lenaitch
Senior Member
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.
|
|
|
- Thread starter Urban Sky
- Start date
micheal_can
Senior Member
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
Senior Member
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
Senior Member
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.
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
Senior Member
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.