Connect with us
[the_ad id="89560"]

Alberta

The Canadian Northern Railway’s legacy at Big Valley, Alberta.

Published

13 minute read

By Shawn I. Smith, Canadian Northern Society

“The newly constructed train station circa 1913, Big Valley. Photo- Canadian Northern Society Archives

 

It’s a Saturday afternoon in June in the quiet Village of Big Valley. Visitors admire the splendid heritage railway depot and gardens at the end of main street. Two blocks south is a historic grain elevator – a classic Canadian symbol standing tall above the prairie landscape. To the east across the tracks are large stark concrete walls, visibly reminiscent of Stonehenge. “What are those curious walls?” is often asked. Then the sound of a locomotive whistle breaks the silence, creating a scene out of the 1950’s when a vintage passenger train pulls into town, and the train crew scurries about on the platform unloading its cheerful patrons.

“Visitors explore the Big Valley Roundhouse Ruins” Photo- Canadian Northern Society Archives

While not obvious to the guests who have enjoyed the 21-mile excursion train ride from Stettler aboard the Alberta Prairie Railway, the scene that unfolds on summer days in Big Valley is part of a legacy left by two dynamic railroaders who over a century earlier had an ambitious and grand vision for Western Canada. Today, both active and abandoned rail lines in central Alberta, related historic structures and sites, and indeed the communities that owe their existence to the Canadian Northern Railway (CNoR) share this common heritage.

Since the completion of the Canadian Pacific Railway in 1885, railways have been inextricably linked with the development of western Canada. After Confederation the new Dominion Government quickly recognized that without railways real settlement would not take place in the sparsely populated North West.

Energy, Enterprise, and Ability

“The Canadian Northern Railway lines map, 1916” Map- Atlas of Alberta Railways

The CNoR (Canadian Northern Railway) was a product of two Canadian-born railroaders with CPR roots. William Mackenzie and Donald Mann met during the 1880’s while the senior road was under construction in the Selkirk Mountains. Their “Energy, Enterprise, and Ability” – which would become the railway’s motto would lead to a partnership in contracting, steamship lines, and a 9,500-mile transcontinental railway empire that served seven provinces and included the Duluth Winnipeg and Pacific Railway in the U.S. The two were knighted for their achievements in 1911.
Branch lines were the key to the CNoR strategy.The Vegreville to Calgary branch – chartered in February 1909 by CNoR subsidiary Alberta Midland Railway – was the company’s key north-south spine through Alberta. The portion between Vegreville and Drumheller was opened for service in 1911. While it had the appearance of a typical prairie branch line, its primary purpose was to carry steam and domestic heating coal from mines at Brazeau and Drumheller to growing prairie markets.
The fact that the line traversed a region of great agricultural potential for both grain and cattle farming was an added benefit. In typical fashion, grain elevators were located every five to ten miles – the distance being established around the practical ability for a livestock team to haul a load of grain and return in one day’s time from the growing number of homesteads clustered around each delivery point.
The Battle River Subdivision along with further line completions in 1914 to Calgary and Strathcona respectively provided the CNoR with an effective intercity freight route, albeit longer than those of its competitors.
The Brazeau Branch, extending 176 miles west from the junction at Warden to the Nordegg Collieries was extremely important to the CNoR which depended largely on this supply of steam coal for terminals across the West. The subsequent extension of the Goose Lake line at Munson became an important link from Calgary to Saskatoon. All of these CNoR lines were financed using provincial bond guarantees.

“Bustling Big Valley railroad yard, roundhouse, 1920’s” Photo- Canadian Northern Society Archives

By May of 1912 mixed trains crewed by Big Valley men were running north to Vegreville and south to Drumheller. Another run to Rocky Mountain House was added in June. A Second Class depot was erected that year and a five-stall roundhouse and turntable were complete by April of 1913.
By late 1913 a Railway Post Office Car service had been established on the line, and Big Valley was home to 14 locomotives and an equal amount of engine service and train crews. Assistant Superintendent Thomas Rourke oversaw terminal operations that included a train dispatching office.
By September 1917 fourteen mines were operating in the Drumheller Valley producing 250 carloads of coal every 24 hours. Drumheller was without question the “Powerhouse of the West.” Big Valley’s railroaders were kept busy 24 hours a day operating the trains that pulled the coal out of the valley.

“Train time at Big Valley. A Southbound train at Big Valley, 1920’s.” Photo- Canadian Northern Society Archives

After being selected as the CNoR terminal, Big Valley boomed. By 1919, its population had increased to over 1025, with some 325 souls working for the CNoR. At its peak, the company’s payroll included 26 train and engine crews, a shop staff of 40, and a Bridge and Building crew averaging 45 employees, managed by Frank Dewar. There were 8 sectionmen, and at the station an Agent, operators round the clock, yard clerks, and the train dispatcher. Four to five carman conducted car repairs and inspections.
Coal from Brazeau was piled in a huge stockpile almost a block long on the east side of the yard. A gravel pit operation north of town at Caprona was established to provide aggregate for line ballasting on all of the CNoR area lines. Steam shovels kept this operation steady, mining volumes often equating to 100 carloads per day.
Big Valley’s early railroaders were a colourful lot. Many came and went, and with the Big Valley collieries in production by 1914 shipping coal as far east as Ontario – night life in town could be wild. Assistant Superintendent Rourke, a former baseball player in the Detroit Tigers minor league system, was responsible for putting together the “Big Valley Bugs” – made up almost entirely of railroaders – who in 1918 put together a resounding victory over the high-flying Edmonton Red Sox.

The National

During the First World War, financial problems caught up with Mackenzie and Mann and their rapidly expanding enterprise. Despite profitable western lines such as the Vegreville and Brazeau branches, lack of traffic on the transcontinental lines, burdensome debt, and the negative impacts of the War would result in the company being “nationalized” by the Dominion Government in 1918. The rival Grand Trunk Pacific (GTP) Railway would fare even worse, having been placed into receivership in 1919. These events led to the creation of today’s Canadian National (CN).
The new CN was confronted with the task of rationalizing the CNoR and GTP lines throughout western Canada. Consolidation was affected by the elimination of duplicate facilities and improving services by combining portions of the former competing lines. Construction of track connections joining the Brazeau branch with he former GTP Tofield to Calgary line at Alix were opened for service in 1922.
Connections were also made between the Battle River Subdivision and the former GTP mainline at Ryley. Geographically the GTP divisional point at Mirror was seen as central to the operations of the Brazeau branch vs. Big Valley. Coal that had originally moved over the Brazeau line to Warden then northward was now diverted over the new connection at Alix via Mirror which became the new home terminal for crews running west.
The new routing via Alix saved a distance of over 50 miles between Brazeau and Saskatoon. The former GTP south of Camrose also became the CN’s north-south main line through Alberta.

“The end of daily passenger train service between Edmonton – Drumheller. VIA Rail’s Dayliner at Big Valley, 1981” Photo-Charles Bohi

This consolidation led to the significant decline of Big Valley as a railway town. While the company kept a small number of train crews assigned to both freight and passenger service, by 1925 the exodus to Mirror, Edmonton, Drumheller, and Hanna began. It was reported that over 100 railroaders’ homes were moved out of the village, some of which continue to exist in Mirror today. In what was known as the “Battle of Big Valley” – the unions fought the company’s decision hard but were left with little compensation for their relocation expenses after the issue went to arbitration in the late-1920’s with the decision going with the company. By the onset of the depression, Big Valley’s population had dropped by some 500 souls to 445.
It is without question that the old Canadian Northern Railway’s reason for existence in central Alberta has changed dramatically since its arrival in 1910. Coal is no longer used to heat our homes – and in fact its use is considered sinful by some!
Packages ride on trucks, and people drive their own cars and trucks instead of riding mixed trains and Nos. 25 and 26 to get to Calgary or Edmonton.
While huge volumes of grain still move on trains – these are now loaded in modern high capacity elevators capable of loading 100 cars or more in 12 hours or less. The original steel rails that remain in service between Stettler and Big Valley are therefore of historic testament to Mackenzie and Mann and their great accomplishment. In fact, this section of track is the sole operating survivor of many similar “60-pound” branch lines that have now been re-laid or abandoned across the prairies. And almost incredibly one can still experience a passenger train ride over these vintage rails, pulling into Big Valley just as travellers did one hundred years ago.

Canadian Northern Society

Alberta

Enbridge CEO says ‘there’s a good reason’ for Alberta to champion new oil pipeline

Published on

Enbridge CEO Greg Ebel. The company’s extensive pipeline network transports about 30 per cent of the oil produced in North America and nearly 20 per cent of the natural gas consumed in the United States. Photo courtesy Enbridge

From the Canadian Energy Centre

By Deborah Jaremko

B.C. tanker ban an example of federal rules that have to change

The CEO of North America’s largest pipeline operator says Alberta’s move to champion a new oil pipeline to B.C.’s north coast makes sense.

“There’s a good reason the Alberta government has become proponent of a pipeline to the north coast of B.C.,” Enbridge CEO Greg Ebel told the Empire Club of Canada in Toronto the day after Alberta’s announcement.

“The previous [federal] government’s tanker ban effectively makes that export pipeline illegal. No company would build a pipeline to nowhere.”

It’s a big lost opportunity. With short shipping times to Asia, where oil demand is growing, ports on B.C.’s north coast offer a strong business case for Canadian exports. But only if tankers are allowed.

A new pipeline could generate economic benefits across Canada and, under Alberta’s plan, drive economic reconciliation with Indigenous communities.

Ebel said the tanker ban is an example of how policies have to change to allow Canada to maximize its economic potential.

Repealing the legislation is at the top of the list of needed changes Ebel and 94 other energy CEOs sent in a letter to Prime Minister Mark Carney in mid-September.

The federal government’s commitment to the tanker ban under former Prime Minister Justin Trudeau was a key factor in the cancellation of Enbridge’s Northern Gateway pipeline.

That project was originally targeted to go into service around 2016, with capacity to ship 525,000 barrels per day of Canadian oil to Asia.

“We have tried to build nation-building pipelines, and we have the scars to prove it. Five hundred million scars, to be quite honest,” Ebel said, referencing investment the company and its shareholders made advancing the project.

“Those are pensioners and retail investors and employees that took on that risk, and it was difficult,” he said.

For an industry proponent to step up to lead a new Canadian oil export pipeline, it would likely require “overwhelming government support and regulatory overhaul,” BMO Capital Markets said earlier this year.

Energy companies want to build in Canada, Ebel said.

“The energy sector is ready to invest, ready to partner, partner with Indigenous nations and deliver for the country,” he said.

“None of us is calling for weaker environmental oversight. Instead, we are urging government to adopt smarter, clearer, faster processes so that we can attract investment, take risks and build for tomorrow.”

This is the time for Canadians “to remind ourselves we should be the best at this,” Ebel said.

“We should lead the way and show the world how it’s done: wisely, responsibly, efficiently and effectively.”

With input from a technical advisory group that includes pipeline leaders and Indigenous relations experts, Alberta will undertake pre-feasibility work to identify the pipeline’s potential route and size, estimate costs, and begin early Indigenous engagement and partnership efforts.

The province aims to submit an application to the Federal Major Projects Office by spring 2026.

Continue Reading

Alberta

The Technical Pitfalls and Political Perils of “Decarbonized” Oil

Published on

By Ron Wallace

The term “decarbonized oil” is popping up more and more in discussions of Canada’s energy politics. The concept refers to capturing and storing carbon dioxide (CO₂) generated during oil production and processing, thereby reducing greenhouse gas emissions, in order to support the continued strength of Canada’s oil and natural sector, the nation’s number-one export earner and crucial to the economies of Alberta and Saskatchewan. Projects like the Weyburn Carbon Capture, Utilization and Sequestration Project in Saskatchewan have demonstrated the idea’s technical feasibility by sequestering 1.7 million tonnes of CO₂ annually while producing incremental oil.

The key question now is whether this type of process can be dramatically scaled up – by anywhere from six to over 20 times – to facilitate what Alberta Premier Danielle Smith has termed a “grand bargain”: using carbon capture and storage (CCS) to gain a greenlight from the federal government for a new oil export line to the West Coast, enabling Alberta to continue growing oil production and generating jobs while advancing Ottawa’s climate goals. Prime Minister Mark Carney may be prone to hedging and ambiguity, but he has now made it clear that any such pipeline will indeed be contingent on Alberta proving it can “decarbonize” its oil
production.

The Pathways Alliance, a group of six producers representing 95% of Canada’s oil sands production, has designed a $16.5 billion CCS network to capture and store CO₂ from up to 20 facilities, aiming for 11 million tonnes per year in Phase 1 and a breathtaking 40 million tonnes in Phase 2. Pathways is intended to help build consensus in favour of a new oil export pipeline that could enable up to 25% growth in Alberta’s oil production – generating possibly $20 billion per year in export revenues.

While credible critics, including the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis (IEEFA) and energy economist Jennifer Considine, highlight the high costs, uncertain revenues and poor returns from several other attempts at large-scale CCS, Alberta’s UCP government appears to view it as the way out of its current impasse with Ottawa. It believes the profits generated from exports of Alberta’s decarbonized oil could themselves help finance the CCS facilities required for the “grand bargain” to be sealed.

Smith has been keeping up the political pressure, recently announcing that Alberta will fund and lead the effort to submit a formal pipeline application to the Carney government’s new Major Projects Office. Major obstacles remain, but none is more serious than Carney maintaining predecessor Justin Trudeau’s suite of anti-energy policies, particularly the draft oil and natural gas emissions cap, as part of his government’s intention to meet net-zero targets by 2050 (although Carney has recently indicated some flexibility in this view). Smith argues that this is effectively an “unconstitutional” production cap that threatens Alberta’s economic future, vowing to challenge it legally if Carney doesn’t shelve it.

Smith’s government at the same time is pursuing a more conciliatory tactic, offering to help advance federal climate objectives through CCS in order to speed up pipeline approvals under Carney’s Bill C-5. In this track, there is a question as to whether Alberta may be walking into an economic and technological trap that it will regret.

That is because the “grand bargain” would create two different classes of oil in Canada, operating under different sets of regulations and resulting in different cost structures. Western Canada’s crude oil producers would shoulder costly and technically challenging decarbonization requirements – plus the threat of federal veto over any new oil projects that weren’t similarly “decarbonized”. Canadian-produced oil would enter international export markets at a significant if not ruinous competitive disadvantage, risking not only profitability but market share. Eastern Canada’s oil refiners, meanwhile, would remain free to import fully “carbonized”
oil at the lowest prices they could get from countries with significantly looser environmental standards.

The Alberta oil sands currently generate 58% of Canada’s total oil output. Data from December 2023 shows Alberta producing a record 4.53 million barrels per day as major oil export pipelines including Trans Mountain, Keystone and the Enbridge Mainline operated at near capacity. The same year, Eastern Canada imported on average about 490,000 barrels per day by pipeline and sea from the United States (72.4%), Nigeria (12.9%) and Saudi Arabia (10.7%). Since 1988, imports by marine terminals along the St. Lawrence River have exceeded $228 billion, while imports by New Brunswick’s Irving Oil Ltd. refinery totalled $136 billion from 1988 to 2020.

The economic viability of large-scale CCS projects remains completely unproven; indeed, attempts to date in other jurisdictions have performed poorly. Attempting to “decarbonize” Alberta’s oil, then, makes little economic sense; it appears to be based more on the Carney government’s ideological objectives set to achieve global climate objectives.

The question thus becomes why Alberta is agreeing to a policy that could trap its taxpayers in a hugely expensive and unfair system that could imperil consideration of any new pipelines for Canadian oil exports, especially when private capital already largely remains on the sidelines.

Not only Albertans but Canadians generally need to carefully reconsider any “grand bargain” that hinges on “decarbonization” of western Canadian oil, because doing so threatens the economic viability of Alberta oil production and associated export pipelines – without meaningfully reducing global CO 2 emissions. And if industry proves unable to raise the vast capital required to construct the CCS projects, while lacking the cash flow to cover the steep ongoing costs needed to operate them, then where is the money to come from? At a time when Canada’s fiscal trajectory is so worrisome, the shortfall had better not be made up through public subsidies.

Even worse than the yawning fiscal risks, such an approach risks splitting the country into two economic zones: a West burdened by costly decarbonization requirements making Alberta’s oil some of the world’s least profitable to produce, and an East benefiting as before from cheaper imported oil. This is hardly conducive to national unity. It is time for Alberta to reconsider the “grand bargain”.

The original, full-length version of this article was recently published in C2C Journal.

Ron Wallace is a former Member of the National Energy Board.

Continue Reading

Trending

X