General railway discussions

[lenaitch]

Mission – Bear Train https://share.google/sPhHmOu0WR9cv08Uz

I do wish them luck, but they have been at this for a number of years with no progress and I simply don't see the economic viability under current conditions.

 

[micheal_can]

I do wish them luck, but they have been at this for a number of years with no progress and I simply don't see the economic viability under current conditions.

Define economic viability please. As I see this, there is no plans for anything but a passenger train that would serve tourist camps. All of that is an economic driver for the area. That to me sound like an economic viable thing.

 

[lenaitch]

Define economic viability please. As I see this, there is no plans for anything but a passenger train that would serve tourist camps. All of that is an economic driver for the area. That to me sound like an economic viable thing.

Economic viability in the sense that the handful of seasonal passengers pay a significant portion of the line's capital and operating costs, and this assumes either level of government has indicated a willingness to subsidize it. The federal government used to subsidize the former ACR passenger train until it determined that it was outside of the mandate because the line served no communities that didn't have road access (or whatever the actual terms were). Nobody live on the line that doesn't have a road. Even the camp operators pack up and go home offseason. Maybe one or two packed up since the former service was discontinued, but it seems the ones that I recall are still there.

People complain that the former Northlander cost around $400/passenger, and that was on a line that had freight revenue. I don't know how much it costs to run a railroad, let alone what it would cost to bring the line up to minimum standards, but I'll bet the passenger revenue would be rounding error.

 

[Bordercollie]

What is the maximum realistic speed for the Hudson Bay line after rehabilitation?

Currently it takes about 45 hours to get from Winnipeg to Churchill. Could they get that down to 30 something?

I'm wondering if it would be realistic to ship Alberta crude to Churchill? Since going west is already at capacity. Unless you can build port In the Sault and use the st Lawrence Seaway to get to the ocean. Rail might be faster to Montreal but a ship could probably carry more.

 

[lenaitch]

What is the maximum realistic speed for the Hudson Bay line after rehabilitation?

Currently it takes about 45 hours to get from Winnipeg to Churchill. Could they get that down to 30 something?

I'm wondering if it would be realistic to ship Alberta crude to Churchill? Since going west is already at capacity. Unless you can build port In the Sault and use the st Lawrence Seaway to get to the ocean. Rail might be faster to Montreal but a ship could probably carry more.

No clue about your first question.

A Seaway Max ship is limited to about 28000 deadweight tons, which is a fraction of typical ocean going bulk tankers, so I'm not sure the economics would be there.

 

[Bordercollie]

No clue about your first question.

A Seaway Max ship is limited to about 28000 deadweight tons, which is a fraction of typical ocean going bulk tankers, so I'm not sure the economics would be there.

A typical rail car can carry 714 barrels.
Lake freighter can carry about 560k barrels
About 785 rail cars. About ten trains worth.

So they could then transfer those loads to ocean vessels at Halifax.
Those can carry 2 million barrels.

So about 4 Lakers for one ocean vessel.

This would be quicker than building a pipeline.

I don't know how economically feasible or what the regulations are.

 

[micheal_can]

A typical rail car can carry 714 barrels.
Lake freighter can carry about 560k barrels
About 785 rail cars. About ten trains worth.

So they could then transfer those loads to ocean vessels at Halifax.
Those can carry 2 million barrels.

So about 4 Lakers for one ocean vessel.

This would be quicker than building a pipeline.

I don't know how economically feasible or what the regulations are.

What do you do in winter when the Seaway is closed?

 

[Bordercollie]

Have the train go all the way to Halifax? That's a lot of KM's thou. Build a storage facility at Churchill?

 

[micheal_can]

Have the train go all the way to Halifax? That's a lot of KM's thou. Build a storage facility at Churchill?

Halifax is a year round ice free deep water port. Churchill, and the St Lawrence Seaway are not. This makes things that much more difficult to ship via those routes.That does not mean they should not be explored, it just means it is harder to do it.

 

[lenaitch]

Every time a commodity is handled, it adds to the cost. There is no oil pipeline to a Great Lakes port except Sarnia after it travels through the US. So put it on a train, to put it on a boat at some Great Lakes port at a loading facility that doesn't exist yet, to put it on a bigger boat, at a loading facility that doesn't exist yet. It might be faster to just build a pipeline to tidewater.

There is/was a study to connect Baie Comeau to the North American rail network. The harbour is considered ice free.

 

[micheal_can]

Every time a commodity is handled, it adds to the cost. There is no oil pipeline to a Great Lakes port except Sarnia after it travels through the US. So put it on a train, to put it on a boat at some Great Lakes port at a loading facility that doesn't exist yet, to put it on a bigger boat, at a loading facility that doesn't exist yet. It might be faster to just build a pipeline to tidewater.

There is/was a study to connect Baie Comeau to the North American rail network. The harbour is considered ice free.

That switch of transportation mode is one more reason not to do it.

If Energy East was not a switch of NG pipeline over to bitumen, it might have been accepted. I know that pipeline well, and in the 1990s there was a blowout in Northern ON. While horrible, it burned off as apposed to polluting waterways. So, convincing people that a 30+ year old pipeline that has already had a blowout is safe for bitumen was a nonstarter. AFAIK, there was never any suggestion the existing pipeline was to be twinned.