# EURASIA | Railway Development



## makita09 (Sep 8, 2009)

foxmulder said:


> I think main rationale for this network is not connecting Europe to China but rather relatively closer countries to China, mostly neighboring countries. Since both China and neighboring countries are very large, network becomes immense and once you a network connecting Russia to China or India to China why not reach to Europe?


Precisely. If HSR gets from Beijing to China's western border its already a half way to Romania.


----------



## gramercy (Dec 25, 2008)

And people thought I was mad for suggesting Paris-Istanbul.


----------



## chornedsnorkack (Mar 13, 2009)

gramercy said:


> And people thought I was mad for suggesting Paris-Istanbul.


Which the Chinese may very well be building anyway.

What about Beijing-Kunming-Mandalay-Dhaca-Calcutta-Karachi-Tehran-Istanbul-Milan-Marseilles-Madrid-Lisbon?


----------



## Slagathor (Jul 29, 2007)

From the articles I've managed to find, these are the two main routes being considered:


_Click the picture for a larger version._

Please be informed this is a map of _tracks_, not _lines_. Once you can reach Berlin, you can cruise through the rest of Western Europe because the HSR infrastructure is already in place. For a high speed service from London to Beijing, you only need to construct new lines to Berlin. Or possibly Milan but that doesn't seem to be considered at this point.


----------



## UD2 (Jan 21, 2006)

^^

Although thinking about it. I think it makes more sense to build a mixed-use freight/passanger line while putting more emphasis on freight. 

A distance this long, I think it's more feasiable for freight than actually people.

After a certain distance, even at 350km/h, air travel start to become more attractive to passangers than rail, and probably cheaper too consider the cost of infrastructure. Beijing to Burlin should be way beyond that mark. 

There currently is already a Beijing - Berlin freight train that's running. It however must change gauges along the way. Might be a good idea to start building a standard gauge non-highspeed conventional lines first. Something along China's 200km/h standard line would work great.


----------



## hkskyline (Sep 13, 2002)

Yikes ... they really should tunnel to Hainan and Taiwan first before trying to HSR to Europe!


----------



## chornedsnorkack (Mar 13, 2009)

UD2 said:


> There currently is already a Beijing - Berlin freight train that's running. It however must change gauges along the way. Might be a good idea to start building a standard gauge non-highspeed conventional lines first. Something along China's 200km/h standard line would work great.


But what will Russia gain from it? 

Rail traffic inside Russia works. They have a lot of 1524 mm track and rolling stock. They are not regauging that - they deal with break of gauge at their borders.

Will Hainan have a bridge or a tunnel? And should China tunnel under Yellow Sea to reach South Korea?


----------



## MarcVD (Dec 1, 2008)

Slartibartfas said:


> I'd say any route is better than the one through Afghanistan. This country is terribly instable already for decades if not longer. Varying gauges are not an all too big problem as one could construct that rail link in one gauge, either European standard gauge or whatever they use in China. That would limit the need for switching the gauge dramatically. Connection hubs along the way would grant access to the track also along the way. Thats no problem Spain for example also has different gauges.
> 
> One could also create a special treaty framework, creating a corridor, where border controls are not necessary if the containers remain closed all along the way.
> 
> The Deutsche Bahn experiments with cargo trains from Europe to China on existing tracks, via Russia I think. It takes its time and the largest problem is probably to overcome incompatibilities changing trains etc. But it seems it is possible and i can be considerably faster than by ship.


I never said I recommended the route through Afghanistan. I just said it was
the only possible route if one wants to avoid countries where the track
gauge is different than what is used in Europe and China (1.435 both). I
agree with you that the current political conditions in this country do not even remotely allow to think about using it for passenger or freight transit.
This ia a pity, though, as a link through this country would allow to cruise
from Europe to China using the same track gauge all the way.

On rail gauge changes, you are wrong. Rail gauge changes are a big problem,
actuallly. Not for passenger traffic, for this you have indeed Talgo-like trains
that allow to go through the gauge change in 15 minutes. For freight it is
very different. I won't go into the technical details ; it is enough to mention
that because of the gauge change at the french-spanish border, the freight
international trafic through this border is almost exclusively carried on road.
Freight rail traffic over there is minimal, just a few trains per day. Much less
than any other border in Europe. The break-of-gauge IS the reason...

Special treaties and corridor traffic are possible between countries that
have a reasonnable level of confidence among each other. That does not
exist in Asia. China despises India, which despises Pakistan. All ex-soviet
republics hate each other. Azerbaijan is at war with Armenia. The whole
world pretends to be at war with Iran. Russia is almost at war with Georgia.
The list goes on. All those countries are cash-starved and hope to get hard
currency by imposing tariffs on transit goods. They won't let any container
pass their borders without inspecting it and tax all what is inside. Each border
crossing costs days of delay.

Yes the DB experiments are over China. I have pictures of train containers
with APL (American President's Line, an american company) containers in the
consist, an rather surrealistic view, even after the demise of the soviet
empire... The containers are trans-shipped from european to russian, and
then from russian to chinese waggons at the borders. This is ridiculous if
one wants to consider any kind of massive traffic. A newly built line, in order
to be profitable, would require a volume of, say, a container train every
20 minutes or so, in (less if we consider trains made to US standards with
hundreds of double-stack waggons in tow, but that won't happen). Do you
realize how many container trans-shipments a day it represents ?


----------



## MarcVD (Dec 1, 2008)

UD2 said:


> ^^
> Not to mention the fact that the areas that it crosses is simply not dense enough to warrent the investment.


This is one of the reasons indeed. A high-speed line between Europe and
China would not be profitable with only the passengers that would use it
on its entire length - there are just not many enough, even if all air
passengers would have switched to rail. To make it profitable, you need
people who use it for trips that use part of the line only. The problem is,
you only have people concentration at both extremities, and almost
nobody living in the middle. Say you take the north path proposed.
You can have lots of traffic on the Berlin-Moscow part. You can have
lots of traffic between Peking and Urumqi too - China IS building an HSL
there, in fact. But in the middle ? A desert, cold or warm. Who's going
to fill-up 50 high speed trains per day over there ?


----------



## MarcVD (Dec 1, 2008)

K_ said:


> Actually the gauge is not really a big problem. It would probably be best to build the line to whatever gauge other lines are in the area you pass through, so that you have some operational flexibility. You might want to have alternative routes available in case of an interuption, or offer connections to other places, not just Europe - China.
> That would mean two breaks of gauge, once a the Chinese border, and once at the Polish (or wherever you enter the EU) border. With modern technology changing the gauge on an entire HST doesn't need to take more than 15 minutes.


You might want to note that this is not the option chosen by any rail
company anywhere in Europe where a similar situation exists. Spain decided
for 1.435 rail gauge for its high-speed network, even if its historic gauge is
1.676. If a HSL is blocked, they have no alternative. Same for UK. The rail
gauge over there is the same as in Europe, I know. But since the HSL 
between St Pancras and the Chunnel is built, the pickup shoes have been
dismounted on all Eurostar rakes, making them unable to use the 750V DC
3rd rail power supply used in south England. The only line they can still
use is the HSL, full stop. Savings in maintenance costs are more important
to the railways bean counters - euh, managers, sorry - than operational
flexibility.

You might also want to note that, as far as I know, dual gauge high-speed 
trains do not exist yet, so you certainly may not say that they can change
gauge in 15 minutes.


----------



## MarcVD (Dec 1, 2008)

K_ said:


> Indeed. And don't forget that when Europe and the US started building railroads in the 1830-ies it went at an amazing pace too.
> The first railroads on the European continent were build in 1935. In the decades afterwards the networks expanded by about 7000km per year... China is catching up with the rest of the world, and it is no surprise that it is doing it at a terrific speed. As it catches up it will probably slow down a bit on the infrastructure front, as other things increasingly will become more important.


Because at that time,
- trains were the only economic way to transport heavy goods. Today we
have trucks for that, and trains remain used only where massive flows of
traffic exist.
- trains were also the only possible wat to transport people at decent speed.
Today we also have cars, planes, and trains remain only used where
massive flows of traffic exist.
- Train infrastructure was much lighter (remember conditions in which many
american lines were built!) and therefore much faster to build than today

Don't forget also that the automobile parc in China is expanding exponentially,
which means that soon China will have to concentrate on its road network
rather than on its rail network like it (rightfully) does today. They probably
know that, and this is even probably why they put so much emphasis now on
building their rail network, while it is still possible to do it. But it won't last
long...

Now, whether the whole world will be able to survive when each chinese
household will own its own automobile is entirely another topic...


----------



## UD2 (Jan 21, 2006)

MarcVD said:


> Because at that time,
> - trains were the only economic way to transport heavy goods. Today we
> have trucks for that, and trains remain used only where massive flows of
> traffic exist.
> ...


China's pace of road/expressway building in recent years rivals that of the 1950s Interstate Highway boom in the US. 

But you're right, can't keep up with this pace of infrastructure expansion forever. It'll slow down at one point.

Car ownership in China will never be universal as the country's public transportation infrastructure is simply too effecient to produce the economics that will alow a one car/household staus quo. It currently already is cheaper to take taxis as a primary mode of travel in major Chinese cities than owning a car.


----------



## chornedsnorkack (Mar 13, 2009)

MarcVD said:


> On rail gauge changes, you are wrong. Rail gauge changes are a big problem,
> actuallly. Not for passenger traffic, for this you have indeed Talgo-like trains
> that allow to go through the gauge change in 15 minutes. For freight it is
> very different. I won't go into the technical details ;


A simple reason: a variable gauge axle is an extra item of weight, complexity and cost at each car. Passenger trains mean relatively small number of rolling stock; freight cars are usually more numerous.


MarcVD said:


> it is enough to mention
> that because of the gauge change at the french-spanish border, the freight
> international trafic through this border is almost exclusively carried on road.
> Freight rail traffic over there is minimal, just a few trains per day. Much less
> than any other border in Europe.


Even the other gauge change borders?


> To make it profitable, you need
> people who use it for trips that use part of the line only. The problem is,
> you only have people concentration at both extremities, and almost
> nobody living in the middle. Say you take the north path proposed.
> ...


Look at the north route - Transsiberian.
A typical train, like 002M Moscow-Vladivostok, begins Moscow-Nizhny Novgorod (461 km, 6 h - and that is the 2nd route of Sapsan.). Which is roughly as long as Zhengzhou-Xian (which the Chinese cover in 2 hours). Comparing the speeds on Wuguang railway, 1:30 Moscow to Nizhny Novgorod should be realistic, and in lots of demand. Then going on to Kirov, Perm, Yekaterinburg at 1778 km - all major cities. West Siberia is fairly populous, too. Krasnoyarsk is 4065 km from Moscow, and now reached in 2 days 11 from Moscow. So Moscow-Krasnoyarsk is not much longer than Beijing-Urumqi.

Half of the HSL that China IS building IS in desert. 1800 km Lanzhou-Urumqi line goes through much worse landscape than most of Transsiberian - and Chinese are building this line anyway.


> Spain decided
> for 1.435 rail gauge for its high-speed network, even if its historic gauge is
> 1.676. If a HSL is blocked, they have no alternative.


But they DO have gauge changing trains, which travel part way on narrow gauge, and continue to the wide gauge branch lines.


> You might also want to note that, as far as I know, dual gauge high-speed
> trains do not exist yet, so you certainly may not say that they can change
> gauge in 15 minutes.


AFAIK they do, in Spain.


----------



## K_ (Jan 5, 2010)

MarcVD said:


> Because at that time,
> - trains were the only economic way to transport heavy goods. Today we
> have trucks for that, and trains remain used only where massive flows of
> traffic exist.


That's not entirely true. At that time there were even people saying that trains would never be able to compete with waterways. 

However, my point is really that the reason for the high speed of construction in China is similar to the reason for the high speed of construction in Europe in the 19th century. It's just a lot easier to make big advances when you're starting from basically nothing. China is 19th century Europe, but with more advanced technology.


----------



## K_ (Jan 5, 2010)

MarcVD said:


> On rail gauge changes, you are wrong. Rail gauge changes are a big problem,
> actuallly. Not for passenger traffic, for this you have indeed Talgo-like trains
> that allow to go through the gauge change in 15 minutes. For freight it is
> very different. I won't go into the technical details ; it is enough to mention
> ...


I wonder how much of that is due to it being as border between France and Spain, and how much of it is due to it being a break of gauge...


----------



## K_ (Jan 5, 2010)

MarcVD said:


> Now, whether the whole world will be able to survive when each chinese
> household will own its own automobile is entirely another topic...


It will probably be an electric car, so I don't really worry about that much...


----------



## K_ (Jan 5, 2010)

chornedsnorkack said:


> AFAIK they do, in Spain.


Indeed. The Talgo 250 has variable gauge axles. I suppose a variable gauge version of the Talgo 350 could be build if someone wanted one...


----------



## yommy (Feb 23, 2010)

I think the idea is that china wants to build new rails for the HSR line, which means gauge breaks would not be needed in the 1st place.


----------



## chornedsnorkack (Mar 13, 2009)

yommy said:


> I think the idea is that china wants to build new rails for the HSR line, which means gauge breaks would not be needed in the 1st place.


Yes, but Russia is developing their Sapsan, on 1520 mm gauge.


----------



## MarcVD (Dec 1, 2008)

K_ said:


> Indeed. The Talgo 250 has variable gauge axles. I suppose a variable gauge version of the Talgo 350 could be build if someone wanted one...


250 km/h max... Not high speed in my book, certainly not for such distances.


----------



## MarcVD (Dec 1, 2008)

May be this lack of progress is happening because :
- the objective is too ambitious and too far away
- the plan does not offer enough immediate benefits
- the plan involves countries that have no desire to open their borders

Instead of aiming at a "trans asian network", it should focus on more immediately reachable objectives like, for example, a continuous rail link
between Europe and India with no or an absolute minimum of gauge changes.
Same for Europe-China. Seeing the rail network as it is in Asia now, those
objectives look like low-hanging fruits, easily reachable with minimal efforts.
If they are achieved and prove to be successful, the crowd will want to join
and the "trans asian network" will finally come into existence. But asking,
from the start, to join Europe with Singapore, with the need tu create
thousands of missing kilometers of tracks through hostile countries or
closed borders, is the best way for stillstand and failure.


----------



## Heusdens (Jun 26, 2006)

*China Wants to Connect its High-Speed Rail to Europe (Largest Infrastructure Project in History)*

Source: http://cleantechnica.com/2010/03/13/china-wants-to-connect-its-high-speed-rail-to-europe-largest-infrastructure-project-in-history/










China is clearly taking the lead on high-speed rail, but it is not satisfied just to have it within its own country. It wants a straight connection to Europe on high-speed rail now.

It might seem like a pipe dream if it weren’t for the fact that China is already about halfway through the construction of the largest high-speed rail (HSR) network in the world with the fastest trains in the world.

With its internal projects getting closer to completion, China’s new goal is to continue on with a HSR revolution internationally in order to create two-day HSR trip times between Beijing and London (which itself might get some pretty fast trains soon)!

But it is about much more than a rail connection or two to Europe.


The news of China’s plans were announced in the South China Morning Post this week. The international network is supposed to include a total of 17 countries.

As mapped, this is likely to be the largest infrastructure project in history.

It would also extend south to Singapore and northeast into Mongolia and Russia.

Its main connection to Europe would likely go through India, Pakistan and the Middle East. Although, exact routes are not yet determined.










*Plans Moving Forward*

Reportedly, negotiations with the relevant 17 countries are already underway.

China would like to fund the whole project itself in exchange for natural resources it lacks. One of the senior consultants working on the project, Wang Mengshu, said, “We would actually prefer the other countries to pay in natural resources rather than make their own capital investment.”

Myanmar and Russia already have rail links planned and China is also in communication with Iran, Pakistan and India regarding development of the internal rail lines in each of those countries that would connect to the network.

Additionally, construction for the Southeast Asia link has started and Burma is about to begin building its portion of the link.

The central and eastern European portions of the network are moving forward as well. “We have also already carried out the prospecting and survey work for the European network, and central and eastern European countries are keen for us to start,” Wang said.

China wants to complete this network in 10 years.

*Who Benefits?*

Clearly, China is intent on this for its own benefit. In exchange for developing the system, it could acquire tons of much needed natural resources from other countries, as stated above. However, perhaps more importantly, creating such a network would probably solidify China’s central role in the Asian economy and perhaps even the world economy.

Nonetheless, China says that other countries approached it for help and that is how the idea got started. “It was not China that pushed the idea to start with,” said Wang. “It was the other countries that came to us, especially India. These countries cannot fully implement the construction of a high-speed rail network and they hoped to draw on our experience and technology.”

So, presumably, all the countries connected to the network would benefit from better transportation options and increased mobility. However, with China at the center of the process, it is likely to be the biggest winner.

The countries perhaps losing out due to the system’s development and investment would be those across the ocean who are more reliant on international air travel.

Is China going to make the US’ HSR network (if it ever gets built) look like a toy train set? Is this huge system ever going to get built? Is it going to get built in 10 years as China hopes?

With transportation being a central factor influencing economies and power since at least as long back as large-scale transportation options were formed, the answers to these questions are going to be intrinsically tied to the balance of power in the world economy and global society.

via the Transport Politic & the Edmonton Journal


----------



## Heusdens (Jun 26, 2006)

*China's rail extension to Europe, Malaysia and India (largest infrastructure project in history)*

Source: http://cleantechnica.com/2010/03/13/china-wants-to-connect-its-high-speed-rail-to-europe-largest-infrastructure-project-in-history/










China is clearly taking the lead on high-speed rail, but it is not satisfied just to have it within its own country. It wants a straight connection to Europe on high-speed rail now.

It might seem like a pipe dream if it weren’t for the fact that China is already about halfway through the construction of the largest high-speed rail (HSR) network in the world with the fastest trains in the world.

With its internal projects getting closer to completion, China’s new goal is to continue on with a HSR revolution internationally in order to create two-day HSR trip times between Beijing and London (which itself might get some pretty fast trains soon)!

But it is about much more than a rail connection or two to Europe.


The news of China’s plans were announced in the South China Morning Post this week. The international network is supposed to include a total of 17 countries.

As mapped, this is likely to be the largest infrastructure project in history.

It would also extend south to Singapore and northeast into Mongolia and Russia.

Its main connection to Europe would likely go through India, Pakistan and the Middle East. Although, exact routes are not yet determined.










*Plans Moving Forward*

Reportedly, negotiations with the relevant 17 countries are already underway.

China would like to fund the whole project itself in exchange for natural resources it lacks. One of the senior consultants working on the project, Wang Mengshu, said, “We would actually prefer the other countries to pay in natural resources rather than make their own capital investment.”

Myanmar and Russia already have rail links planned and China is also in communication with Iran, Pakistan and India regarding development of the internal rail lines in each of those countries that would connect to the network.

Additionally, construction for the Southeast Asia link has started and Burma is about to begin building its portion of the link.

The central and eastern European portions of the network are moving forward as well. “We have also already carried out the prospecting and survey work for the European network, and central and eastern European countries are keen for us to start,” Wang said.

China wants to complete this network in 10 years.

*Who Benefits?*

Clearly, China is intent on this for its own benefit. In exchange for developing the system, it could acquire tons of much needed natural resources from other countries, as stated above. However, perhaps more importantly, creating such a network would probably solidify China’s central role in the Asian economy and perhaps even the world economy.

Nonetheless, China says that other countries approached it for help and that is how the idea got started. “It was not China that pushed the idea to start with,” said Wang. “It was the other countries that came to us, especially India. These countries cannot fully implement the construction of a high-speed rail network and they hoped to draw on our experience and technology.”

So, presumably, all the countries connected to the network would benefit from better transportation options and increased mobility. However, with China at the center of the process, it is likely to be the biggest winner.

The countries perhaps losing out due to the system’s development and investment would be those across the ocean who are more reliant on international air travel.

Is China going to make the US’ HSR network (if it ever gets built) look like a toy train set? Is this huge system ever going to get built? Is it going to get built in 10 years as China hopes?

With transportation being a central factor influencing economies and power since at least as long back as large-scale transportation options were formed, the answers to these questions are going to be intrinsically tied to the balance of power in the world economy and global society.

via the Transport Politic & the Edmonton Journal


----------



## Heusdens (Jun 26, 2006)

*China's high-speed rail may link 17 nations*

Source: http://english.people.com.cn/90001/90776/90882/6916612.html

*By Kang Juan*

Less than two years after China's first high-speed railway went into operation, the country is now planning to extend its rail network beyond its borders, a project that will involve 17 nations, a Ministry of Railways spokesman confirmed to the Global Times Thursday.

The international rail network will boost the exchange of trade and promote China's newly acquired high-speed railway technology, likely the next brand of "Made in China" comparable to world competitors, experts say.

Initial negotiations with some countries are already underway, the spokesman said, without disclosing what progress had been made or details of the routes.

The information was first revealed by Wang Mengshu, a professor at Beijing Jiaotong University and a member of the Chinese Academy of Engineering, who said Sunday that China plans to construct a high-speed railway system that will travel across Asia and Europe by 2025. 

Wang told the Global Times yesterday that China began construction of the domestic part of one route, which will travel across Southeast Asia, several years ago. The line starts in Kunming in Yunnan Province and runs south, as far as Singapore. Negotiations with parties in Myanmar and Singapore have gone smoothly he said.

According to Wang, a second route will start in Urumqi, the capital of the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region, and connect Central Asian countries such as Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan with Germany. A third line will connect the city of Heilongjiang in northern China with Eastern and Southern European countries via Russia.

"Progress on the first route has been faster than the other two," Wang said. "Many problems such as discrepancies in track gauge, line direction and expense allocations are under discussion with the related countries."

Lu Huapu, director of the Communication Research Institute at Tsinghua University, said the project is part of the Pan-Asian railways network, a plan proposed in 2006 that is expected to connect 28 countries with 81,000 kilometers of railways.

"The construction of the network requires a huge coordination effort among countries with big development gaps and must overcome difficulties in terms of discrepancies and technical standards," Lu said.

China will obtain major benefits from the project, which will carry mostly cargo transportation. "The second route will serve as a new "Silk Road" for China's western regions," Wang said. "Industries, businesses and issues of environmental protection are built on growing transport networks."

"It will also be more convenient for us to tap into natural resources, especially oil and gas, in Myanmar, Iran and Russia if the system is completed," Wang said, adding that some parts of the project can be financed by a proposed "resourc-es-for-technology" agreement.

*Technology edge *

China began purchasing high-speed rail technology in 2004 from France, Japan, Can-ada and Germany.

Six years later, China has developed its own high-speed rail systems, which run at over 350 kilometers per hour.

The high-speed rail line between Beijing and Tianjin, which started service in August 2008, was the first such train in China.

The Wuhan-Guangzhou high-speed railway came into use late last year. It runs 990 kilometers between the Central China city and the booming industrial hub in the south, reducing the standard 12-hour-long trip to only three hours.

These are just two of 42 high-speed lines projected for completion in the country by 2012.

"For China, high-speed railways are both necessary and affordable," Lu said. "Its fast development is boosted by the country's domestic demand, stable financing and a sustain-ability-oriented development mode.

"The country's urbanization process offered opportunities for the massive construction of railway networks," he said, adding that a network of high-speed railways would dramatically "shrink" the country.

According to the plan proposed by the railways ministry, the country's total railway coverage will be more than 110,000 kilometers by 2012, with 13,000 kilometers being high-speed railway, forming the world's largest high-speed railway network.

Wang expects that China may spearhead a new global wave of railway development, and with that the ability to grab a big share of international markets with its cutting-edge safe technologies and low construction costs that will compete with the pioneers in the field, Japan and Germany.

"India would be our top target market in the future. And we are currently negotiating with the US, Russia and Poland," Wang said. "High-speed railways will become another brand of Made-in-China."

Japan, which first implemented a high-speed railway in 1964, has expressed concern that it wasted its chance to be a dominant player in the market.

Although Japanese railway technology is "one of the best in the world, it has failed to find its way into overseas markets," said an editorial in Japan's The Asahi Shimbun on February 1.

"The technology was so bent on Japanese standards that it developed in a very insular way. The rail industry has been very inward-looking," it said.

Deng Jingyin and Qiu Wei contributed to this story

Source:Global Times


----------



## Gadiri (Oct 30, 2009)

On moroccan forum by Optimus : High-Speed Railway Networks around The World 



> *China To Connect Its High Speed Rail All The Way To Europe*
> 
> 
> 
> ...



http://inhabitat.com/2010/03/15/chi...-way-to-europe/china-international-hsr-plans/


----------



## foxmulder (Dec 1, 2007)

http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=1086935


----------



## chornedsnorkack (Mar 13, 2009)

*More comments*

A recent article on the network:
http://www.btimes.com.my/articles/20100915142711/Article/


----------



## HyperMiler (Apr 18, 2010)

chornedsnorkack said:


> A recent article on the network:
> http://www.btimes.com.my/articles/20100915142711/Article/


That doesn't change anything, it's not going to happen. Why?

How does this benefit other countries through which China is trying to lay its HSR track through? And China is demanding payment in terms of natural resources, instead of THEM paying the other countries for the right to lay the HSR track that they alone would benefit from, as past imperial powers like Britain and Japan did in Asia in the past. 

Railway has been historically used as the tool of imperialism(Britain and Japan) in Asia in the past, and this is still valid with new emerging imperialist like China in 2010. How would other countries that China's targeting respond? You have two specific examples. Vietnam chose Japan's HSR construction package even though Chinese bid was half-priced. Mongolia is laying its new coal rail in Russian gauge to specifically exclude the possibility of it being connected to China. Would India, China's primary security adversary, connect its railway with China's? Of course not. 

There is more to railway than a simple mean of transportation. Chinese failure to understand these political implications ensures that this project would not materialize.


----------



## WatcherZero (Jul 2, 2009)

Indeed, and to piss of India even more incident at the rail line under construction between Pakistan and China through Pakistan controlled Kashmir, The Pakistan troops guarding the provice were withdrawn to assist with the flood relief so they had China put 10,000 soldiers into the province to guard it while they were away. China getting involved in the kashmir dispute on one side doesnt bode well for the future.


----------



## K_ (Jan 5, 2010)

HyperMiler said:


> For passenger transportation, nothing beats jumbo jet especially for such a long journey.


Except for the fact that we still don't have a way to operate a jumbojet on nuclear power, and oil will eventually become to valuable a commodity to use for burning in engines...


----------



## foxmulder (Dec 1, 2007)

WatcherZero said:


> Indeed, and to piss of India even more incident at the rail line under construction between Pakistan and China through Pakistan controlled Kashmir, The Pakistan troops guarding the provice were withdrawn to assist with the flood relief so they had China put 10,000 soldiers into the province to guard it while they were away. China getting involved in the kashmir dispute on one side doesnt bode well for the future.


So you are saying there 10,000 Chinese soldiers in Pakistan.??? Source, please, and an official one.


----------



## Master of Disguise (Aug 1, 2010)

WatcherZero said:


> Indeed, and to piss of India even more incident at the rail line under construction between Pakistan and China through Pakistan controlled Kashmir, The Pakistan troops guarding the provice were withdrawn to assist with the flood relief so they had China put 10,000 soldiers into the province to guard it while they were away. China getting involved in the kashmir dispute on one side doesnt bode well for the future.


Chinese will be in for a fix if true..I hope they are not under estimating the MIGHT of Indian Armed forces...They are playing too much by not allowing Indian force chief on their land..There soldiers entering India without permission ....and disputing Arunachal Pradesh ..not a good going...


----------



## HyperMiler (Apr 18, 2010)

WatcherZero said:


> China getting involved in the kashmir dispute on one side doesnt bode well for the future.


So China's Orient Express will not be connected to following countries because their refusal.

- India
- Mongolia
- Vietnam

The only viable route that I can see is Tibet->Kazakhstan->Russia->Europe.


----------



## chornedsnorkack (Mar 13, 2009)

HyperMiler said:


> The only viable route that I can see is Tibet->Kazakhstan->Russia->Europe.


Why Tibet? Tibet has no border with Kazakhstan. Xinjiang does have such a border.


----------



## Luli Pop (Jun 14, 2010)

We should close this thread inmediatly!

otherwise Hyperliller is going to do hara-kiri...


----------



## Ultramatic (Jul 6, 2009)

*Never going to happen. *


----------



## Atmosphere (Mar 15, 2009)

Ultramatic said:


> *Never going to happen. *


*Why not? *

Can you explain? Because just saying never going to happen doesn't say much.

The articles says: "It might seem like a pipe dream if it weren’t for the fact that China is already about halfway through the construction of the largest high-speed rail (HSR) network in the world with the fastest trains in the world."
I think China can get very far with such a plan. It's an ambitious plan and so is China these days. Of course it will take a long time but it's not impossible.


----------



## binhai (Dec 22, 2006)

Master of Disguise said:


> Chinese will be in for a fix if true..I hope they are not under estimating the MIGHT of Indian Armed forces...They are playing too much by not allowing Indian force chief on their land..There soldiers entering India without permission ....and disputing Arunachal Pradesh ..not a good going...


lol, India can't even deal with insurgencies (Maoist, Naxalite, etc) in the eastern 1/3rd of the country, can't stop terrorists from killing people in Mumbai, can't beat Pakistan in Kashmir, already lost a war with China when China's military was much weaker, and you think they are even close to the strength of China? Keep your off-topic trolling elsewhere


----------



## thun (Aug 8, 2007)

+1


----------



## binhai (Dec 22, 2006)

chornedsnorkack said:


> A recent article on the network:
> http://www.btimes.com.my/articles/20100915142711/Article/


That's actually not about this plan, it's about the Pan-Asian Railway Network which is really just a pipe dream. China's plan is passenger HSR across Asia, completely different than this


----------



## binhai (Dec 22, 2006)

old news


----------



## HyperMiler (Apr 18, 2010)

Atmosphere said:


> *Why not? *
> 
> Can you explain? Because just saying never going to happen doesn't say much.


China has ill relationships with all its neighbors, and there is no country in Asia that China could call an ally, save for the single exception of Pakistan.

China's neighbors look at any offer from China with suspicion as having an ulterior motive. HSR construction like this would mean a mass migration of Chinese laborers(Chinese never use local labor to do any of civil projects they work on in foreign lands; they always bring in Chinese labor thus there is no job creation benefits of a China funded HSR for the locals), new formation of Chinatowns, and the eventual ethnic Chinese control of local economy that China's neighbors do not want to see this in their lands.


----------



## HyperMiler (Apr 18, 2010)

BarbaricManchurian said:


> and you think they are even close to the strength of China?


I have a strong respect for India's fighter pilots. They were the ones who dealt USAF F-15C pilots a defeat back in Red Flag 2004. USAF's critics claimed that the USAF lost the combat simulation on purpose to show how useless F-15C became and why they needed more F-22s, but I don't believe in that theory as this involves USAF pilot's pride.

I have heard of only two instances of USAF losing to a foreign fighter corp in a large scale air combat simulation; to Indians flying Su-30MKI in 2004 and to Spanish Eurofighter Typhoons earlier this year.(But Typhoon is a much better plane than F-15C is).

So PLA Airforce fighters are looking at a blood bath if they were to engage Indians over Kashmir now.


----------



## hkhui (Feb 28, 2010)

HyperMiler said:


> China has ill relationships with all its neighbors, and there is no country in Asia that China could call an ally, save for the single exception of Pakistan.
> 
> China's neighbors look at any offer from China with suspicion as having an ulterior motive. HSR construction like this would mean a mass migration of Chinese laborers(Chinese never use local labor to do any of civil projects they work on in foreign lands; they always bring in Chinese labor thus there is no job creation benefits of a China funded HSR for the locals), new formation of Chinatowns, and the eventual ethnic Chinese control of local economy that China's neighbors do not want to see this in their lands.


HyperMiler, why do you hate China so much? You always come with false/distorted/imprecise information. You really exaggerate and everything is a goddamn crisis or a conspiracy by the Chinese.

You are lying.


----------



## HyperMiler (Apr 18, 2010)

hkhui said:


> HyperMiler, why do you hate China so much?


I don't hate China.



> You always come with false/distorted/imprecise information.


http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704388504575418990791137242.html



> Hostility Toward Workers Cools Angola-China Relationship
> 
> Human-rights activists say Chinese workers and companies have been singled out for physical attacks. Meanwhile, staff and facilities have been targeted by antigovernment forces.
> 
> *A central issue is growing resentment that companies are importing their own Chinese workers rather than employing Angolans to rebuild the country* after its 27-year civil war.


http://www.bahamasb2b.com/news/2010/08/the-pitter-patter-of-16000-chinese-feet-1247.html



> “Foreign construction workers building hotels, roads, docks, industrial plants and even private homes is not alien to our economy – just look around you. Chinese construction workers are not a bad idea in and of themselves but between 5,000 and 7,000? *This does seem to be the wrong ratio – one Bahamian job for each three Chinese workers?*


----------



## urbanfan89 (May 30, 2007)

At least we're sure that HyperMiler's train of bullshiat and conspiracy theories has arrived on time and on budget! :banana:


----------



## Luli Pop (Jun 14, 2010)

The Euro-Asian HSR came sooner than we thought!

it's a new generation of HSR: the HM-HSR-BS!

HyperMiller High Speed Railway of Bull Shit.

I like HM anyways, if he uses a half of the energy he spends hating China, to develop his own HSR technology, he would have done a 700km/h fusion powered bullet train by now!


----------



## Marathaman (Jul 24, 2007)

^Yeah, I doubt anything of that sort is going to happen in the near future, although internet generals will enjoy speculating over it. Though I do see Pakistan becoming a defacto province of China over the next couple of decades.


----------



## mgk920 (Apr 21, 2007)

How would the cost of this new-ROW proposal compare with that of regauging Russia's railroads from 1520 to 1435 mm?

Mike


----------



## HyperMiler (Apr 18, 2010)

mgk920 said:


> How would the cost of this new-ROW proposal compare with that of regauging Russia's railroads from 1520 to 1435 mm?
> 
> Mike


Russian railway would not be regauged; rather variable gauge train models would be introduced.


----------



## maldini (Jul 5, 2003)

HyperMiler said:


> China has ill relationships with all its neighbors, and there is no country in Asia that China could call an ally, save for the single exception of Pakistan.
> 
> China's neighbors look at any offer from China with suspicion as having an ulterior motive. HSR construction like this would mean a mass migration of Chinese laborers(Chinese never use local labor to do any of civil projects they work on in foreign lands; they always bring in Chinese labor thus there is no job creation benefits of a China funded HSR for the locals), new formation of Chinatowns, and the eventual ethnic Chinese control of local economy that China's neighbors do not want to see this in their lands.


Just look at your own country, which has no real friends at all. Maybe Korea was suppressed by the Japanese for too long, that is why you people have such an insecure and inferiority complex. With most culture copied from China and then Japan, and then controlled the US, now Korea is merely a pawn used by the US.

In any case, the European railway will not use any of Korea's HSR which was copied from the French anyway. So intellectual property rights is an issue with Korean HSR. The Korean HSR system is so small compared with China's and Japan's. From both technical point and operational experience point of view, Korea HSR will not win any contracts over the Chinese and the Japanese.


----------



## Master of Disguise (Aug 1, 2010)

BarbaricManchurian said:


> lol, India can't even deal with insurgencies (Maoist, Naxalite, etc) in the eastern 1/3rd of the country, can't stop terrorists from killing people in Mumbai, can't beat Pakistan in Kashmir, already lost a war with China when China's military was much weaker, and you think they are even close to the strength of China? Keep your off-topic trolling elsewhere


Keep living in your world...kid


----------



## hkhui (Feb 28, 2010)

HyperMiler, suddenly you changed your view from "only use Chinese workers" to "using native and Chinese workers". How convenient. 

If you want an unbiased analysis on the China's involvement in Africa, you should read "The Dragon's gift" by Deborah Brautigam. Forget WSJ and most Western newspapers - they do not represent a neutral source. They are notoriously known to be anti-China. A better newspaper would be Financial Times in my opinion. In the end, Brautigam's book is really the best academically on the China-Africa subject.


----------



## Koen Acacia (Apr 17, 2007)

hkhui said:


> HyperMiler, why do you hate China so much? You always come with false/distorted/imprecise information. You really exaggerate and everything is a goddamn crisis or a conspiracy by the Chinese.


Cute pictures, but if even Vietnam, right next door from China, prefers Japanese HSR technology over the much cheaper Chinese bid, then I'm having a hard time seeing this project making it all the way to Ankara.
It's a cool plan, I just don't find it very realistic.


----------



## greenlion (Jul 30, 2010)

Koen Acacia said:


> Cute pictures, but if even Vietnam, right next door from China, prefers Japanese HSR technology over the much cheaper Chinese bid, then I'm having a hard time seeing this project making it all the way to Ankara.
> It's a cool plan, I just don't find it very realistic.


Vietnam reject Chinese bid because of politics reason, China had just win the bid in Argentina,Saudi Arabia,Thailand & Iran


----------



## Koen Acacia (Apr 17, 2007)

greenlion said:


> *Vietnam reject Chinese bid because of politics reason*, China had just win the bid in Brazil, Argentina,Saudi Arabia,Thailand & Iran


That's precisely what I was saying.


----------



## MarcVD (Dec 1, 2008)

I will start to believe in this project when I will see maps of planned railway
lines and treaties signed by all countries involved in the project. Personally,
I do not think that it will happen anytime soon.

First of all because it is totally unrealistic : even if it is hard to recognize by
a trainbuff like me, there are other means of transportation available on this
planet, and every one of them has its own niche of profitability. Distances
like those involved in a China to Europe trip are clearly out of the high
speed rail role, which aims at journeys that can be completed in one day
maximum. We are not even able in Europe to run night trains profitably,
using already depreciated infrastructure and rolling stock ! Who in his right
mind will embark in a several days journey in a train, when it can be done
easily with a few hours in a plane ? There are simply not enough potential
customers to recover the costs of such an investment.

And then because it is politically unrealistic too : China is surrounded by
countries with which it has less-than-friendly relationships, and those will
certainly not embark into a project that China is promoting. Plus the fact
that this fixed infrastructure would have to cross the part of the world that
is the most troubled today, with risks of bombing, sabotage... It is already
considered today as not safe enough for transporting goods at low speed,
so I don't believe that passenger HST is a possibility.

And finally there are economic reasons that will prevent that from happening
too, the most important being that China needs all the cash and resources it
has to develop its own territory, and certainly cannot afford to pay for an
infrastructure that will not immediately benefit to its own economy.

So in my opinion this is pure propaganda and media shaking, but in reality
it is not going to happen.


----------



## Slagathor (Jul 29, 2007)

It'll be realistic a few decades from now when oil becomes so expensive flying will once again be a pastime for the rich. But right now, it's hard to see it come to pass.


----------



## binhai (Dec 22, 2006)

Well how about dealing with the myriad threats that I mentioned before even dreaming about taking on China?


----------



## Restless (Oct 31, 2009)

Jeez...

How did we end up with Indian trolls extolling their military might, in a thread which is supposed to talk about a railway line that wouldn't pass through India anyway???


----------



## Marathaman (Jul 24, 2007)

^The Chinese trolls attracted them.


----------



## HyperMiler (Apr 18, 2010)

greenlion said:


> Vietnam reject Chinese bid because of politics reason


India and Mongolia are guaranteed to also reject based on same reasoning. 

China has only one passage to Europe; the one that runs through Kazakhstan. Or China can detour and go to Russia's far east to be connected to Russia's Trans-Siberia railway.



> China had just win the bid in Argentina


Because China's financing it and China isn't Argentina's security threat and the conventional railway is being upgraded with Chinese loans.



> Saudi Arabia


Railway ground work only. Chinese did not bid on track laying, rolling stocks, and signaling.



> Thailand


On 100% credit.



> Iran


China is the only defender of Iran.


----------



## Gadiri (Oct 30, 2009)

MarcVD said:


> *I will start to believe in this project when I will see maps of planned railway
> lines *and treaties signed by all countries involved in the project. Personally,
> I do not think that it will happen anytime soon..


Trans-Asian Railway Network 

That's a begining



> On moroccan forum by Optimus : High-Speed Railway Networks around The World
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Heusdens (Jun 26, 2006)

The good thing of this project is that it enabled to get rid of intra-continental flights. I think we should get rid of airliners for intra-continental flights as soon as we can, since the amount of energy needed to fly is terrible high. Only inter-continental travel should use airliners.


----------



## chornedsnorkack (Mar 13, 2009)

HyperMiler said:


> That doesn't change anything, it's not going to happen. Why?
> 
> How does this benefit other countries through which China is trying to lay its HSR track through?


For example, Russia is not an enemy of imperialistic China, Russia is an ally of China. Russia is not too worried about the activity of China in outer Manchuria, and wants China to build 900 km HSR between Haishenwei and Boli. Russia is also developing their own HSR, Sapsan already runs between St. Petersburg, Moscow and Nižni Novgorod and Russia wants to extend it to Jekaterinburg. If China wants to build high-speed Transsiberian and cut the trip time from the present 7 days to less than 2, Russia would agree.


----------



## HyperMiler (Apr 18, 2010)

chornedsnorkack said:


> For example, Russia is not an enemy of imperialistic China, Russia is an ally of China.


A friend that tried to nuke China in the 70s? Some friend you got there.



> Russia is not too worried about the activity of China in outer Manchuria


Russia is very much worried about Chinese migration into Russian Far East and this is a big concern in Russia.

So if Chinese think Russia is an ally, they are mistaken.


----------



## Scion (Apr 26, 2008)

^^ That was 40 years ago. There was a country A that DID nuked country B and yet they became friends less than 20 years after.


----------



## chornedsnorkack (Mar 13, 2009)

HyperMiler said:


> Russia is very much worried about Chinese migration into Russian Far East and this is a big concern in Russia.


But not big enough for Russia to refuse cooperation on high-speed rail:
http://www.whoiswhopublishing.com/en/t11/375.html


----------



## Huhu (Jun 5, 2004)

The rail networks will be connected regardless of political issues or whether China is the one to "build" them.


HyperMiler said:


> China is the only defender of Iran.


Lol?


----------



## makita09 (Sep 8, 2009)

MarcVD said:


> First of all because it is totally unrealistic : even if it is hard to recognize by
> a trainbuff like me, there are other means of transportation available on this
> planet, and every one of them has its own niche of profitability. Distances
> like those involved in a China to Europe trip are clearly out of the high
> ...


Your entire post seems to assume that if such a link is built the only journey available would be China all the way to Europe. I wonder what proportion of Japanese rail travellers take the entire length of the Sanyo and Tokaido Shinkansens from Tokyo to Hakata? Not many, therefore don't build the Sanyo and Tokaido Shinkansens? Hmm.


----------



## Alexriga (Nov 25, 2007)

This projects have no economical background, it will never repay but if they build it - super, I want to try it!

Only Chine-Kazakhstan-Russia-Europe seems a bit realistic for me, the line through middle east doesn't seem safe enough, I wouldn't take it


----------



## Slagathor (Jul 29, 2007)

^^ Yeah me neither. "Next stop: Teheran." I don't think so


----------



## Guest (Sep 21, 2010)

Alexriga said:


> This projects have no economical background, it will never repay but if they build it - super, I want to try it!
> 
> Only Chine-Kazakhstan-Russia-Europe seems a bit realistic for me, the line through middle east doesn't seem safe enough, I wouldn't take it


Actually, the economic potential is massive. Not only Kazakhstan is a pretty dynamic economy, but this HSR would cater mostly to freight transportation. Shipping goods to Europe, a massive consumer of Chinese produce within 2 days at a bargain cost is surely what China hopes for, as opposed to over a week on current railways or by ships. The corridor along the line will likely generate economic activities itself due to excellent accessibility. Some more budget travelers and backpackers are very likely to use it as well, me included :cheers:

Its cool it will take so 'long'. that's the only thing I hated about Shinkansen in Japan - before you really get at home in these large, comfy seats, you have already reached your destination :lol:

BTW, today Malaysia announced return to the study on HSR from Singapore to KL to Penang, which is very close to Padang Besar and future Thai HSR. :yes:


----------



## Alexriga (Nov 25, 2007)

Slagathor said:


> ^^ Yeah me neither. "Next stop: Teheran." I don't think so


Iran is more nice place btw, I meant other countries.


----------



## kubachrick (Jun 23, 2010)

Alexriga said:


> Iran is more nice place btw, I meant other countries.


Iran is a damn shit


----------



## Atmosphere (Mar 15, 2009)

kubachrick said:


> Iran is a damn shit


Well I have friends that went on vacation there and they say it's a very nice country. There are some problems lately but overal it's one of the more stable country's in that region.


----------



## HyperMiler (Apr 18, 2010)

Simon91 said:


> but this HSR would cater mostly to freight transportation.


HSR tracks are unsuitable for freight transportation. 

HSR track : Designed for light axle load, but need to be as straight as possible.
Freight track : Designed for heavy axle load, but need not be straight. 

Combining heavy axle load and a straight path can be too expensive.



> Shipping goods to Europe, a massive consumer of Chinese produce within 2 days at a bargain cost is surely what China hopes for


Freight trains do not run at 200 mph; they run at 50 mph.


----------



## Alexriga (Nov 25, 2007)

kubachrick said:


> Iran is a damn shit


You are useless zombie. People I met who were there said Iran is amazing so can you read people travel blogs. It is one of least religious countries comparing to Saudi Arabia and it's neighbors, Iranians are indo-eiropeans, some people who visited it claimed it is more western than Turkey.

Now go eat some fries and crisps and watch CNN propaganda.


----------



## Guest (Sep 23, 2010)

@HyperMiler, I read on wikipedia that China does operate 250km/h freight trains, but I couldn't access the source (Financial Times archives, just for registered members), so I can't confirm it. Maybe any China SSC member could say whether its true? 

I'm not an engineer, but my understanding is that HSR could be adequate for transport of consumer goods, that are far lighter than for instance iron ore or coal. After all, TGV does operate a postal service and paper isn't very light either in large quantities.


----------



## greenlion (Jul 30, 2010)

Simon91 said:


> @HyperMiler, I read on wikipedia that China does operate 250km/h freight trains, but I couldn't access the source (Financial Times archives, just for registered members), so I can't confirm it. Maybe any China SSC member could say whether its true?
> 
> I'm not an engineer, but my understanding is that HSR could be adequate for transport of consumer goods, that are far lighter than for instance iron ore or coal. After all, TGV does operate a postal service and paper isn't very light either in large quantities.


Chinese high speed freight locomotives - the HXD series are designed for service at top speed of 120km/h


----------



## thun (Aug 8, 2007)

^^
And where does the electricity usually come from? Not to speak about the environmental impact the construction itself has.

Finally the question is, whether Laotians do actually need a highspeed line to Thailand or China.


----------



## Stainless (Jun 7, 2009)

thun said:


> ^^
> And where does the electricity usually come from?


Hydro probably. Laos has huge hydro potential and is already 97% powered by hydro while also exporting a large amount of it. China has been investing heavily in this as you would expect.


----------



## foxmulder (Dec 1, 2007)

thun said:


> ^^
> And where does the electricity usually come from? Not to speak about the environmental impact the construction itself has.
> 
> Finally the question is, whether Laotians do actually need a highspeed line to Thailand or China.


Ohh please, traveling with an electric powered train is the most environmental friendly solution for transport.


----------



## thun (Aug 8, 2007)

Yes. But its not totally pollution free as he apparently thinks it is.


----------



## Slartibartfas (Aug 15, 2006)

High Speed rail actually is not that much better than the car in terms of energy consumption, but then its faster of course. At such huge distances like Europe-China HSR simply doesn't make sense though. 

Freight rail however does! It would be a sensible choice in between ship and freight plane. Things that should be delivered faster than by ship but way cheaper than by plane.


----------



## MarcVD (Dec 1, 2008)

greenlion said:


> I found this news which was published by 2004 about China-Kazakhstan railway
> 
> http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/english/doc/2004-03/18/content_315973.htm


2004, mmhhh ? Mot much seems to have happened since... let's look at
that proposal in more detail.

First of all, we are speaking about a freight-oriented line here, not HSR. That
makes the proposal entirely different, and possibly viable, if security and 
border transit problems are solved.

Then, the article says, about 3000 km of rail line to be built. From the existing
border point Alashankou/Druzhba, no doubt. But to where ? All other 
countries that share a border with Kazakhstan also use the russian gauge.
There are talks about a new north-south line through Turkmenistan, that
would connect to the Iranian network at Gorgan, would that line use the
1.435 gauge too ?

And if this to materialize, I doubt very much that the single track dedicated
to the long-distance trafic in the Marmaray tunnel will be able to carry all
that trafic.


----------



## chornedsnorkack (Mar 13, 2009)

MarcVD said:


> 2004, mmhhh ? Mot much seems to have happened since...


Something seems to:
http://www.china-mor.gov.cn/detail.jsp?MSG_ID=20605


MarcVD said:


> Then, the article says, about 3000 km of rail line to be built. From the existing
> border point Alashankou/Druzhba, no doubt.


There is a doubt, actually. China and Kazakhstan are actually building a second railway crossing, Urumqi-Yining-Korgas-Zhetigen-Almaty. The Chinese part is completed, open for traffic and electrified. How is the Kazakh part doing? And which shall be the preferred transit route?


----------



## MarcVD (Dec 1, 2008)

chornedsnorkack said:


> There is a doubt, actually. China and Kazakhstan are actually building a second railway crossing, Urumqi-Yining-Korgas-Zhetigen-Almaty. The Chinese part is completed, open for traffic and electrified. How is the Kazakh part doing? And which shall be the preferred transit route?


I was not aware of that. Is there already something visible, for example on
Google Earth ?


----------



## hakz2007 (Jul 1, 2007)

*Trans-Asian Railway Planned*


> BANGKOK, Thailand (dpa) — Plans to link mainland Asia by railway have been around for decades. In 1960, the United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Asia Pacific (ESCAP) initiated the Trans-Asian Railway project to establish a 114,000-kilometer rail network between Asia and Europe.
> 
> The project was derailed by wars in Indochina, the Cultural Revolution in China, and a lack of finance for Asian mega-projects. The scheme was given a new shot in the arm, on paper anyway, in 2006 when 22 Asian governments signed a deal to cooperate on the rail link. That agreement finally went into effect in June last year after China ratified it.
> 
> ...


http://www.mb.com.ph/articles/278806/transasian-railway-planned


----------



## manrush (May 8, 2008)

If money and national pride were not issues, then perhaps Japan could be linked to mainland Asia by way of Sakhalin.


----------



## mgk920 (Apr 21, 2007)

manrush said:


> If money and national pride were not issues, then perhaps Japan could be linked to mainland Asia by way of Sakhalin.


Also breaks of standards. Seikan Tunnel uses narrow gauge (being upgraded to dual narrow/standard to allow Shinkansen trains to use the tunnel), The mainland uses Russian broad gauge and Sakhalin uses narrow gauge (to be regauged to Russian broad gauge).

Mike


----------



## Awesome.e (Aug 16, 2009)

Beijing to London is CRAZY! how long is travel time? no ways!


----------



## Suburbanist (Dec 25, 2009)

Heusdens said:


> The good thing of this project is that it enabled to get rid of intra-continental flights. I think we should get rid of airliners for intra-continental flights as soon as we can, since the amount of energy needed to fly is terrible high. Only inter-continental travel should use airliners.


Geez, what a wackist and exaggerated post. Airlines will keep being the most efficient way to travel 2000km+ for the time being, even in Europe, as they move 3 times faster than the top-speed commercial (not a test prototype) HS train.

Moreover, it's free market: even if it uses a lot of energy, there are many people in the World who can afford to fly.


----------



## chornedsnorkack (Mar 13, 2009)

Suburbanist said:


> Geez, what a wackist and exaggerated post. Airlines will keep being the most efficient way to travel 2000km+ for the time being, even in Europe, as they move 3 times faster than the top-speed commercial (not a test prototype) HS train.
> 
> Moreover, it's free market: even if it uses a lot of energy, there are many people in the World who can afford to fly.


We´ll see in 2012. Beijing-Guangzhou is 2200+ km. Considering that Guangzhou-Wuhan (968 km) takes over 3 hours on commercial HSR, Guangzhou-Beijing will be close to 8 hours. Airplanes take about 2 and a half hours. Let´s see how the ticket prices will compare, and how the sales do.


----------



## Suburbanist (Dec 25, 2009)

chornedsnorkack said:


> We´ll see in 2012. Beijing-Guangzhou is 2200+ km. Considering that Guangzhou-Wuhan (968 km) takes over 3 hours on commercial HSR, Guangzhou-Beijing will be close to 8 hours. Airplanes take about 2 and a half hours. Let´s see how the ticket prices will compare, and how the sales do.


Sure, but even there one can't generalize conclusions from Chinese market to other Asian markets, let alone European markets.


----------



## MarcVD (Dec 1, 2008)

Suburbanist said:


> Geez, what a wackist and exaggerated post. Airlines will keep being the most efficient way to travel 2000km+ for the time being, even in Europe, as they move 3 times faster than the top-speed commercial (not a test prototype) HS train.
> 
> Moreover, it's free market: even if it uses a lot of energy, there are many people in the World who can afford to fly.


High speed rail has totally outperformed and eliminated all air traffic for 
journeys that, on rail, take 3 hours or less. Flights on Paris-Brussels,
Paris-Lyon are now a thing of the past.

This is because time spent in airports more or less compensate the time
won by the higher speed of the plane.

If the journey exceeds 3 hours, the plane becomes the speed winner again.
Hence a "modal split" that becomes more and more in favor of the plane when
the distance increases. For journeys longer than a day, trains only survive
for the niche market of people wanting to embark in a "cruise on land", which
is quite a minority compared to those simply wanting to displace themselves
from A to B. This is why night trains are slowly disappearing in all countries
where the economy performs enough to allow people to buy flight tickets.

And if there are ever changes coming in that equation, it won't come from
the train side, as travelling at ground altitude at speeds higher than 350 km/h
becomes totally anti-economic. Remember, at that speed, air resistance
becomes the predominant energy dissipation factor, and it grows like the
third power of speed... The change might come from the plane side if the
price of energy becomes too prohibitive. Then, mankind might have to trade
time for money again.

In China, high speed lines and planes obey the same physics laws as in
Europe. But the country is not ruled by free market, so the government
in place might be tempted to use the taxes lever to maintain a better
competitive position for the rail on longer distances. But even if that happens,
expecting that the HSR network built in China will totally eradicate air traffic
is ludicrious at best.

Realism dictates that for travel, each transportation means has its own
niche of profitability, the factors being distance, population density and
mean population revenue. Outside their niche, they can survive but are
condemned to remain marginal.


----------



## foxmulder (Dec 1, 2007)

MarcVD said:


> High speed rail has totally outperformed and eliminated all air traffic for
> journeys that, on rail, take 3 hours or less. Flights on Paris-Brussels,
> Paris-Lyon are now a thing of the past.
> 
> ...


Well, if you average more than 300km/h, you will cover ~1000km in three hours. You should consider the fact that most domestic flights are shorter than that distance. So, I expect to see domestic flights in China in a big trouble.


----------



## MarcVD (Dec 1, 2008)

foxmulder said:


> Well, if you average more than 300km/h, you will cover ~1000km in three hours. You should consider the fact that most domestic flights are shorter than that distance. So, I expect to see domestic flights in China in a big trouble.


300 km/h average ? This is also fantasy. 200 km/h would be far more realistic.
That makes a 600 km journey, and in a bit country like China, 600 km is not
much. I would say that HSR in China is going to make the life of people who
alreadu use rail much better, make a good dent in the car and bus travel
market, but I bet it will leave most of the air trafic almost untouched.
As I said in another discussion already, the main competitor of HSR is the
private automobile, not the plane.


----------



## Luli Pop (Jun 14, 2010)

US "way of life" #1's fan, Suburbanist, also forgets oil is more and more scarse and expensive and there are more consumers every year.

unless someone discovers how to fly with a litium battery, in a few years will be back to Hindemburg!


----------



## chornedsnorkack (Mar 13, 2009)

MarcVD said:


> 300 km/h average ? This is also fantasy. 200 km/h would be far more realistic.


300 km/h was reality in January. Seriously. The fastest trains, 12 express trains Guangzhou-Wuhan, cover 968 km in 3:16, making 296 km/h. But the last 46 km through Guangzhou are slow - when Guangzhou South was not yet open, the 922 km trip to Guangzhou North took under 3 hours, at over 300 km/h average.


MarcVD said:


> That makes a 600 km journey, and in a bit country like China, 600 km is not
> much.


968 km is a lot. And we are still at 3:16.


MarcVD said:


> I would say that HSR in China is going to make the life of people who
> alreadu use rail much better, make a good dent in the car and bus travel
> market, but I bet it will leave most of the air trafic almost untouched.


It has already stopped air traffic on Xian-Zhengzhou.


MarcVD said:


> As I said in another discussion already, the main competitor of HSR is the
> private automobile, not the plane.


Cars often go to destinations which are too small for HSR stations. Quite simply, driving 1000 km does not compete well against HSR.


----------



## foxmulder (Dec 1, 2007)

MarcVD said:


> 300 km/h average ? This is also fantasy. 200 km/h would be far more realistic.
> That makes a 600 km journey, and in a bit country like China, 600 km is not
> much. I would say that HSR in China is going to make the life of people who
> alreadu use rail much better, make a good dent in the car and bus travel
> ...


chornedsnorkack has already answered 

300km/h average is very *real*.  Read the news :cheers:


----------



## yaohua2000 (Dec 26, 2008)

chornedsnorkack said:


> 968 km is a lot. And we are still at 3:16.


And don't forget 3:16 is not non-stop time.


----------



## K_ (Jan 5, 2010)

chornedsnorkack said:


> Cars often go to destinations which are too small for HSR stations.


But HSTs are not limited to HSR stations. And people taking HSTs can take other trains (and buses) too. In a well thought out system the high speed trains form the backbone. Regional and commuter trains serve as feeders, with the last mile done by bus or taxi. Where this is warranted a high speed train can continue on a conventional line, and serve stations along that line.


----------



## chornedsnorkack (Mar 13, 2009)

K_ said:


> But HSTs are not limited to HSR stations. And people taking HSTs can take other trains (and buses) too. In a well thought out system the high speed trains form the backbone. Regional and commuter trains serve as feeders, with the last mile done by bus or taxi.


Or foot or bicycle. But it is not HSR which is competing against cars for the last mile. Commuter trains and trams are.


----------



## ankhanhhn (Oct 1, 2010)

Very nice articles! They are interesting to me!


----------



## get400 (Mar 26, 2010)

A 100-200km/h electric freight train between China and EU makes perfect sense to save time and money! 

Plus, having electric freight trains instead of 40km/h diesel ships means the transport price wont increase due to the ever-increasing oil price.


----------



## Koen Acacia (Apr 17, 2007)

get400 said:


> Plus, having electric freight trains instead of 40km/h diesel ships means the transport price wont increase due to the ever-increasing oil price.


!!!!!

I never really saw the point of investing so much money in a project like this, but I think I've suddenly seen the light. That's a pretty solid point you've got there.


----------



## K_ (Jan 5, 2010)

get400 said:


> A 100-200km/h electric freight train between China and EU makes perfect sense to save time and money!


Not as long as containerships are so efficient and cheap



> Plus, having electric freight trains instead of 40km/h diesel ships means the transport price wont increase due to the ever-increasing oil price.


You can run ships on nuclear energy.


----------



## Suburbanist (Dec 25, 2009)

^^ You'd not like to give small Central Asia states leverage of the EU-China commerce. It would be hell, much worse then having Ukraine hijacking natural gas EU buys from Russia from time to time.


----------



## chornedsnorkack (Mar 13, 2009)

Suburbanist said:


> ^^ You'd not like to give small Central Asia states leverage of the EU-China commerce. It would be hell, much worse then having Ukraine hijacking natural gas EU buys from Russia from time to time.


Which is precisely why second route needs to be built. Russia can send goods to EU through Ukraine or Belarus as necessary, but between China and EU, the alternatives are Russia north of Caspian or Iran south of Caspian. And Russia already has Transsiberian. Building a new railway from China through Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan and Iran to Turkey would mean that Transsiberian is no longer the only way. Yet these Central Asia states are not getting all that much leverage, because Russia and Transsiberian will still be there.


----------



## HyperMiler (Apr 18, 2010)

get400 said:


> A 100-200km/h electric freight train between China and EU makes perfect sense to save time and money!


Cost of erecting electric overhead power line is far greater than running the train on diesel.


----------



## hkhui (Feb 28, 2010)

HyperMiler said:


> Cost of erecting electric overhead power line is far greater than running the train on diesel.


O rly? Perhaps you can supply us with some calculations.. Of course, this is a long term investment. It will take years before the investment on electric overhead power line proves profitable. But one thing is for certain - fossile fuel are depletable.


----------



## aliesperet (Jul 3, 2010)

HyperMiler said:


> Cost of erecting electric overhead power line is far greater than running the train on diesel.


Ok, but oil will only get more expensive while electricity can be collected by many ways and forever after.


----------



## HyperMiler (Apr 18, 2010)

hkhui said:


> O rly? Perhaps you can supply us with some calculations.. Of course, this is a long term investment.


And it will cost a fortune to maintain the powerline through rugged terrains of some unstable 3rd world countries.



> fossile fuel are depletable.


Diesel can be replaced by biodiesel. There will be substitutes.


----------



## Stainless (Jun 7, 2009)

HyperMiler said:


> Cost of erecting electric overhead power line is far greater than running the train on diesel.


The whole Trans-Siberian has been electrified, and this is in oil-rich Russia.


----------



## MarcVD (Dec 1, 2008)

get400 said:


> A 100-200km/h electric freight train between China and EU makes perfect sense to save time and money!
> 
> Plus, having electric freight trains instead of 40km/h diesel ships means the transport price wont increase due to the ever-increasing oil price.


This of course is a totally different proposal, and much more realistic than 
this hypothetical super-express passenger train that has been debated
earlier in this thread.

There is a lot of freight traffic between Europe and China, and such a line
could also collect the traffic between Europe and India. Most of this traffic
concerns low-value items that can very well accomodate with the long cruise
times of sea transport, but some volume is worth enough for faster transport.
A railway line would be ideal for that.

One might also mention that rushing the high-value cargo by train between
China and Europe will avoid the piracy problems that happen currently along
the sea routes (Malacca and Somalia). It is much more complicated to hijack
a train than a ship... 

Some might argue that there is already the transsiberian for that, but this
line is already jammed to capacity with the russian domestic freight traffic.
And it can't serve India. So why not a second line ?

It would be via Turkey, Iran, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan and Kazakhstan.
This is, by the way, a resurrection of the ancient silk route...
Most of the required infrastructure already exists (although one might suggest
to build this line entirely with the same axle gauge). Alternatives might be
to try going north of the black sea to avoid crossing the Bosphorus, but
it requires the conflicts in the Caucasus region to be settled first.

Electrification might be an option, perhaps not from the beggining. It can
always be undertaken later, if traffic volumes justify it, and in stages, by
beginning with the most loaded or steep parts of the line.

For me, the biggest obstacle would be all the border bureaucratic
procedures that currently exist in the central asian countries. There is
no point in circulating containers on fast flat cars if they take the same
time as shipping lines because they are detained for weeks at the borders...
This is probably the weak point of this entire proposition. Even if an 
agreement is reached with all those countries to abolish the border
procedures, there is no guarantee that, due to political instability, a
regime change doesn not re-instate them a few months later.


----------



## MarcVD (Dec 1, 2008)

Stainless said:


> The whole Trans-Siberian has been electrified, and this is in oil-rich Russia.


Because the volume of traffic grants it. On the transsib, there is, on
average, a freight train every 10/15 minutes. On the new proposed line,
one would certainly not see the same volume of traffic, at least not from
the begginning. But that's not a problem. US railways have proven that
it is possible to operate freight trains efficiently with diesel traction.
Electric equipment can always come later, when it is proven that traffic
levels will justify it. It can also come in stages, the most demanding
line portions first, the diesel engines finishing their useful life on the
others...


----------



## MarcVD (Dec 1, 2008)

K_ said:


> Not as long as containerships are so efficient and cheap
> 
> 
> 
> You can run ships on nuclear energy.


Containerships are slow and subject to piracy.

And electric trains do run on nuclear energy, today. Not like your
container vessels, which only do in some science-fiction scenario.

I don't want to see a nuclear-powered vessel hijacked by a gang of
somalian tribal warriors. Be it voluntarily or by co-incidence, it can
only lead to a major disaster.

Unless you expect any such ship to be permanently escorted by a US Navy
frigate and a few Marines platoons ?


----------



## MarcVD (Dec 1, 2008)

HyperMiler said:


> And it will cost a fortune to maintain the powerline through rugged terrains of some unstable 3rd world countries.


Well, one has to make up his mind. In the first part of the discussion, when
we discussed a passenger high speed line on the same route, this was going
to be a highly developped area, able to provide enough traffic to make a high
speed line viable.

Now it is a set of 3 world countries not even able to properly maintain a
slow-speed catenary.

That high-speed train was supposed to run off roof-mounted solar cells, I
presume ?


----------



## chornedsnorkack (Mar 13, 2009)

MarcVD said:


> Some might argue that there is already the transsiberian for that, but this
> line is already jammed to capacity with the russian domestic freight traffic.
> And it can't serve India. So why not a second line ?


Plus, monopoly of Russia is costly, and upgrades to a jammed line are difficult.


MarcVD said:


> It would be via Turkey, Iran, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan and Kazakhstan.
> This is, by the way, a resurrection of the ancient silk route...
> Most of the required infrastructure already exists (although one might suggest
> to build this line entirely with the same axle gauge). Alternatives might be
> ...


That is stupid. Black Sea is about the same latitude range as Caspian (narrower because more east-west). Going through Caucasus is a completely unnecessary detour. So pass either north of Caspian and Black Sea (which means through Russia) or south of both (through Iran and Caspia).

Incidentally, the Silk Route probably did not connect Iran and Turkey - unnecessary mountains all along. It made a short cut along the foothills through Iraq and Syria.


MarcVD said:


> Electrification might be an option, perhaps not from the beggining. It can
> always be undertaken later, if traffic volumes justify it, and in stages, by
> beginning with the most loaded or steep parts of the line.


First stage would be connecting Kazakhstan and China. Trade monopoly of Russia naturally sucks for Kazakhstan, so selling their raw materials to rich China is very profitable.

Rail route through Dostyk is there since 1990. The second connection, through Yining and Khorgos is under construction.

The Urumqi-Yining branch is described as the first electrified railway in Xinjiang - the main Lanxin railway is not electrified. How are the plans for the Kazakh side, between Almaty and Khorgos?


----------



## kominam (May 23, 2010)

As I suspected, this is getting pathetic really. I really suspected from the beginning that the intention behind qina's big investment in railways system was to connect the entire Asia motivated by their two little neighbors.


----------



## mingrady (May 3, 2007)

...


----------



## Le Clerk (Oct 22, 2007)

Baron Hirsch said:


> Nothing is sure yet, all this is pretty new. Bulgaria had intended to build a rather fast conventional route from Sofia to Vidin which should then use the bridge under construction there to Western Romania and continue via Timisoara to Budapest, all of this at speeds around 160 kmh. But a Chinese loan or joint venture opens completely new perspectives, and the main question is whether China can conclude a deal with Serbia or Romania. Serbia is geographically most interesting as it provides the shortest and least mountaineous way to Central Europe, and a lot of possible connecting routes. However, Serbian Railways and the Serbian state are maybe not yet ready to properly deal with such a potential investment. Romania is at the moment more organized and has begun to invest into its major rail transit routes, therefore it might make the grade despite the geographic drawbacks.


^^Romania and Hungary already have an agreement for a high-speed rail from Budapest to Bucharest and further to Constanta, a continuation of the fast rail line coming from Vienna. I guess that can be linked to the future China-Bulgaria fast rail:




tony64 said:


> *Hungary and Romania*
> The two countries have agreed in November 2007 to build a high speed line between their capital cities Budapest and Bucharest which would be a part of a larger transportation corridor Paris-Vienna-Budapest-(Timisoara)-Bucharest-Constanta. There is no clear schedule for the project yet, but feasibility studies, ecological impact studies and right-of-way land purchase should not begin before 2009. The link will be designed to support speeds up to 300 km/h, but no technical details have been made public as of March 2008.
> 
> *Hungary and Serbia*
> ...


Currently, Romania is upgrading its rail line on TEN-T Corridor IV to 160 km/h.

But it looks like it's a lot shorter to go through Belgrade than through Bucharest, from Sofia.


----------



## binhai (Dec 22, 2006)

kominam said:


> As I suspected, this is getting pathetic really. I really suspected from the beginning that the intention behind qina's big investment in railways system was to connect the entire Asia motivated by their two little neighbors.


So?


----------



## hakz2007 (Jul 1, 2007)

*China, Laos to start work on high-speed rail link in 2011 *


> BEIJING - China and Laos will begin construction early next year of the first high-speed rail line between the two countries, a report said Wednesday, as part of a project to link China and Southeast Asia.
> 
> The bullet-train rail line will be completed in around 2014, Laotian Deputy Prime Minister Somsavat Lengsavad was quoted by the Wall Street Journal as saying.
> 
> ...


http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/breaki...to-start-work-on-high-speed-rail-link-in-2011


----------



## Stainless (Jun 7, 2009)

3 years to build a line through such a mountainous country? That is incredibly quick, any idea where it would stop. I would assume Luang Prabang and Vientiane. This would do great things for the tourism in this incredibly poor country. If China made its visas easier to obtain they could get a lot of tourism from this.


----------



## hakz2007 (Jul 1, 2007)

*Bullet train to connect Thailand, Laos*


> China signed a framework agreement Wednesday to build high-speed railways connecting to Laos and Thailand, part of a plan to further facilitate trade and investment among Southeast Asian nations.
> 
> Railway-related industries are also expecting to see a big boost in business opportunities.
> 
> ...


http://business.globaltimes.cn/industries/2010-12/600311.html


----------



## hakz2007 (Jul 1, 2007)

*Pak, China for laying railway track thru Khunjarab Pass*


> ISLAMABAD: Pakistan and China have agreed in principle to constitute a consortium for seeking a soft-term loan from some international company for laying a railway track between the two countries, an official said.
> 
> He said a six-member committee comprising equal number of experts from both China and Pakistan has already been constituted to move forward in this regard.
> 
> ...


http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2010\12\17\story_17-12-2010_pg5_7


----------



## hakz2007 (Jul 1, 2007)

*Pakistan Railways to chug over Trans-Asian Railway Network *


> ISLAMABAD, Dec 15 (APP): A process to hook up the Pakistan Railways with the Trans-Asian Railway Network is initiated with active support of Chinese government which will besides, linking these time tested friendly countries through rail networks, also ensure standardizing the Pakistani guage to international standards.This will facilitate trade to the Central Asian Republics, Russia and China and beyond. The plan is to hook up the two countries with road, rail, fiber optic links, an official of the ministry told APP.Trade between the people of the Indus and the people of the Yangtse has been going on for thousands of years.Commerce between the Indus Valley Civilization (aka Pakistan 5000 years ago) and Ughuristan, Eastern Turkistan or Xinxiang has been an integral of the Pakistani and Kashmiri economy.
> 
> Despite many claims this is the original Silk Route, and both China and Pakistan are determined to update it with modern fibre, rail, road and business links: Fibre-optic line, oil & gas pipeline, rail track linking Karakorum Highway to Gwadar.
> 
> ...


http://app.com.pk/en_/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=124767&Itemid=2


----------



## Palatinus (Jul 26, 2009)

I hope the three lines will be built with chinese technologies...


----------



## Silly_Walks (Aug 23, 2010)

Palatinus said:


> I hope the three lines will be built with chinese technologies...


Probably the only way to do it affordably is with Chinese companies, workers, money and "technology".


----------



## mgk920 (Apr 21, 2007)

With that project, how much of Pakistan's railroad network will likely be converted to Chinese standards (1435 mm 'standard' track gauge , loading gauge, coupling ('AAR' couplers), braking, axle weight limits, etc - virtually identical to the standards used in North America)?

Mike


----------



## Gag Halfrunt (Jun 25, 2006)

Regauging the entire network and replacing or converting all existing rolling stock would be very expensive. Furthermore, Pakistan would soon regret regauging if relations with India improved, since Pakistan's broad gauge is the same as India's and trains can cross the border. It's probably only because of Pakistan's poor political relations with India and very low level of cross-border traffic (IIRC there's only one train a week, often suspended for security reasons) that regauging is being contemplated at all.


----------



## MarcVD (Dec 1, 2008)

Gag Halfrunt said:


> Regauging the entire network and replacing or converting all existing rolling stock would be very expensive. Furthermore, Pakistan would soon regret regauging if relations with India improved, since Pakistan's broad gauge is the same as India's and trains can cross the border. It's probably only because of Pakistan's poor political relations with India and very low level of cross-border traffic (IIRC there's only one train a week, often suspended for security reasons) that regauging is being contemplated at all.


One train per week ? A bit more than that : 3 actually, 2/week between
Amritsar and Lahore, and 1 per week between Jodhpur and Karachi. But
yes, I agree with you, it is still very low.

But also, if we come back to the original topic of this thread, please consider
that a whole regauging of the Pakistan railways won't be necessary. If this
line along the Karakorum Highway is ever built, what will be missed is just
a standard gauge link to the Iranian border. Which, for its west half, is
precisely the line from Taftan to Quetta, just connected to the Iranian
network a few months ago. This line is currently in very bad shape, needs
rebuilding if one plans to use it for any kind of sizeable traffic, and there
are already talks to rebuild it to standard gauge...


----------



## chornedsnorkack (Mar 13, 2009)

Spain has the same 1668 mm gauge as India and Pakistan. And they are not hurrying to regauge although they have a land border with 1435 mm France: only high speed railways are 1435 mm, the old 1668 mm railways are all in use and they actually build high speed variable gauge trains for the 1668 mm network as well.


----------



## Gag Halfrunt (Jun 25, 2006)

^^ Indian broad gauge is 1,676 mm, not 1,668 mm.


----------



## mgk920 (Apr 21, 2007)

Gag Halfrunt said:


> ^^ Indian broad gauge is 1,676 mm, not 1,668 mm.


The difference being 8 mm, they are close enough to be interoperable.

Also, with their difference from 1435 mm 'standard' gauge, they can easily be adapted to dual-gauge use with the installation of a third running rail.

Ditto Russian and Finnish railroads - Finland's broad gauge standard is 4 mm narrower (1520 mm vs 1524 mm), close enough to interoperate. OTOH, they are too close to 'standard' gauge (85 and 89 mm differences) to easily create dual-gauge track with a third rail - either they have to be converted entirely, two rails would need to be laid to make dual-gauge track or a completely new parallel roadbed would have to be built to allow trains of the other gauge to use a particular line.

Mike


----------



## chornedsnorkack (Mar 13, 2009)

mgk920 said:


> The difference being 8 mm, they are close enough to be interoperable.


How broad is the loading gauge of Pakistan broad gauge railways?
Spain has just 292 cm broad trains. Would actual secondhand trains from Spain fit in Pakistan?


----------



## MarcVD (Dec 1, 2008)

chornedsnorkack said:


> Spain has the same 1668 mm gauge as India and Pakistan. And they are not hurrying to regauge although they have a land border with 1435 mm France: only high speed railways are 1435 mm, the old 1668 mm railways are all in use and they actually build high speed variable gauge trains for the 1668 mm network as well.


Yes, and the result of that is a quasi total absence of freight traffic by rail
between the two countries.

For passenger traffic, gauge differences can now easily be accomodated. For
freight, it is a major problem. Goods trans-shipment is slow, labor-intensive,
and expensive; and dual-gauge rolling stock is too expensive to build and to
maintain.

A Europe-China link through Pakistan would be essentially freight-oriented,
therefore gauge continuity through the whole journey is an essential success
factor. But again, if you look at a map, you'll see that only one line, quite
excentred, of the Pakistan network, is concerned, so this should be feasible.

But I would not count on the internal capabilities of the Pakistan nation to
take over this rebuild operation - they have much more urgent priorities.
If this is to happen, international financing will be required.


----------



## rheintram (Mar 5, 2008)

Palatinus said:


> I hope the three lines will be built with chinese technologies...


What's all this talk about "Chinese" technology and standards? You do realize that these are European standards and European technology, do you?


----------



## mgk920 (Apr 21, 2007)

rheintram said:


> What's all this talk about "Chinese" technology and standards? You do realize that these are European standards and European technology, do you?


About the only technical thing that regular Chinese railroads share with their regular European counterparts is track gauge. Coupling, braking, axle loading, loading gauges, etc, are all different and incompatible. China uses North American-style AAR couplers instead of the European-style 'buffer and chain' coupling and most Chinese locomotives and freight cars will not fit through European tunnels, for example.

Mike


----------



## hmmwv (Jul 19, 2006)

rheintram said:


> What's all this talk about "Chinese" technology and standards? You do realize that these are European standards and European technology, do you?


This argument is getting old, you should find something more creative. Chinese conventional rail is very similar to North American standards, it has nothing to do with "European technology." On the other hand, the HSR portion of the line probably will only be rated at 250kph, and we all know the most successful 250kph train is the CRH2 series, and that's Japanese technology.


----------



## chornedsnorkack (Mar 13, 2009)

MarcVD said:


> Yes, and the result of that is a quasi total absence of freight traffic by rail
> between the two countries.


And the freight network of Spain/Portugal is relatively small. If freight trains from France must be reloaded anyway, they can be reloaded straight to trucks and driven to destination.

How much rail freight traffic is there between the 1435 mm network of Western Europe and the 1520 mm network of Russian Empire, both of which are sizable?


MarcVD said:


> A Europe-China link through Pakistan would be essentially freight-oriented,
> therefore gauge continuity through the whole journey is an essential success
> factor.


Consider that China has alternative links to Europe. The existing link through Russia, which is a functioning but 1520 mm network. And links to Iran - existing 1520 mm link through Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan, and a link under construction between Kazakhstan and Turkmenistan. And possibly more links.

The rail link through Central Asia has much easier terrain. A Karakorum Railway would be difficult to build and not a very good alternative to Central Asian route. Therefore if it gets built it would be primarily to connect Pakistan with China and not so much to connect China with Iran or Europe.


----------



## MarcVD (Dec 1, 2008)

chornedsnorkack said:


> How much rail freight traffic is there between the 1435 mm network of Western Europe and the 1520 mm network of Russian Empire, both of which are sizable?


Not much, and as far as I know, only containers, because this is the only
kind of load that can easily be trans-shipped. 



chornedsnorkack said:


> Consider that China has alternative links to Europe. The existing link through Russia, which is a functioning but 1520 mm network.


For the time being, this is the only one which is really functionning. But the
capacity is quite limited, because the capacity of the trans-siberian line is
mostly used by russian domestic traffic.

You have also the link through Kazakstan, that allows to by-pass most of
the trans-siberian line congestion, but I don't know how much traffic goes
through there.



chornedsnorkack said:


> And links to Iran - existing 1520 mm link through Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan, and a link under construction between Kazakhstan and Turkmenistan.


As far as I know, this itinerary does not function at all as a Europe-China link
yet. First of all because of the very limited capacity of the Van lake
and Bosphorus crossings, and also because of the administrative nightmare
caused by the border crossing in the central asian states.



chornedsnorkack said:


> And possibly more links.


Not anyone that I know of...



chornedsnorkack said:


> The rail link through Central Asia has much easier terrain. A Karakorum Railway would be difficult to build and not a very good alternative to Central Asian route. Therefore if it gets built it would be primarily to connect Pakistan with China and not so much to connect China with Iran or Europe.


If the chinese build it, I suppose they will want to use it at full capacity. This
link to Pakistan will be the easiest way to a link to Europe with no break of
gauge. But on the other hand, yes, there are still many obstacles before this
can become a Europe to China land bridge. Bosphorus and Van lake are one.
Terrorism in Pakistan is another. The current political regime in Iran might be
seen as an obstacle too. Container supercarriers will remain the only viable
solution for many years to come, I'm afraid...


----------



## chornedsnorkack (Mar 13, 2009)

MarcVD said:


> For the time being, this is the only one which is really functionning. But the
> capacity is quite limited, because the capacity of the trans-siberian line is
> mostly used by russian domestic traffic.


Meaning that China can choose to pay to upgrade Transsiberian in Russia, or upgrade some other existing route, or build some new.


MarcVD said:


> You have also the link through Kazakstan, that allows to by-pass most of
> the trans-siberian line congestion, but I don't know how much traffic goes
> through there.


And Zhetigen-Khorgos railway is now under construction.


MarcVD said:


> As far as I know, this itinerary does not function at all as a Europe-China link
> yet. First of all because of the very limited capacity of the Van lake
> and Bosphorus crossings,


Which would equally apply to any route through Pakistan to Iran.


MarcVD said:


> Not anyone that I know of...


Sorry, I meant any other railways yet to be built.


MarcVD said:


> If the chinese build it, I suppose they will want to use it at full capacity. This
> link to Pakistan will be the easiest way to a link to Europe with no break of
> gauge.


I do not see why link to Pakistan would be easier than link to Central Asia.


----------



## MarcVD (Dec 1, 2008)

chornedsnorkack;69644961I do not see why link to Pakistan would be easier than link to Central Asia.[/QUOTE said:


> The key is "without break of gauge"... If the Karakorum railway is ever built,
> there are good chances that it will be built to chinese standards, i.e. with
> standard gauge. From the other side, i.e. from Europe, standard gauge
> now arrives in Zahedan, in the extreme east of Iran. Any other route
> you might try leaves a much longer gap to fill...


----------



## hammersklavier (Jan 29, 2010)

We need to divorce the transcontinental HSL idea from a transcontinental cargo line for a second.

The challenges of a transcontinental HSL are pretty extreme, yes, so we can say that it's unlikely one could be profitably operated all the way through for the foreseeable future (perhaps once jet fuel gets ridiculously expensive). So let us concentrate on freight.

There are essentially three major trans-Asiatic "axes" one can use. The northernmost one is occupied by the Trans-Siberian Railroad. However, this does not preclude the other two from being used. 

- The southern one would effectively run from Guangzhou to Istanbul, via Van, Tehran, Kabul, Islamabad, Delhi, Dhaka, and Kunming, with important branches to Hanoi and Ho Chi Minh City, Bangkok, and Kuala Lumpur and Singapore.

- The central one would effectively run from Beijing to Berlin or Vienna (depending on routing), via the much more rural route Lviv-Kiev-Volgograd-Astrakhan-Aral'sk-Urumqi(-Lanzhou-Xi'an). As this route crosses the steppes (mostly), it would be relatively inexpensive and quick to build, for much the same reason that the Union Pacific built more of the Transcontinental Railroad than the Central Pacific. Also a bonus, the entrance to China runs through the only really passable gap between the Tien Shan and Altai mountains.

Both routings have their downsides, however. Since we have to assume gauge standardization for transshipment, and since the destinations both utilize standard gauge networks, it seems natural to expect the "bridge" should too. The southern routing--especially a variant that would run northeast from Tehran via Samarkand, Tashkent, and Almaty--would offer the shortest length of trackwork needing to be built; however, as a whole, the southern routing is significantly more mountainous and difficult, and Tehran is a "black hole" in the global urban hierarchy...not to mention that the Central Asian nations don't much like one another. Limiting routing to just one would be much preferable.

The central routing, however, would need a much longer rail line to be laid--all the way from the terminus of standard gauge at the Polish or Slovak border (depending on whether the ultimate terminus is Berlin or Vienna), which would include new track laying through the Ukraine--already pretty densely populated--before you get to the no-man's-land steppes of Kazakhstan. It does have fewer land borders, however (PL/SK [EU]-UKR-RUS-KAZ-PRC vs. TUR-IR-AFG-PAK-IND-MYA-PRC), thereby shortening border controls processes.

Finally, how to operate? European rail standards and technology were never developed with long-distance shipment in mind so much as getting cargo from the borders to the major cities. Chain couplers are not rated to take the stresses involved in economical long-distance transportation that Russian and American knuckle couplers both can. China generally follows AAR* standards, so the utilization of Russian coupling solutions would make the train doubly incompatible (on both ends of the network), thereby negating the advantage of using standard gauge. Therefore, utilizing Chinese (AAR) standards and running practices (similar to American running practices) would be feasible.

So, while the capital expense of the physical plant is high, equipment is not. Just buy a few dozen GE ES44C4s, EMD SD70ACes and Series 66s, Alstom Prima IIs, Vossloh Euro 4000s, Voith Maximas, and related-type locomotives, a bunch of double-stack, open and closed hopper cars, gondolas, and boxcars, and there you go. Since it's generally assumed in these matters that the line will serve lineside industry and local mines (as is the case with pretty much any freight operation anywhere), and as there are important mined-and quarried-goods markets that can be tapped (Chinese coal to the West...Kazakh coal in both directions...European coal to the East...as well as other mined and quarried goods), a transcontinental cargo line could, in theory, be generally profitable. The primary difficulty, especially if Western finance is targeted, is the source of initial capital; a secondary difficulty, the procurement of rights-of-way (generally done via easements in the United States--however, the law elsewhere is likely different). Given the lack of any decent road infrastructure through much of this territory, a passenger-train division would have to be in place; however, it would more likely be managed in a more "Intercity" style than as a high-speed line; east of Astrakhan, a "high-speed" market does not generally seem viable.

Just my thoughts.
___________
*Association of American Railroads. These standards dictate coupling, loading gauge, etc., on American railroads and guarantee transshipment throughout the NAFTA area (i.e. the U.S., Canada, and Mexico).


----------



## mgk920 (Apr 21, 2007)

^^

Pretty good analysis, except that once that larger loading gauge equipment used in China (assuming North American loading gauge standards) reaches European standard-gauge trackage, it will not fit under the European electrical catenary and highway overpasses and through the European tunnels and through-truss bridges. European railroad operating companies even have to use specially low-designed flatcars to carry single-stacked containers. Also, yard tracks and passing sidings in Europe are scaled for use by 'buffer and chain' equipment, meaning that they will also have to be significantly lengthened, not to mention having to heavily up-scale the electrical power supply systems to handle the significantly heavier trains. With the far stronger 'AAR' couplings, it is now 'SOP' for freight trains to reach and exceed 3 km in length in both China and North America.



There will have to be some REALLY SERIOUS upgrades to the European standard-gauge lines that such Eurasian transcontinental trains and equipment will use.

Mike


----------



## hammersklavier (Jan 29, 2010)

True, but in many cases, these things will happen in Europe anyway. One of the major side effects of Europe's "Schengen-ization" and the TENs is that, where there was previously little market for long-distance rail freight, there will be. Already equipment like the Vossloh Euros is being built to take on heavier loads than previous European freight equipment ever needed to. In the long run, this means the inevitable introduction of a stronger coupling system, at least in the context of freight transportation. A transcontinental would probably need to tie into a major European port (Odessa?) in order to offload double-stacks, for the time being...and of course, properly-equipped European equipment, as long as they can be coupled into the train, can head anywhere on the system. The troubles are more with how to manage the Chinese equipment on the other end.


----------



## mgk920 (Apr 21, 2007)

I suppose that part of the transloading of double-stacked containers could be to keep the North American-style 'well' cars in the train, but with single-stacked containers. Single-stacked, they'll easily fit through the tightest European tunnel (assuming that the base well-cars' widths are narrow enough).

Also, nothing says that trains have to be run at their maximum rated lengths and weights even with the stronger 'AAR' couplers. Just run them at whatever the maximum ratings are for whatever particular line they are on, splitting them into multiple sections as necessary as they proceed westward and combine them as allowed as they travel east.

Mike


----------



## makita09 (Sep 8, 2009)

^^ I think its a mistake to describe Europe as having a certain loading guage, it doesn't. The well cars are required in some places to carry a single deep sea container, but even in the UK this is not necessary everywhere and two of the main freight routes can accept full-size containers on flat-bed trailers. The majority of Europe has a much larger loading guage than all of the UK, does anybody have any examples of any major freight routes in Europe that restrict the movement of containerised freight?


----------



## chornedsnorkack (Mar 13, 2009)

MarcVD said:


> The key is "without break of gauge"... If the Karakorum railway is ever built,
> there are good chances that it will be built to chinese standards, i.e. with
> standard gauge. From the other side, i.e. from Europe, standard gauge
> now arrives in Zahedan, in the extreme east of Iran. Any other route
> you might try leaves a much longer gap to fill...


Geometrically the shortest route from the border of Iran or narrow gauge railhead to the border of China or narrow gauge railhead at Kashgar goes through Afghanistan, not Pakistan.


----------



## MarcVD (Dec 1, 2008)

chornedsnorkack said:


> Geometrically the shortest route from the border of Iran or narrow gauge railhead to the border of China or narrow gauge railhead at Kashgar goes through Afghanistan, not Pakistan.


On a pure distance basis you are absolutely right. But 

1) if the Karakorum railway is ever built, then the gap to fill from there to
Iran will become shorter than bridging through Afghanistan

2) there is a big difference in terrain difficulty

3) there is a real difference between regauging an already existing line and
building one completely from scratch.

Note also that if the Afghanistan route is ever chosen, the border crossing
from Iran to Herat will be done already, as the Iranians are building it as
we speak.

But in both cases, the most challenging difficulty will not be engineering
but security.


----------



## MarcVD (Dec 1, 2008)

makita09 said:


> ^^ I think its a mistake to describe Europe as having a certain loading guage, it doesn't. The well cars are required in some places to carry a single deep sea container, but even in the UK this is not necessary everywhere and two of the main freight routes can accept full-size containers on flat-bed trailers. The majority of Europe has a much larger loading guage than all of the UK, does anybody have any examples of any major freight routes in Europe that restrict the movement of containerised freight?


Indeed, all important trasit routes in Europe follow the B+ loading gauge,
which allows standard containers on straight flat cars. Depressed cars
are only needed for transport of lorries, i.e. when you add the height of
the lorry wheels to the height of the container itself. But double stack is
definitely a no-no.

Are double stack container trains really operating in Russia ? If yes, could
someone post a picture of that ? I always believed that this mode of
operation was totally incompatible with electrified lines.

Personally, I do not believe that there are insurpassable technical difficulties 
to build such a project. The administration difficulties and the border controls
seem far more complicated. Railways, and specially international railway
operations, require economic, political, and legal stability. Central asia does 
not provide much of that today.


----------



## mgk920 (Apr 21, 2007)

MarcVD said:


> Indeed, all important trasit routes in Europe follow the B+ loading gauge,
> which allows standard containers on straight flat cars. Depressed cars
> are only needed for transport of lorries, i.e. when you add the height of
> the lorry wheels to the height of the container itself. But double stack is
> ...


Are double-stacked containers in well cars able to fit through the English Channel Tunnel?

Many electrified railroads (mostly passenger lines) in North America that also carry freight traffic will clear standard North American auto racks and double-stacked containers in well cars.

Also, when railroads in North America started handling double-stacked containers, they did have to increase the clearances in some of their tunnels to clear them, but they were already large enough such that the work was mainly done by cutting 'notches' into the top parts of the tunnels. Nearly all overpasses over the railroads were already high enough to clear them (the standard minimum clearance for bridges over railroad railheads on non-electrified lines in North America is 7 meters).

Mike


----------



## hammersklavier (Jan 29, 2010)

It is true that there is no "standard" loading gauge in Europe--however, most European loading gauges are tighter than the AAR standard.

I don't know whether double-stacks are operating in Russia, but that's quite beside the point. I've heard that they're operating in China, which is the network we want to connect to, and under wire no less. I think I saw documentary evidence of it once, but I can't remember where...perhaps Greenlion can hook us up?

As to your suggestion, mgk920, that's not a half-bad idea. Well cars are only loaded with a single stack where older tunnels make double-stacking impossible even in the United States. Consists can be shorter in Europe--but the key is to run the mainline transshipments as economically as possible, which means that once you leave the classification yard on the western end, presumably somewhere around Kosice or Krakow, you have a bunch of locos pulling some 150-200 fully-loaded well cars. If interchange service is handled by the transcon, it would be a fairly simple matter to take the top container off a rake of well cars, stick a couple of dinky little cars for knuckle-chain conversion on either end of the rake, and park them on the interchange track for the next operator to pick up. For most other kinds of equipment, like hoppers and boxcars, I'm pretty sure they can squeeze into all but the tightest loading gauges. Even though through-service using chain-coupler cars is inadvisable (again, due to their inability to perform at the train lengths needed for really efficient long-distance service), they can still be used for local service perhaps as far out as Astrakhan, and passenger services, since no passenger train even comes close to knuckles' maximal ratings, can use chains or knuckles through (or at least, until they hit a network unwilling to provide transition cars).

As far as political stability goes, the EU, Ukraine, Russia, Kazakhstan, and China are all pretty stable. It's down around Transnisitra, the Caucasus, and south of Kazakhstan where all the turmoil is.


----------



## chornedsnorkack (Mar 13, 2009)

MarcVD said:


> On a pure distance basis you are absolutely right. But
> 
> 1) if the Karakorum railway is ever built, then the gap to fill from there to
> Iran will become shorter than bridging through Afghanistan
> ...


Yes, but all these considerations favour Central Asian route. There is absolutely no railway to be built from scratch at Alashankow/Dostyk, just regauging existing Central Asian route between Dostyk and Sarakhs, and the terrain is much easier than Karakorum to either Pakistan or Afghanistan.


----------



## yaohua2000 (Dec 26, 2008)

*China, Kazakhstan sign high-speed railway cooperation memorandum*

http://www.gov.cn/jrzg/2011-02/22/content_1808131.htm



> 新华社北京２月２２日电（记者 侯丽军）铁道部副部长卢春房２２日表示，截至目前，中国高铁已累计安全运送旅客６亿多人次。
> 
> 卢春房在此间举行的中国－哈萨克斯坦企业家午餐会上说，自２００７年４月高速列车正式开行以来，中国高铁旅客发送量快速增加，２００７年至２０１０年日均发送旅客分别达到２３．７万人、３４．９万人、４９．２万人和７９．６万人。
> 
> ...


Rough translation:


> Lu Chunfang, China's Vice Minister of Railways, said on February 22, China's high-speed rail network has transported 600 million passengers safely.
> 
> Lu Chunfang said earlier in a luncheon party between China and Kazakhstan's entrepreneurs, since the introduction of China Railway High-speed (CRH) in April 2007, China's high-speed rail passengers have increased rapidly. The average daily passengers between 2007 and 2010 have been 237 thousands, 349 thousands, 492 thousands, and 796 thousands, respectively.
> 
> ...


----------



## chornedsnorkack (Mar 13, 2009)

yaohua2000 said:


> *China, Kazakhstan sign high-speed railway cooperation memorandum*
> 
> Rough translation:





Rough translation: said:


> The cooperation between China and Kazakhstan in high-speed rail construction field will soon be accelerated.
> 
> China and Kazakhstan have signed a cooperation memorandum to construct a high-speed railway project from Astara to Almaty inside Kazakhstan.
> 
> ...


I believe it is Astana rather than Astara.

Has Kazakhstan picked track gauge?


----------



## Silly_Walks (Aug 23, 2010)

chornedsnorkack said:


> I believe it is Astana rather than Astara.
> 
> Has Kazakhstan picked track gauge?


Will Astana-Almaty be connected to Urumqi? 

I saw a map for China's preffered highspeed Eurasian Network, but the connection from Urumqi to Astana was shorter and didn't pass by Almaty.


----------

