at the moment, there is no such thing along the entire Alaska Highway route, just one train that runs from Haines Junction in Yukon down to Skagway, Alaska.
So I’m not sure if the 13 billion dollars covers any of that. Also the tracks from Edmonton to let’s say Dawson Creek BC may not be suitable for high speed passenger trains either, just freight moving fairly slowly.
Perhaps luxury coach to connect from railheads? The majority of the Alaska Highway is now paved, could be about a 36-hour non-stop journey from the Alaska-Yukon border to the railhead in Dawson Creek. Add on 6-8 hours in Alberta and Fairbanks to the border (where I’m gathering they need to build track) and you’ve got a two day trip. The ferry connections at present time are about that sort of time frame with the extra time required for driving to and from ferry terminals.
I can’t see this being viable but never say never.
Now that I re-read the article, they are talking about linking Alaska to Fort McMurray, that’s the oil sands production city, so I gather this is an oil shipment freight line, not a passenger line. Would imagine it would run to Valdez which is already an oil exporting port. Same comments about long stretches in Canada needing track.
This is also rather a dubious project because all it’s going to take to make it irrelevant is a change of government in British Columbia, reversing the current policy, and the oil will be shipped on existing rail or pipelines to BC ports. An election is scheduled for later this year in BC. Our federal election won’t impact on this as both major parties support oil exports through BC, the holdup is at the provincial level.
Do their Locos have head end power for the passenger cars?
A passport isn’t required to fly from CONUS to Alaska.
I’m 65, so I’ll never see the first train make the journey. 75 years ago we built a highway that connected Alaska to the Lower 48 and we did it in eight months. Will it take eight decades to build the railroad?
No passenger plans? What about MY plans to hop trains? I plan on being Emperor of the North. A No.1. I ride free.
What happened to positive thinking? You and me Erik. We can do this. We will hop that train and ride the rails for free. You need to rent "Emperor of the North". It is a blueprint for the ultimate escape.
Just think how much cheaper it will be to haul freight to AK?
Building materials, tools, machinery, everything would be cheaper to buy.
Tar sand oil can now be formed into a puck with a dry plastic skin and viscous liquid center. CN Rail will ship these in an open top car. Avoids addition of any flammable diluent content, such as needed for utilizing a tanker car for transport. Can actually rail-ship more product this way due to overall weight reduction.
https://ca.reuters.com/article/topNews/idCAKCN1NG0FB-OCATP
China’s refineries represent a high demand market for asphaltenes. Canada can make a connection by rail to dry bulk shipping terminals for delivery. No discounts upon the product delivered to Asian buyers.
A railroad connection into the lower-48 would allow bypass of pipeline issues, and non-hazardous shipping for the solidified petroleum to U.S. refinery.
Once the law-fare blockade of pipelines in order to stall development of Canadian oil falters, a consequence of the addition of another transport alternative, resistance to pipelines will diminish or shift focus.
https://www.albertaventure.com/3-companies-betting-on-cold-bitumen-transport-technologies/2/2814
My understanding is that this is intended to be primarily an oil hauling route, basically from the tar sands to the Trans Alaska Pipe Line. Any other freight would just be gravy. I believe land acquisition cost will be low but they are going to be extensive and tundra can be problematic for building.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.