Alberta (Canada) to Alaska Proposed New 1600 mile Railway

[Iskra]

ABOUT A2A

ABOUT A2A The Alaska – Alberta Railway Development Corporation (A2A Rail) was established to BUILD, OWN, & OPERATE a new railway connecting the Alaska Railroad and Alaska’s tidewater, to northe…

a2arail.com

The Alaska – Alberta Railway Development Corporation (A2A Rail) was established to build, own & operate a new railway connecting the Alaska Railroad and Alaska’s tidewater, to northern Alberta (1,600 miles or 2,570 km).

Our vision is to be a privately owned and constructed general cargo railroad that improves connectivity, stimulates economic development for the U.S., Canada and Indigenous Peoples, and provides a reliable low carbon supply chain between North America and the world.

I couldn't see a thread on this, but thought it was worthwhile starting one due to the ambitious nature of this project. This would be a freight line (although I'm sure in future it could be a stunning passenger line) connecting Alberta (resource rich) in Canada with the currently isolated Alaskan rail network allowing through trains to the rest of the US and beyond.

I think it's an interesting proposal, but at 1600 miles I hope they have deep pockets!

 

[farci]

Thanks for starting this interesting thread!

According to this analysis it's not only about trains to the 'lower 48' but providing new direct corridors to Asia for Canadian exports via Alaska:

"The project is being driven in large part by a need for new export routes for Alberta’s heavy oil production. Studies analyzing the feasibility of a conceptual rail line linking Alaska and Canada have looked at shipping 1 million barrels of oil per day or more through Alaska. However, McCoshen stressed in a brief interview that while oil shipments would be a part of the private rail line’s business it would be a general cargo line that “ships everything under the sun."

"He noted in his presentation that the Canadian government last year passed a law prohibiting additional tanker traffic out of British Columbia ports and said the lack of new shipping routes and port facilities in the country has stymied growth in other Canadian commodity exports.

"Importantly, it would open up export routes for many stranded mineral deposits in northern Canada and interior Alaska, he said, calling the potential mining benefits “the economic icing on the cake” for the project."

https://www.ttnews.com/articles/possibilities-costs-enormous-a2a-rail

 

[popeter45]

even if they dont electrify this at first (as its the US and a freight orientated line i doute the will) i hope they design it with the option of adding OHEL later on
would help greatly if this somehow connects to the long proposed Bering strait crossing as the other side is already electrified

 

[edwin_m]

even if they dont electrify this at first (as its the US and a freight orientated line i doute the will) i hope they design it with the option of adding OHEL later on
would help greatly if this somehow connects to the long proposed Bering strait crossing as the other side is already electrified

If that ever happens there will need to be a break of track gauge, so lack of electrification on the American side would be a relatively minor impediment to through running.

 

[Baxenden Bank]

Map attached.

The proposal has been knocking around for some time.

Somewhere there is a calculation of the number of trains required to shift the volume of oil being talked about. A pipeline would be a more likely option.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

The much shorter Jasper-Prince Rupert line through BC already exists, reaching the Pacific close to the Alaska panhandle.
The container port has geographical advantages over other west coast ports for Asia-Alberta-Great Lakes traffic, and the railway was due a significant upgrade.

The risks associated with an A2A business plan based on Trump-era Asia-Canada-US trade must be large.
The weather will be a challenge too, for construction and operation.

 

[STEVIEBOY1]

The much shorter Jasper-Prince Rupert line through BC already exists, reaching the Pacific close to the Alaska panhandle.
The container port has geographical advantages over other west coast ports for Asia-Alberta-Great Lakes traffic, and the railway was due a significant upgrade.

The risks associated with an A2A business plan based on Trump-era Asia-Canada-US trade must be large.
The weather will be a challenge too, for construction and operation.

I did Jasper-Prince Rupert a few years ago, there was an overnight stop enroute, I think at Prince George, it was on the Skeena train, sitting up in the dome carriage was great. It would be good if they either extended this line northwards, or built the proposed line mention here. Interesting to read about the possibility of a rail connection across the Bering Straight too. Is it broad gauge in Russia and Standard 4'.8" in Canada, US and Alaska?

 

[farci]

The much shorter Jasper-Prince Rupert line through BC already exists, reaching the Pacific close to the Alaska panhandle.
The container port has geographical advantages over other west coast ports for Asia-Alberta-Great Lakes traffic, and the railway was due a significant upgrade.

True, but the Canada Govt has prohibited additional tanker traffic from BC hence the business case for Alaska for Alberta exports

 

[Dunfanaghy Rd]

Map attached.

The proposal has been knocking around for some time.

Somewhere there is a calculation of the number of trains required to shift the volume of oil being talked about. A pipeline would be a more likely option.

Aren't there problems associated with running pipelines through / across mountains? The pressures needed to push liquid up hill must be huge.
Pat

 

[edwin_m]

Aren't there problems associated with running pipelines through / across mountains? The pressures needed to push liquid up hill must be huge.
Pat

I guess you just bore a tunnel and put the pipe through that. Probably no harder than building a railway through the same terrain.

 

[AlbertBeale]

Thanks for starting this interesting thread!

According to this analysis it's not only about trains to the 'lower 48' but providing new direct corridors to Asia for Canadian exports via Alaska:

"The project is being driven in large part by a need for new export routes for Alberta’s heavy oil production. Studies analyzing the feasibility of a conceptual rail line linking Alaska and Canada have looked at shipping 1 million barrels of oil per day or more through Alaska. However, McCoshen stressed in a brief interview that while oil shipments would be a part of the private rail line’s business it would be a general cargo line that “ships everything under the sun."

"He noted in his presentation that the Canadian government last year passed a law prohibiting additional tanker traffic out of British Columbia ports and said the lack of new shipping routes and port facilities in the country has stymied growth in other Canadian commodity exports.

"Importantly, it would open up export routes for many stranded mineral deposits in northern Canada and interior Alaska, he said, calling the potential mining benefits “the economic icing on the cake” for the project."
https://www.ttnews.com/articles/possibilities-costs-enormous-a2a-rail

Amusing to see their prospectus talking of a "low-carbon supply chain", on the basis that rail transport can be lower-carbon than road freight, but then discovering a major purpose of it is to move Alberta's heavy oil production. The only low-carbon approach here is to leave Alberta's oil in the ground.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

God I would love to travel on this line if it gets built.

 

[SussexLad]

Would be an amazing train trip. Not so sure America would do long distance rail any justice with this project, although the UK couldn't do any better!

I do wonder about the rising conflicts between the USA, Russia and China. Given that exports would have to go through or near Russia?

Personally I cant see this happening for at least 50 years.

 

[Iskra]

Update: Trump issued a Presidential Permit for the line on 2nd of October, although there is more bureaucracy for it to be finally approved.

 

[STEVIEBOY1]

Update: Trump issued a Presidential Permit for the line on 2nd of October, although there is more bureaucracy for it to be finally approved.

I wonder if that could change owing to the result of the US election yesterday?

 

[edwin_m]

I wonder if that could change owing to the result of the US election yesterday?

I believe Biden opposes a pipeline to get the Alberta oil out across the US. This alternative doesn't touch the "lower 48" and the almost certainly continuing Republican leadership in Alaska is unlikely to kick up a fuss. Plus it's a train not a pipeline, so can transport other things too and attract less environmental objection (and Biden likes trains). So it may be the sort of compromise Biden would go for or at least not try to stop.

True, but the Canada Govt has prohibited additional tanker traffic from BC hence the business case for Alaska for Alberta exports

Unless there are huge benefits that don't relate to transporting oil, this proposal strikes me as a version on steroids of the Midland threatening the LNWR with building the S&C to bring them to the negotiating table over running powers over Shap (they were then of course forced to build it). If they started building this tomorrow then it's overwhelmingly likely that at least one of the following would happen before completion:

• Agreement of extra tanker traffic
• Someone coming up with an alternative such as rail shipment to a port in the Lower 48
• Closure of the oil fields due to environmental regulation
• Closure of the oil fields due to being priced out by cheaper methods of extraction or renewable energy
• Closure of the oil fields due to being worked out

Any of these would leave whoever funded the railway with a big hole in their pocket.

 

[DerekC]

Whilst all the objections raised are true, I guess Alaska would like to be connected by rail to the lower 48. After all, about 30% of all US overland freight goes by rail, I think, so the proportion over long hauls must be a lot higher. And politics can drive the case for anything!

 

[Julia]

If that ever happens there will need to be a break of track gauge, so lack of electrification on the American side would be a relatively minor impediment to through running.

A break of track gauge itself is a relatively minor impediment compared to 2000 miles of permafrost before you reach the nearest rails on the other side...

 

[Irascible]

I'm a little curious why it goes so far north to then go all the way back down to Anchorage.

But, agreed, this would be a heck of a trip.

 

[Snow1964]

I'm a little curious why it goes so far north to then go all the way back down to Anchorage.

But, agreed, this would be a heck of a trip.

I have done Fairbanks-Anchorage (with overnight stop in Denali, a National Park where you get a trip on a park bus, like a school bus), very scenic line.

The Geography is that the Mountains (Rockies, Cascades etc) run up the coast, so virtually whole coast is not accessible inland. There are negligible roads either as they have to climb over mountain passes. Inland much flatter so is easier to continue the longer and flatter route towards Fairbanks. A narrow gauge line exists from Skagway (built in gold rush), a popular tourist line nowadays when cruise ships visit, but even the Alaskan capital Juneau has no road access (except ferries) due to the mountains.

The Fairbanks-Delta Junction section I do not know, might even be under construction. But I assume a new or enlarged port will be needed near Anchorage. The rail line ends at Seward, but from memory during WW2 a tunnel was built to another port at Whittier. (the shape of landmass could be thought of in British terms as arriving from France at Exeter, with Anchorage at Bristol), there is even a Severn Estuary tidal range in Alaska for same reason.

There is only about 5 months a year when construction can be done in Alaska, you can nail timber all year, but concrete cannot be laid in ice.

 

[Taunton]

I believe Biden opposes a pipeline to get the Alberta oil out across the US.

In the US it all depends on who supported your election campaign. The US oil companies obviously do not want competing Canadian oil reducing the prices they can charge in international markets ...

The Canadian rail industry of course did themselves no favours with the Lac Megantic town disaster, which was also a trainload of crude oil handled in the most sloppy and cost-minimising manner.

Connecting the Canadian west coast to Alaska by rail has a long history of timewasting and moneywasting projects. The British Columbia Railway (onetime Pacific Great Eastern), in recent times merged into Canadian National, extended its main line for a long way through nothingness, headed in theory for Alaska. It was expenditure for nothing, and a lot of the more recent northern extensions have been shut down, including Dease Lake, far closer to Alaska than anywhere in Alberta, and which any newly proposed line must pass through or near.

 

[DerekC]

In the US it all depends on who supported your election campaign. The US oil companies obviously do not want competing Canadian oil reducing the prices they can charge in international markets ...

The Canadian rail industry of course did themselves no favours with the Lac Megantic town disaster, which was also a trainload of crude oil handled in the most sloppy and cost-minimising manner.

Connecting the Canadian west coast to Alaska by rail has a long history of timewasting and moneywasting projects. The British Columbia Railway (onetime Pacific Great Eastern), in recent times merged into Canadian National, extended its main line for a long way through nothingness, headed in theory for Alaska. It was expenditure for nothing, and a lot of the more recent northern extensions have been shut down, including Dease Lake, far closer to Alaska than anywhere in Alberta, and which any newly proposed line must pass through or near.

Thanks for prompting an interesting Google for details of the British Columbia Railway and its extensions. Seems it never actually got to Dease Lake, although all the grading was done. It is certainly a lot closer to Delta Junction and Fairbanks than Alberta, but it links southwards rather than eastwards, which presumably is why the A2A proposal is ignoring it.

 

[Baxenden Bank]

In the US it all depends on who supported your election campaign. The US oil companies obviously do not want competing Canadian oil reducing the prices they can charge in international markets ...

The Canadian rail industry of course did themselves no favours with the Lac Megantic town disaster, which was also a trainload of crude oil handled in the most sloppy and cost-minimising manner.

Connecting the Canadian west coast to Alaska by rail has a long history of timewasting and moneywasting projects. The British Columbia Railway (onetime Pacific Great Eastern), in recent times merged into Canadian National, extended its main line for a long way through nothingness, headed in theory for Alaska. It was expenditure for nothing, and a lot of the more recent northern extensions have been shut down, including Dease Lake, far closer to Alaska than anywhere in Alberta, and which any newly proposed line must pass through or near.

Thanks for prompting an interesting Google for details of the British Columbia Railway and its extensions. Seems it never actually got to Dease Lake, although all the grading was done. It is certainly a lot closer to Delta Junction and Fairbanks than Alberta, but it links southwards rather than eastwards, which presumably is why the A2A proposal is ignoring it.

The Dease Lake line is one of those political follies - a promise by a politician to do something for political ends.

Dease Lake is an insignificant settlement in the middle of nowhere.
The line was intended to serve an asbestos mine at Cassiar (beyond Dease Lake) which opened in 1952 and closed in 1992.

The connection with the Canadian rail network is at Fort St James (milepost 72.5). The line was constructed and operational to Minaret Creek (milepost 274) but did not see a revenue train prior to 1991. It is shown on Bing to here and the track is generally discernible on satellite imagery. The Railway Association of Canada map (on-line) also has it to here. The track was actually laid as far as Jackson Creek (milepost 336) but never saw a revenue train. Beyond Jackson Creek, the formation, including some substantial bridges, was generally complete but with no track laid all the way to Dease Lake (milepose 485).

A potted history:

• Line of route visible throughout on Bing / Google Aerial. Line shown throughout on Google maps, as far as Minaret on Bing.
• Various sidings/former sidings and work sites visible. Many bridges built including a large multi-span truss bridge over Tikine River. Photos show it laid with planks so usable by vehicles. Tsetia Creek, south of Iskut Village - concrete piers and abutments..
• Work abandoned in 1977 with the track left in situ. References to poor quality of formation (laid on boards over swamps).
• On-line references to use in many parts by loggers and by recreational vehicles. Confirmed by aerial imagery, especially on northern section never used by trains.
• Route constructed in parallel contracts so all at differing stages of completion when abandoned - rather than contiguous progress from one end.
• Due to open throughout 1974/75.
• 1973 - operational to Fort St James, under construction to Bulkley House.
• Stated as passenger service to Driftwood in 1973.
• by late 1975 - operational to Bulkley House, under construction to Jackson.
• 1977 - operable to mp309 (Chipmunk), under construction to Dease Lake. Revenue traffic only as far as Driftwood
• 1977 to 1989 - no change to operational status in official timetables
• 1989 - de-listed from official timetables
• 1991 - re-instated in official timetables. Stated elsewhere as first revenue train ever beyond Driftwood - mid-December 1990.
• 1991 - rebuilt to Minaret under 20 year agreement with logging companies.
• Copy of 1993 BC route and gradient profile in Cariboo article.
• 2005 - Wikipedia article on BC suggests branch in use.
• 2006 - on-line comment 'CN provided service (to Minaret) until logging ceased in 2006'.
• June 2009 - on-line comment "no trains beyond St James 'for two years'." So out of use from 2007.

At the other end, the extension of the Alaska Railroad from Fairbanks to Delta Junction remains a proposal except for the substantial Tanana River Bridge. Completed and used by military road vehicles only. Visible on Google with Streetview still photograhs.