You're ordered..

There is only one preferable engineering solution. Period. A coffer dam around the break on each side and pump. In civil engineering class in my college there there was a saying on the wall: "mud plus mud makes more mud....and you can't do a (censored) thing with mud!". You cannot dump fill in water and create a stable base. Once the area is dry, pilings to rock. Then rip-rap. Then headwalls and one or more large corrugated sectional culverts. Then tamped fill with gravel. I would use earth cement. Portland cement and earth. When close to grade conventional ballast.  An alternative would be a pile-driven trestle. A third alternative would be coffer dams, pumps, two 28-day strength concrete wing-wall abutments and a bridge. A steel or pre-cast pre-tensioned concrete span. That should do based on 80,000 pound cars and modern locos. But Canada has an engineering standard. You could go with a truss. Then trackwork. Then remove the coffer dam. Concrete will harden under water but you can't dump it in. There is a caveat. The long approaches may not be stable. So-called Attenberg liquid-limit tests must be performed at frequent intervals in flooded areas. Supersaturated roadbed may survive several passes of a freight, seemingly without harm, and then catastrophically degrade, resulting in a wreck in the middle of nowhere. In any event construction traffic will likely be load-limited. Crews may have to wait till the water subsides and the ground freezes. Or raise and stabilize the approaches. A nightmare on Elm street. In New York this was done by piping in ice-cold saline. Argh!!! More importantly a massive drainage/watershed study is in order. Tree planting, canals and or dams may be in order. A wonderful book on fill is "Moving the Earth" by Nichols - the workbook of excavation. A must read for museum groups with limited budgets and washout issues.

www.garymgreen.com , a modeler, has examples of some actual typical canadian roadbed requirements in appendix six of his site though somewhat dated and blurry.

Out of curiosity, is that washout photo along the Churchill Manitoba line?

Yes it is...

Thanks tommy. not exactly what  I had in mind for a quick fix.. but you may be right. do it right the first time. .. How would you marshal your train  heading to the wash out to start the project.... American hoist.....  material to construct copper dam.. There's no place to unload much of the material....

The water is slowly receding with no current flow from one side of the right of way to the other.

How would you start the project??   Anyone else.?

Well...I am very concerned about the roadbed in front of and behind the break, despite the nice aerial view. The properties of sand, silt, and clay affect the permeability of soil. The biggest problem are extreme freeze-thaw cycles, especially over 70 odd years. These create fissures, cracks and channels beneath the ballast, moreso with high water levels. As the freezing weather comes on, the water will turn to ice, which expands. While clay structures have low permeability, goodness knows what fill was used in 1929 when money way scarce and mandatory construction standards non-existant. The news media are focusing on the 19 or so breaks. Not the load-bearing capacity of the rest of the water-soaked trackbed. This factor is a wild-card. 

The decision by the previous operators to limit loads on freights may not have been so irrational. I would like to see their confidential engineering studies. Ignoring load limits by the American owner may have contributed to progressive deterioration of the sub-base and the susceptibility of the roadbed to washouts.

So, looking at the satellite view of the area, it looks like it was the ocean bottom long ago.

I was thinking of turning to the Alaska RR for ideas, but this terrain is awful.

The ARR and the main highway from Anchorage to Fairbanks follow virtually the same route today, along the river to avoid massive excavations.

How does the Churchill Highway handle the weather and flooding? Why did the Canadian government abandon this line (and the folks that live there)when CNR deemed it financially unable to maintain and operate it?

Fixing washouts is a bandaid to provide a short term lifeline. I suppose we have all seen the photos railroads around the world that keep places alive. There are many small places in Alaska that survive by air or boat support only.

No longer having a major source of revenue, it seems that the Churchill residents are on their own.

Gregg posted:

Thanks tommy. not exactly what  I had in mind for a quick fix.. but you may be right. do it right the first time. .. How would you marshal your train  heading to the wash out to start the project.... American hoist.....  material to construct copper dam.. There's no place to unload much of the material....

The water is slowly receding with no current flow from one side of the right of way to the other.

How would you start the project??   Anyone else.?

There is no quick fix. 

I know you just can't dump in tons of gravel and hope that it will hold until a permanent fix could be done.  Particularly when it's way out in the boonies with limited access, any MOW crew would want to go in only once and once only.  You're talking about moving in a small army of men and equipment to repair this washout.  Plus, I'm sure an inspection for the surrounding land and remaining roadbed would have to be made before anything moves in.

I'm sure any Engineering Department would get a good laugh out loud for any solution us model railroaders or railfans could conjure up.

Rusty

Maybe...   Maybe not... ( according to google) .  Seems the last parts  of the railway were laid right  on  top  of  frozen tundra in the winter . In the spring , out came the ballast trains dumping ballast right on top of the track until the line was completely ballasted.

There's another article about  two  American's on dirt bike traveling the line and taking pictures. They seem to think it's not quite as bad as the company that owns and operates the railway think . I'll stick the link on the other thread. 

I guess what bothers me is.... We give millions away to other countries but neglect our own... (same as you guys)

Back to the wash out... how are you going to fill it in or fix it?

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, of whom I worked for has developed free software to assist in planning rail construction and rehabilitation. These programs have only been available with the last five years. Called AREMA track design criterion. They have a downloadable PDF discussing vertical load pressure, load limits, and progressive high-load roadbed deterioration. And more importantly, estimating man hours and equipment hours required for various repairs, much as in the old fm 5-35.

http://pavement.wes.army.mil/pcase.html

The URL only seems to work when you type it in and not use the hypertext transfer link.

There are several other Corps of Engineer rail repair PDF's available for download.

www.AREMA.org

AREMA publishes "The Practical Guide to Railroad Construction" which should be a must-have for any museum with proprietary trackage. And those considering rebuilding the Churchil line. A tremendous amount of information is available these days regarding rail repairs, estimates of man and equipment hours to repair, and forecasting lifetimes of track that were unavailable in 1929. We no longer need to rediscover the wheel or make repairs by the seat of our pants.

Incidentally AREMA publishes a "portfolio of track plans" which should be of great interest to any P:48 modeler.

There is a magazine called "Railway Track and Structures" that has been around since 1904. I threw out my old issues but they have had detailed articles on replacing track and restoring washed out areas. You see old issues on e-bay once in a while. Lots of neat interesting stuff about turn-of-the-century structures, track, and structures. And rail construction practices in 1929.

There is a company called:

www.lusas.com

They provide modeling software for rail soil-structure problems and construction sequence modeling.

They have a number of free videos on their site with relevance to planning rehabilitation of the Churchil line.

Tommy posted:

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, of whom I worked .

 

Tommy,

As soon as I heard those words coffer dam,  rip rap,  Portland cement,  etc,   I knew that somewhere in your background The Corps of Engineers was lurking!   Anything short of what you have suggested is just a temporary band aid that is another failure waiting to happen.

Nick 

Gregg posted:

Thanks tommy. not exactly what  I had in mind for a quick fix.. but you may be right. do it right the first time. .. How would you marshal your train  heading to the wash out to start the project.... American hoist.....  material to construct copper dam.. There's no place to unload much of the material....

The water is slowly receding with no current flow from one side of the right of way to the other.

How would you start the project??   Anyone else.?

Difficult indeed - which end has material and equipment?

I wasn't kidding about the Alaska RR. They can provide excellent examples as they encounter problems like this and have to regularly repair such damage.

Acquiring the equipment to make such a task will be a hurdle.

The ARR (and all railroads for that matter) have to get clever at times as snow melt can cause washouts when areas regularly vulnerable that have culverts get clogged. From John's Alaska railroad website, the MOW section, they show a work train attacking a washout that needed repair to permit the proper MOW equipment to get to the section.

The first car was a large flat  with an excavator on it and then short hopper cars or ballast dumpers full of the needed size rock pushed by an engine

Washout at the loop

ARR MOW

The ARR has their own quarry and rock crushers and have modified and acquired cars for hauling equipment and material. rail lifters, spreaders, tie machines and on.

Getting the line sturdy enough for travel could be accomplished by some experienced MOW personnel.  

I would say that would be the most important resource to locate - then, let them say what they need. Engineers, surveyors, politicians, press, investors and such all like to talk and plan. Find some folks that know how to keep a line open. The long term rebuilds could come later.

Of course, a pile of cash would be needed to fuel all efforts.

Contacting the Canadian rail companies (CNR that maintained this line) or the railroad union may get some contacts of retired personnel. They won't give up or loan the current personnel as they are much needed. They are busy keeping the lines open. A project like this could be of interest to retirees for some extra cash.

"Essayons"

☺☺☺

Another flat for personnel comfort use and com and such - a connaboose

But for this year they have the Game of Thrones problem:  Winter is Coming.

Moonman posted:

Gregg posted:

Thanks tommy. not exactly what  I had in mind for a quick fix.. but you may be right. do it right the first time. .. How would you marshal your train  heading to the wash out to start the project.... American hoist.....  material to construct copper dam.. There's no place to unload much of the material....

The water is slowly receding with no current flow from one side of the right of way to the other.

How would you start the project??   Anyone else.?

Difficult indeed - which end has material and equipment?

I wasn't kidding about the Alaska RR. They can provide excellent examples as they encounter problems like this and have to regularly repair such damage.

Acquiring the equipment to make such a task will be a hurdle.

The ARR (and all railroads for that matter) have to get clever at times as snow melt can cause washouts when areas regularly vulnerable that have culverts get clogged. From John's Alaska railroad website, the MOW section, they show a work train attacking a washout that needed repair to permit the proper MOW equipment to get to the section.

The first car was a large flat  with an excavator on it and then short hopper cars or ballast dumpers full of the needed size rock pushed by an engine

Washout at the loop

ARR MOW

The ARR has their own quarry and rock crushers and have modified and acquired cars for hauling equipment and material. rail lifters, spreaders, tie machines and on.

Getting the line sturdy enough for travel could be accomplished by some experienced MOW personnel.  

I would say that would be the most important resource to locate - then, let them say what they need. Engineers, surveyors, politicians, press, investors and such all like to talk and plan. Find some folks that know how to keep a line open. The long term rebuilds could come later.

Of course, a pile of cash would be needed to fuel all efforts.

Contacting the Canadian rail companies (CNR that maintained this line) or the railroad union may get some contacts of retired personnel. They won't give up or loan the current personnel as they are much needed. They are busy keeping the lines open. A project like this could be of interest to retirees for some extra cash.

I'm going with the" lets patch it for now...."

Consist.... From the south to north....  3 units for power,( One might just pump air. Jordan spreader,assortment of  bunk cars . 50 loaded  air dumps.....Flat car with ties . spikes . jacks ,tie plates and whatever else  the section crew may need. Last car and the one that will end up right next to the wash out.... A flat  containing a front end loader , back hoe and a portable ramp.

 Lets get started..... unload the front end loader and back hoe.... put the ramp back on the flat.

Dump 20 air dumps for starters....

Pull the train back 30 cars or so

Let the loader and back hoe fill the cut the best they until the section crews can  replace any missing ties.

Keep filling in  until the track will support a loaded car..

Now things can go a little faster... Dump whatever remaining  cars are needed... Maybe even bring in the spreader,  Track is jacked up above normal.    It's going to settle.  Track is now passable with a ten per slow order placed on it.

The rehabilitation of the Churchill branch is an interesting and complex engineering problem.

Nature Magazine (27 sept 2007) pp 398-402 had an excellent article on construction of the Quing-Hai railroad, a 416 mile line over 40% permafrost. They used extra-high embankments with frequent transverse ventilation ducts. Thousands of remote temperature sensors were emplaced on both sides of the railbed. It was concluded this was the only method of insuring safety on single track in the middle of nowhere. There was preventative removal of icy masses from the frozen base which was filled with high consistancy soil. Finally active cooling (refrigeration with pumped cold saline) was used on several critical sections.

The Chinese experience is the most recent and well-documented.

Google scholar has a scientific search engine, including material on cold weather permafrost rail construction from the 11th annual cold weather engineering conference.

The most significant issue is so-called mud-pumping - not filling in gaps in washout areas with gravel. This is even a problem on the Northeast Corridor. ACELA trains do the most damage. With every passing of a train there is roadbed deflection. The water and soil go squish-squish. This situation does not exist in freezing weather. The decision of the previous operator to limit freight car weights was reasonable and prudent. The American operators ignored the problem of mud-pumping by making believe they magically discovered you could run heavyweight cars over the roadbed without consequence. This decision alone may have been responsible for much of the damage. One problem with the sale of the spur to Churchill was the requirement to provide 365 day service. There are two potential engineering standards:

If it can be decided only to operate the spur in freezing weather the operational problems are significantly reduced.

If you mandate 365 day operation you have a more expensive engineering standard.

MIT has developed a low-cost system using five vertical settlement probes, a piezometer, a laptop computer and an internet connection that has been installed on the NEC corridor to monitor the condition of areas of flooded roadbed. You can't evaluate the condition of the subgrade by taking a motorcycle trip over the right-of-way. Cutting to the chase, if an agreement is reached to cease traffic during certain vulnerable periods, the line may be maintained at far less cost.

On a long-term basis we have to look at the hydrology of a drainage basin across a watershed. How long will it take for the water to drain? Will it drain? When will it drain? What can be done (if anything) to speed drainage? The answers to these questions are unclear. In 1975 Canada developed a federal-provincial flood damage reduction program. This was defunded in 1999, presumeably so the Canadian government could spend more money on the parasites at the United Nations.

Ok, since this is "for fun" and yet a serious issue, I would like a little more engineer perspective on the following ideas.  I never had the opportunity to complete my engineering degree but still thirst for knowledge, so please answer with a bend toward educating, not admonishing.

1. Build bases on either side and put a short girder bridge between them.  I am assuming the ground underneath the remaining track is susceptible to the same forces that create the existing wash out.

2. Drive pilings down to the bedrock and put the tracks on a "pier"

3. Ok, so this might sound a little crazy...and it is probably too costly, but float the track.  For reference, there are 3 freeway bridges that float on lake Washington in Seattle.  These are not small, they are 4 and 6 lanes and do float on the water.  The soil density in this area must be somewhat denser, would it be possible to make it work?

Again, just want to know more.

I'm not an engineer, but I do have a background in geology and geography. I would not be overly aggressive with a solution to this particular problem. First of all, this washout doesn't look all that severe. I've seen much worse. This is not a high traffic mainline. The Colorado flooding on the front range a few years ago comes to mind, where the UP faced a much larger problem.

The cause of the washout was severe flooding, not typically seen in this area. However, with warming temps in the northern latitudes, it could become more common going forward. The secret is to balance the solution and its cost with low maintenance and sustainability.

Because the area is subject to severe freeze thaw cycles, I favor a minimalist approach here. That means nothing with a hard foundation. The strongest connection to the earth that I would consider would be the use of wood piles to either form a short trestle with abutments at each end, or perhaps to simply use them to secure some large culverts in place to allow future water to pass. Then just rebuild the right of way with rock and ballast. It survived all those years with no special treatment, until this round of flooding exposed its weakness.

Bottom line, quick and dirty, reopen the railroad. Don't let perfection be the enemy of the good.

Litigation and liability is the enemy of the "quick and dirty". This is a fun forum and there is no "correct solution". Requesting different opinions is sometimes known as the "Delphic" method of obtaining a solution.

That being said, in select areas of the NEC where water levels approach track level some rebalasting is required every 14 days. That is documented in the MIT study on a google science search that resulted in internet monitoring probes being installed on the site.

The UP roadbed was of a higher standard and not errected over tundra.

The Chinese experience is definitive. They experimented and found derailments and wrecks the result of not establishing a new cold-weather tundra construction protocol. I would urge reading the article in Nature cited.

In the event of a wreck of a VIA tourist train, failure to use sound modern construction criterion might result in enormous liability. Deaths could result. Anyone for Russian Roulette?

We have no idea how long the high water levels will last. One month? Two months? A year?Two years? And as long as they are high mud-pumping will take place, causing progressive deterioration with every car passing over the line eventually resulting in sudden catastrophic failure and derailment in the middle of nowhere. Oh yeah. Restrict trains to five miles an hour. It could work.

One answer, though not the moral answer (in my opinion) would be for the Canadian government to assume this liability.

My suggestion would not to find a retired "old timer" from the Alaskan railroad but to solicit a bid for an engineering estimate from the outstanding Chinese rail construction entity that built the Quing-Hai line under similar conditions. They have a record of success and the expertise to do the job. They just completed a massive new rail line in Africa.

Circa 2017-2018 there are sound "good practice" standardized engineering solutions to rail construction problems.

Could a "quick-and-dirty" solution produce a viable safe spur?

Maybe.

Frankly at this point I don't believe we have enough engineering information to come to a conclusion.

But other approaches are welcome. How about relieving stress on the roadbed by using skyhooks or tethered hydrogen balloons?

https://www.winnipegfreepress....ilway-442904263.html

I guess this is the latest... some good pics.

This situation does not call for massive expensive improvements, it is a restoration project. The economics of operating this line cannot support the kind of spending required to bring it up to your higher standard. The options are really to repair or abandon given the amount of damage.

The photo originally posted, doesn't really do justice to the pervasive nature of the flooding. This shot explains it better:

The entire line is inundated! Water over the rail heads. Short of raising the entire grade five feet, there is no solution for this. Unfortunately, that solution is not practical.

The surrounding area is flat as a pancake, soft as a sponge, and simply doesn't drain well. This flooding was caused by a weather anomaly, when two blizzards dumped way more than average snow on the area, and the subsequent melting in the spring.

Bottom line, building fancy bridges here doesn't make economic sense. The bridges were never really the problem anyway, the volume of water was. I would simply add more culverts in areas where small washouts occurred in the hopes of mitigating some future damage during the next high water event.

Gregg posted:

https://www.winnipegfreepress....ilway-442904263.html

I guess this is the latest... some good pics.

That 95 page PDF report is fascinating. Most of the damage can be repaired with reballasting and regrading. Of course there are some more serious issues near bridges that will require more effort. It's nice to see that they have a plan of action.

I do stand by my original position of using additional culverts, in the hopes of reducing damage in future events.

Nice photo of problem.    Let  the engineers and contractors do their job.    Probably raising the grade and a total rebuild is in order .  I will read the report after I come home later.   As a retired civil engineer I like to read on recovery projects due to Mother Nature and other events.   I remember well what we did after 9/11/2001 in NYC.      

Some of the areas in Houston and surrounding towns that we visited in April were devasted recently.   I am thankful water is receding and  recovery efforts are beginning.  To our friends in Florida and Gulf Coast our prayers are with you.      

Sorry for going off topic.   

Hey guys, when I first started the topic I was curious just how one would go about filling in the wash-out. As a Conductor/ brakeman I've unloaded hundreds , make that thousands of rail cars of ballast. Everything from blow sand to heavy slag ballast. Air dumps, bottom and side dump hoppers... and even hart cars, Lidgerwood, with  right & left hand plows... Talk about going back in time..

Having said that. I had never run across a wash out with the rails hanging in the air and was curious how are they going to fill this in? No room for anything along the right of way only water.. 

Unfortunately  or fortunately  the picture I posted was  a breach on the Hudson bay line and you guys picked up on it immediately and the thread went  in a little a different direction.

I'm glad it did. We have a saying on the railway.... you can learn something new every day if you're interested.

Time will tell the outcome... Thanks all for posting and keep them coming.

Sort of a modern day remake of the tale of "Atlantis - the Lost Continent"...

Clearly...the God's are angry with us. .   

So here's the deal, after reading the article from the Winnipeg paper including the 95 page PDF damage report and Wikipedia on Churchill, it sounds like the plan is to make the line passable before winter. To do this they need to start ASAP and keep their fingers crossed. The initial bid is for about 43.5 million Canadian, and they might have the money secured. Then the repairs will continue next summer, when they tackle some of the bigger problems.

Wikipedia's contribution to all this comes with the history of the town, CP's original construction of the line and its subsequent sale to OmniTRAX in 1997. The population of Churchill has been shrinking, and is now under 1000 people. The rail service reflects this, as most recently, there is one freight train per WEEK, and just three passenger trains per week. Those numbers tell why funding this restoration project is kind of a sore subject, based on diminishing returns.

Getting back to the original question, how do you repair a washout? Like this!

This is the piece of equipment they want to bring in. It will make short work of a lot of the water damage.

Another possibility:

Hovercraft using the right of way. Russia has many on the surplus market. Much cheaper than aircraft. One tenth the cost. There are 100 passenger models good for 150 miles per hour not much wider than the right of way.

Clear a few trees and you get 365 day passenger access.

Gregg,

Elliot has pointed out the company that can save that line. They already operate in Canada.

Herzog

Now, get the town fathers to innovate and create some new revenue generation.

An interesting thread, that points out how difficult decisions can be with situations like this. I tend to agree with Elliot's approach, I did even before he gave more detail on the line. With a situation like this, there are factors that go beyond 'proper engineering practices' that influence how things are done, because economics are important, too (and this doesn't mean I endorse "sloppy" engineering or substandard practices, while not an engineer my dad was one, my brother is one and my uncle was a PE in civil engineering, and all hate 'sloppiness'. For example, if this had been a high traffic line, there could be considerations about getting it back in service ASAP, and then worry about a long term solution. Obviously a quick fix solution like dumping rip rap, or driving pilings to bedrock to support a small bridge, might not be great long term solutions, but if this was an active line getting it back in service now and then figuring out a long term solution might be the better approach. On the other hand, given the reality of this line, that economically likely exists due to political reality (the need to keep the town supplied), then given the light service, a less than perfect solution might make economic sense. 

From the view of where the track is, and the way it is laid, I think they face some hard choices in the future,up to and including abandoning the service as impractical. They might be able to patch this washout together, but from the looks of it this won't be an isolated incident, they may find themselves doing this a lot going down the road, the region is getting warmer, which means this kind of thing is likely to become more common, and that raises the old question "what is the point of futility?". From what I can see in the aerial view of the track, if they seriously want to keep this branch open the real viable long term solution would be to re-engineer the branch, probably would be to redo the route in parallel on a raised roadbed with proper drainage and culverts and the like while patching together the existing track until this is done, but the cost of that would be quite large. Rebuilding the existing track while maintaining even the limited service on the line would take much longer, and might be more costly than doing the parallel redo. Personally I would be looking at alternatives, given how light traffic is and how small the market is, might be cheaper to find ways to get people and supplies in/out of the place, perhaps trucks and buses (I don't know what the road situation is there, I distantly recall Churchill is way up in the arctic so it may not have road access). A lot of it is going to depend on how they see the long term viability of Churchill, given its decline, they likely will patch the line until such a time as there is so little to be shipped that they can abandon it.

When SP started the first causeway over the Great Salt Lake, they found a big problem.  They started to put pilings in, but when the huge pole was in, it sank into the mud.  The bedrock was not close to the surface.

Different climate and geography.  But is there a real base to place a good roadbed on?  

Plus I was looking at were the port is.  Even if it was a deepwater port oven for over six months, it seems it would take a ship a long time to get there.  It might be faster for ships and cargo to rail or truck stuff to Atlantic or Pacific ports.

Your assessment is on-the-money Bigkid. A parallel new branch could be an answer.

In some areas of such flooding the Chinese used interlocking steel sheets on either side of the roadbed, pumped out the water, and installed dry elevated fill. You will have vertical oscillation of track unless you have a solid base-and mud-pumping. Think "squish-squish". With every squish and passing of a train you lose stability.

AMTRAK produced a study on the degradation of roadbed on tbe NEC corridor due to mix-pumping in selected areas of track producing a predicative model based on weight, speed, and frequency of track use.

What I would like to see is what is called an "engineering economy study" of alternatives.

Can track super-saturated roadbed subject to mud-pumping be safely maintained?

Yes. But only with periodic reballasting. And constant monitoring of the stability. In the case of the high-traffic NEC, every two weeks.

A previous comment on "slow orders" is relevant.

We have to consider that a permanant restriction on train speed and weight and frequency would result in a reconstruction model of significantly less cost. Dedicated freight cars with six-wheel trucks would reduce the wear-and-tear. If there is a temporary repair how about some specially-constructed dedicated consists and engines that would be able to run with extremely light loadings?  Supposing, instead of 80,000 pound cars on conventional trucks we had 30,000 pound cars on multiple trucks or six-wheel trucks? In other words light-weight low-damage trains? 

New extremly light-load low-damage passenger and freight cars designed and built for dedicated service over track that cannot support existing equipment?

What would be the minimum tonnage and traffic that would maintain the viability of the community? Predicting maintenance costs of trackbed is related to this consideration. What minimum use could be projected without "the straw that breaks the camal's back".

You brought out another qualifying factor. The apparant alteration in climate in the area resulting in less cold weather. I am not going to say man-made, but it seems to be happening.

But we don't know how long the water levels will remain high.  A significant unanswered question. Or if the flooded areas will freeze entirely, even with the cold weather coming on. Not to mention planning for future flooding. Installing culverts while you have high water levels on each side of the track is meaningless.

There is access by the port, albeit not for all year. The town could be resupplied with essentials such as propane for a limited lifestyle.

Deferring a decision until water levels recede seems reasonable.

Herzog   Definitely an option and maybe the only one.... Expensive though, I wonder how many cars can be set up as a unit train.  I suppose if one car's belts breaks,  work comes to a stop until fixed or switched out.?.    How many units trains?  We're still going to need the expertise of section crews, bridge and building,  Work equipment and even train crews.  I hope the line gets fixed. I have my doubts though.

Thanks again to all.

BTW Elliot. I'm impressed . never seen anything like that before.

In the end, this really isn't an engineering problem. That part is fairly straight forward and academic. No, this is a geo-political struggle, with about 900 people hanging in the balance.

Is it cost effective to rebuild the railroad?

Would it be cheaper to relocate the people to some sustainable location?

What about the native's cultural interests?

Is rail service the only solution, or is there a better mode?

As far fetched as the hovercraft idea sounds, it might be a very good option. Remove the rails, smooth the right of way, and operate passenger and supply service on a more frequent basis.

We are all railfans here, so when rail lines face closure, we all want a solution to save it, especially when it comes to this unique line. It smacks of the streetcar lines that folded back in the 50's, in favor of bus service. Even though I wasn't born into the streetcar era, I always dreamed about what it must have been like, and wished I had a time machine to go back and experience it first hand.

When the Twin Cities opened its first light rail line, and my wife and I went to the grand opening. There were all kinds of transportation exhibits, as part of the celebration. One such side event was a vintage bus ride, where I got to talking with the driver. I had always thought the buses were the enemy, that it was some kind of conspiracy to rid the streets of rails. He spelled it out for me, that buses were much more flexible in their operation, and far less infrastructure intensive.

This strikes me as one of those situations. Mother nature has stated her position. Maybe it's time to give up the ghost.

Gregg posted:

Herzog   Definitely an option and maybe the only one.... Expensive though, I wonder how many cars can be set up as a unit train.  I suppose if one car's belts breaks,  work comes to a stop until fixed or switched out.?.    How many units trains?  We're still going to need the expertise of section crews, bridge and building,  Work equipment and even train crews.  I hope the line gets fixed. I have my doubts though.

Thanks again to all.

BTW Elliot. I'm impressed . never seen anything like that before.

Gregg, I hadn't either. Herzog just introduced it last year. I think they said they can have up to 32 cars in the train.

I only discovered that thing when I read that 95 page PDF report. There was a picture of it, so I Googled when I couldn't copy the still image, and came up with the Youtube video. If you're really curious about the extent of the damage, all the photos and descriptions are detailed HERE. (page 70 for the A.C.T.)

In some instances the hoover might be better than some of the ice roads.  The hoover could run most of the year.  

http://www.arcticmini.com/fortsevern.htm 

Hey DOMINIC... I'm not sure there even  are Ice roads to Churchill...

I'm curious whether work has started on the repair so I fired off a e-mail to the town asking a few questions . I 'hoping  they can answer my questions and  may be able to put me in contact with another retired railway worker to get his thoughts on the  rail line

Who knows if I'll get a reply but you do bring up an interesting quest about the ice road?. I don't think so. stay tuned.

Very interesting reading.     I hope they have decided to start the work.      Wonder what all the additional geotechnic investigations would entail and cost.   I assume soil borings would be performed and associated info.