Port of Churchill Manitoba

[Mr Tall Forehead]

Fair point. The road doesn’t need to be four lane though. Prince Rupert and Thunder Bay don’t even have twinned highways to major population centres.

[DonaldSmith]

Originally Posted by 1ajs

cargo goes by truck u need it for the port if it takes off u build or dont bother

Ever see one of these:

[Hecate]

Originally Posted by DonaldSmith

Ever see one of these:

Yes and it currently takes two days for one of those to go 250km so that’s four days round trip… not very productive.

But a proper highway…

People can’t see the bloody forest for the trees.

[Biff]

Or spend the money on upgrading the railway so that it doesn't take two days and you can carry more cargo, heavier loads and do it with out all the constant maintenance (snow clearing, emergency services, patching) required to keep up a road servicing only the points at the end.

...there are no forests of trees up there.

[plrh]

I have shipped to Churchill using the railroad, by the train car. It's about the same cost per flat deck car from Thompson to Churchill as it hauling a semi load from Winnipeg to Thompson. The biggest problem is that the load usually has to wait a day in Thompson. Also, cargo can get bumped by higher priority customers. The length of the train is limited. I don't know how many cars, but it's not very long. On the whole, it's not much different than getting truckloads hauled across the country.

I don't think trucking materials in would be cheaper than the current setup. From Winnipeg the driver would certainly have to spend the night in Thompson and then in Churchill and again in Thompson on the way back. Instead of one night in Thompson now.

Maybe they should build a winter road first and see what kind of use it gets?

[FactaNV]

Any money should be spent upgrading the railway to national standard first. Being able to go more than 30km/h on the track will open up the North better than any road can.

[plrh]

Originally Posted by FactaNV

Any money should be spent upgrading the railway to national standard first. Being able to go more than 30km/h on the track will open up the North better than any road can.

They could build a loading facility in Gillam too. That would cut the track distance in half. Maybe pave PR 280.

[drew]

^ agreed. Fix the railway first and then contemplate an all-weather road. But really nothing more than a double lane gravel road at this point. Infrastructure thru that territory (whether its rails or roads) will require routine upkeep.

I don't think a paved surface thru the partial permafrost/muskeg is a viable option honestly.

[1ajs]

Originally Posted by DonaldSmith

Ever see one of these:

thompson does not ship ore by train anymore they truck it all to sudbury

not everyone wants to ship by train u need road access

[peg]

Could someone tell me if a road would actually be more financially worth it than an upgraded railway / pipeline?

I understand the appeal of a road, but is it not more practical to just invest in the railway further making it faster, and opening up new access and shipping options that way? Are railways not further optimized roads at their core? lol

I'm also thinking its easier to maintain a rail corridor than a 4 lane highway...

[Stormer]

Originally Posted by peg

Could someone tell me if a road would actually be more financially worth it than an upgraded railway / pipeline?

I understand the appeal of a road, but is it not more practical to just invest in the railway further making it faster, and opening up new access and shipping options that way? Are railways not further optimized roads at their core? lol

I'm also thinking its easier to maintain a rail corridor than a 4 lane highway...

A road is not practical for export volumes of oil, natural gas, grain or potash.

[Stormer]

Originally Posted by 1ajs

thompson does not ship ore by train anymore they truck it all to sudbury

not everyone wants to ship by train u need road access

It would be impractical to ship nickel ore by truck. They still mill the ore in Thompson and ship only concentrate to Sudbury. Concentrate has about 10x more nickel per ton.

[cllew]

Originally Posted by 1ajs

thompson does not ship ore by train anymore they truck it all to sudbury

not everyone wants to ship by train u need road access

I don't see any paperwork for that in the MB Dept of Sustainable development online file for Vale.

The last I see is 2019 where Vale was requesting approval to change to rail shipment directly from Thompson. Up to this request Vale had approval to ship by truck to a Winnipeg trans ship location to load to rail cars for shipping to Sudbury.

The request stated among other things it cost less to ship directly from Thompson and it also reduced semi truck traffic on the highway between Winnipeg and Thompson.

[pspeid]

If the Port of Churchill expands the way we seem to be hoping it does, would that have positive effects on CentrePort? Not for raw materials or gas shipments, of course, but it other products end up getting shipped through Churchill for redistribution across Canada (and perhaps, into the States at some point in the future if the Orange Idiot and his cult is ever overthrown and some sense comes back to the US)?

[The Jabroni]

Originally Posted by Hockey

The vision for the port needs to include a four lane divided highway from the perimeter hwy to the Hudson’s Bay. The highway needs to be maintained, serviced, and be resilient to climate if the politicians are serious about this project. New docks, storage bins, and a couple of new longshoreman jobs can’t be what this is about.

The modern highway would service Military vehicles to and from the new base, transport trucks with goods to support growth of the area for all the new jobs, tourists would use it for the natural world attractions there. Let’s truly open up northern MB.

It doesn't need to be 4-lane. Ideally paved, but not 4-lane.

Even a dirt road would be adequate.

This is assuming a road would be built in the first place.

I say bolstering the existing railway up to Churchill would be fine. If it suddenly becomes very busy during and even after the Port of Churchill is fully operational to the point where freight rail traffic is jammed, a support road would have to be considered, and will most likely start with it being a gravel road that extends beyond Sundance, and going parallel with the railway. Even then, this would be thinking far beyond my lifetime, assuming it is feasible in the first place, given the terrain and climate.

Originally Posted by pspeid

If the Port of Churchill expands the way we seem to be hoping it does, would that have positive effects on CentrePort? Not for raw materials or gas shipments, of course, but it other products end up getting shipped through Churchill for redistribution across Canada (and perhaps, into the States at some point in the future if the Orange Idiot and his cult is ever overthrown and some sense comes back to the US)?

It's a possibility. I haven't heard anything related to container shipping for Churchill, but having container ships up in Churchill could be an attractive option, and could bolster further activity for CentrePort.

I can't see it NOT happen since there is a port in Anchorage that has container support infrastructure, and it is latitudinally further north than Churchill.

[WinCitySparky]

[bomberjet]

The road isn't for shipping things. Its for general access. People don't go to Churchill because its expensive and you're bound to the train. Building a road, a proper one, gives universal access. Nation building isn't about specific economics indicators or percentages. Building a road along the west coast of Hudson Bay opens the areas to the general population. Allows people to go there, trucks to ship things in and out yes. Its not just about a specific business choosing rail over road based on current rates and trends. The reason railways are being abandoned in the south, in Manitoba specifically, is because its cheaper and easier to truck it.

Build the road.proper nation buolding would have a national highway system. The TCH, PTH 75. And if the Feds want Churchill to be something for ports and military, PTH 6 to Churchill is it.

[EndIt]

People don't go to Churchill cause its a tiny, isolated, brutally cold, non-scenic village. The number of people who are interested in a 24+ hour road trip through the subarctic is vanishingly small. I appreciate the need for investment in our north, but lets be realistic about its tourism value.

[Hockey]

Originally Posted by bomberjet

The road isn't for shipping things. Its for general access. People don't go to Churchill because its expensive and you're bound to the train. Building a road, a proper one, gives universal access. Nation building isn't about specific economics indicators or percentages. Building a road along the west coast of Hudson Bay opens the areas to the general population. Allows people to go there, trucks to ship things in and out yes. Its not just about a specific business choosing rail over road based on current rates and trends. The reason railways are being abandoned in the south, in Manitoba specifically, is because its cheaper and easier to truck it.

Build the road.proper nation buolding would have a national highway system. The TCH, PTH 75. And if the Feds want Churchill to be something for ports and military, PTH 6 to Churchill is it.

^^^^This.

I agree that traffic volume won’t require 4 lanes. No arguement. However, it’s not about volume. It’s about safety, climate resilience, moving military in a crisis. Nation building is like a trans Canada highway north-south.

That’s what I think this is about, not building a better mouse trap for what is there already……? However if it’s fixing a railroad, why is this a boon to MB, really.

[EdwardTH]

Originally Posted by EndIt

People don't go to Churchill cause its a tiny, isolated, brutally cold, non-scenic village. The number of people who are interested in a 24+ hour road trip through the subarctic is vanishingly small. I appreciate the need for investment in our north, but lets be realistic about its tourism value.

Exactly this. For people who go by land, the novelty and luxury of rail travel is part of the experience. Nobody wants to drive that. As for "nation building" there are much better things to spend that money on.