Goal: Make Churchill the supply post route for Canada's planned new deep sea por

[GAP]

This is at the bottom of an article about the Fed's funding announcement regarding the Churchill Port
Article Link

Military resupply
Goal: Make Churchill the supply post route for Canada's planned new deep sea port and military training site in the Arctic. What's been happening: Churchill is logistically too far south to be Canada's showpiece of strength in the Arctic. The Harper government has decided to build a new deep sea port on Baffin Island and put a new northern military training centre for up to 100 personnel in Resolute Bay.

Churchill, currently the only deep sea port in Canada's vast northern region, can play a role, restocking supplies for the new port and military base.

Canada will also add 900 Canadian rangers -- army reservists who are stationed in 165 northern communities to protect Canada's sovereignty -- so more military supplies will be needed.

Challenges: Ensuring the railway leading into Churchill is in good enough shape to keep goods flowing. Military bases can't go without supplies for long so the Churchill shipping route has to be reliable and efficient.

What's next: Negotiating with the federal government for contracts to supply the bases. Churchill is far closer to the planned northern port and military centre than Montreal or Halifax.

Quote: "The notion of being a supply base for the guard posts is a good one." -- University of Manitoba Transport Institute head Barry Prentice

 

[xo31@711ret]

Wasn't Churchill a military base or detachment after WWII? Remember vaguely hearinig that from some old timers when we were there on SOVOP in '98. (FYI, it was the coldest I've ever been 'sleeping' in a tent; -60 with the windchill for a few days in feb '98)

 

[geo]

Churchill was a Defence Research Facility for a long time... firing off missiles thru the 50s, 60s & 70s.
Churchill was developed as a port to ship grain out of the prairies during the summer months BUT, because of the short shipping season & the single set of tracks leading into Churchill, the project never came to much... it died.

WRT the article...
Equipping Rangers - even 900 more of them really does not require a new seaport.  The once a year sealift is already in place and provides good service for the money... Rangers don't really need much in the way of supplies.

Churchill is closer to Baffin than Montreal or Halifax... as the crow flies: Yes.
as per maritime sea channels allows: Nope.  Also, Montreal & Halifax have major seaports, railheads & highways leading to & from.... something that Churchill will never have.

This article is written by someone in Winnipeg looking after Manitoba interests... pushing an agenda that only a Manitoban can embrace.

 

[Sub_Guy]

Churchill is closer to Baffin than Montreal or Halifax... as the crow flies: Yes.
as per maritime sea channels allows: Nope.  Also, Montreal & Halifax have major seaports, railheads & highways leading to & from.... something that Churchill will never have.

I think having something setup in Churchill would be a waste when the infrastructure is already setup in Halifax.  But what I don't see is how Halifax or Montreal is closer to Baffin Island than Churchill, and I don't mean as the crow flies, from what I see Churchill is closer, but not close enough to warrant pouring in a wack of cash to establish what Halifax already has.

I have heard the comment that Churchill should be utilized in some manner when it comes to our presence in the Arctic, on numerous occasions.  But only from Manitobians, never from anyone else. 

 

[geo]

There is already a service to the North from Montreal & Halifax.
Why reinvent the wheel it is isn't broken?

To get to Arctic bay / Nanasivik yiou would have to leave Churchill, cross Hudson's bay, travel past Ungave bay and follow the coast of Baffin Island.  While Montreal would be further, Halifax has to be closer.
Also, Halifax & Montreal are both full blown container ports.... which Churchill is definitively not equipped to handle.

 

[je suis prest]

Fort Churchill (not to be confused with the earlier Fort Prince of Wales) was established in 1948 and operated as a military base, supporting the rocket range, and winter warfare training for Canada and its allies until the base closed in 1964.  There was also a naval establishment (HMCS Churchill) dedicated to communications monitoring, and the air base, with a length sufficient for it to operate as a SAC refueliing base.  The Fort was located some four miles outside of the town of Churchill.

All of the base facilities, including, married quarters, stores, chapels, schools, hospitals, warehouses and repair shops, and heating plants, with the exception of the airport faciliies, were removed or demolished at the time of base closure.

 

[FSTO]

Churchill was developed as a port to ship grain out of the prairies during the summer months BUT, because of the short shipping season & the single set of tracks leading into Churchill, the project never came to much... it died.


This article is written by someone in Winnipeg looking after Manitoba interests... pushing an agenda that only a Manitoban can embrace.

Churchill still ships grains and other commodities via the Hudson Bay Railroad. There is a viable port and facilities there and they can be upgraded to service the northern areas of Canada.

Links
http://www.portofchurchill.ca/
http://www.omnitrax.com/hbry.shtml

 

[je suis prest]

The federal government also recently announce a $68 million contribution to the costs or repair and upgrades to the Hudson Bay rail line, and improvements to Churchill's bulk handling facilities.  The goal in the near term is to increase shipments from the current 600,000 tons a year to 1 million.  This season saw the first shipment of wheat from Churchill to eastern Canada, and the first commercial vessel carrying goods from Murmansk to Churchill. 

The shipping season in Churchill is now about a month longer than it was thirty years ago,  and use of the port cuts shipping times from the prairies to Europe considerably.  Whether it makes sense as a support base for Nanisivik is another question.  But it may be worth considering.

 

[Kirkhill]

Besides, as a nation we can surely afford to build more than one road to our north coast - one road across an arc equivalent to the arc between the West Coast of Ireland and the Eastern Slopes of the Urals.  (Think about that the next time you want to call the Americans greedy - we're claiming 10x as much land per person as they are).  If we are going to claim that kind of land then we should at least make the best use of it for the rest of humanity we are denying it to.  Or, make sure that we are going to be well placed and equipped to keep at bay those that don't accept the notion that trees are for bears.

Finishing the road to Tuk and paving it would be a great start.  Upgrading the link to Churchill to an all-season link is also a good idea.  The next move would be to connect Bathurst Inlet/Coppermine to both Churchill and Tuk by road.

As for Quebec - Did it ever finish paving the road to James Bay? What's the surface route to Kuujuaq like?

The Northwest Ring Road will be a long time coming but the Mackenzie Highway and the Churchill Route are doable.  The James Bay road should also be possible.  We communicated with the outside world for 300 years via Churchill, Fort Nelson, York Factory and Moose Factory, amongst others.  We should be able to look at the same routes for internal communications.  (And if boats are a better answer than cars, use boats and locks when the ice isn't so stiff.)

 

[geo]

We communicated with the outside world for 300 years via Churchill, Fort Nelson, York Factory and Moose Factory, amongst others

The Hudson's Bay Co communicated with the outside world thru Ungava Straits until such time as France ceeded North America... There was no alternative.  With the transport route alternatives we have today, do we need it?  What is the value added?

 

[TCBF]

- If you really want to own something, you better be prepared to prove it by developing it.  A gravel road from Yellowknife to the top end of the Boothia Penninsula would make a good T junction with the road from Inuvik.  This would give us a road to one of the choke points of a NW Passage route.

 

[Kirkhill]

The Hudson's Bay Co communicated with the outside world thru Ungava Straits until such time as France ceeded North America... There was no alternative.  With the transport route alternatives we have today, do we need it?  What is the value added?

Not exactly correct. The less time spent mucking around in small boats with lots of expensive labourers paddling furiously then taking tea breaks the more money you made.  The HBC didn't give up on the Northern Route so much as the Nor' Westers were forced to adopt the southern French Route because the HBC "owned" the North.

The HBC only had to worry about transportation from York to the UK by sea. The locals delivered the goods to tide water for the first century or so, when the HBC "sat quietly at the edge of the Bay".  26 Sailors in a sailing ship could carry an awful lot of fur.  26 voyageurs in canoes not so much.

Montreal really rose to prominence AFTER the forced merger of the NWC and the HBC when the NWC guys got voting shares in HBC.  They took the profits and invested them in sailing ships, steam ships, canals and railroads.  Or infrastructure to move heavy loads of cargo.  Once that was in place then the settlers etc happened and they then made a killing on real estate, whiskey, beer and mortgages.

The Bay declined with the decline of the Fur Market.  It was still cheaper to ship by the North by sea.  It still is.  Rail is a good second choice after sea, road after rail, air after road.

The North is and was a good outlet if the market will tolerate seasonal deliveries.  Seeing as how everything that moves by water upstream of Montreal is seasonally limited that doesn't seem to have bothered the development of the Great Lakes Basin.  And the SeaWay still moves freight in spite of the competition from Rail, Road and Air. 

Much of the produce on the market is produced seasonally in any event (grain, fruits, vegetables and fish come to mind) and then are processed and bunkered closer to markets for year-round Just-In-Time delivery.

Infrastructure is one of the occasions where it's a case of "You Must build it, or they Won't come".  On the other hand "If you build it, they may not come anyway." ;D

 

[GAP]

The trouble with building a road to Churchill is simply muskeg. My father worked on the hydro crews that ran power up to Churchill. The poles simply slide down into the muskeg and disappeared. If you ever have the opportunity to go up by rail, you will notice that all the hydro poles are actually tripods.

The rail line, after much trial and error, was established, but with severe weight restrictions. The weight of the loads and cars is actually quite spread out over rails. Apparently this same set of physics does not apply to roads. Right now the furthest north roads in the area can be developed is as far as Snowflake, just north of Gilliam.

 

[Kirkhill]

If you have ever driven along the Gulf Coast (down by New Orleans and the Bayou country) virtually that whole road network is one big bridge.  It is pilings driven into the swamp to hit bottom, tied together with I-beams then rafts of concrete set down on top of them like sections of grating on an industrial site.

The was why Katrina did such damage to the highway system. The waves just lifted those rafts off the I-beams.

The good news is it seems easier to redeck than a Bailey Bridge.

Maybe a strategy for our muskeg?  I know I ran into a similar problem outside of Yorkton with soil/humus/gumbo round that neck of the woods.  You couldn't find bottom to build a parking lot much less footings for multi-storey building.

 

[TCBF]

- that is why I suggested a route from Yellowknife.  Stay on the divide between the Hudson Bay drainage basin and the Arctic drainage basin.  It cuts down on the bridging.

 

[Kirkhill]

- that is why I suggested a route from Yellowknife.  Stay on the divide between the Hudson Bay drainage basin and the Arctic drainage basin.  It cuts down on the bridging.

Someone with ground knowledge 

 

[TCBF]

Someone with ground knowledge 

- Alas, I have no road construction knowledge. 

 

[vigillis]

If I may add my 0.02, IMHO if you build up the port at Churchill you can circumvent the aging infrastructure of the St-Laurence seaway.  Not that it is a bad thing and needs to be avoided, however the size of container ships has grown since the seaway was built.  The new Panamax design cannot fit and the cost to refit the seaway is well rather exorbitant.  Also the constant dredging of the seaway has lowered the water in most transits and (un-educated guess warning) creates a imbalance in the Great lakes water system.  The US Army Corps of Engineers has offered to help subsidize the enlargement of the seaway, but as was said well before my time, "beware of Greeks bearing gifts".  Again IMO if the seaway is enlarged, then container ships need not be off loaded in Quebec city or Montreal and they will continue on their merry way to a US port further down the line.

 

[GAP]

The US counterparts must have been tearing their hair out over this partisan bull sh*@t....

 

[FSTO]

The US counterparts must have been tearing their hair out over this partisan bull sh*@t....

What are you talking about?