Quote:
Originally Posted by JMvS
In this regard, the Southern route will certainly provide the most technical challenges, due to all the mountains and tropical climate. Political barriers are less of a concerns, as Burma and Vietnam seems quite eager for it and ready to adapt their gauge.
|
The question is, whether they will adapt it nation-wide or just for this project. I believe if this project is ever meant to be successful the chinese have to pay it basically themselves (I will explain this later).
Quote:
Originally Posted by JMvS
On the other hand, the Northern route will face mostly political challenges, as the Russians have to balance their desire to upgrade infrastructure and develop the Far East with the concern of Chinese migrations in their territory and the need to change their gauge. Notice that such an overhaul of the Russian railways network would also open it to Western Europe, with consecutive benefits (as well as concerns).
|
There are no real benefits to changing their gauge. Goods are transfered from one freight train to another at the border. If we consider customs and similar bureaucracy here, the goods would have to be screened there anyway. When the goods switch their means of transportation in the process, it is not so much longer a delay in cargo transportation than without the different gauges.
Besides their whole stock of trains (even the new EMU Sapsan) is based on the wider gauge. They do not even have a unified energy grid for electric trains on national level (south and north use completely different currents and imo they're even different in that one uses AC while the other uses DC).
If ever, the chinese have to create an insular solution within Russia. That means their system remains incompatible with the russian railway.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JMvS
Regarding the costs of building the network, as long as there is a need for connection and a political will to address it, I have little concerns, as high speed railways have already been demonstrated as the optimal solution: cheaper than high ways or even large roads, speed second only to airplane, capacity second to high sea freighting.
More so, most if not all the technologies not only exist but are already applied widely.
|
But sea freighting and air frighting will be the actual competitors since, in each of their domains they are the best solutions. For sea freighting it is transportation of very large amounts of goods at low costs but the disadvantage of the delivery time span.
For air freighting it is the fastest way to transport goods, but at high costs and limited capacity (space/weight).
The mix of both solutions works well at the moment. The method to use trains will only get a certain market share, since it is a solution sitting somewhere in between of the other two. So, it is not exactly the optimal solution, it is just a different approach, that can close a gap of transportation options.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kamui4356
Yes, this will allow China to project power well beyond its borders, a capability they currently lack. Of course that might not be the intent of the people behind it, but even if it isn't, will it stay that way? Though on the other hand, a pan-Eurasian high speed rail system could mean great things for the economies of central Asian states.
|
I don't get that power projection idea. It does not really make that much sense.
1) This power projection works both ways, since the railway network can technically be used by all its member states. (in a case of crisis anyway)
2) If china does not plan some sort of blitzkrieg by the means of using that railway system it will be utterly useless for projection of military power (and a nuclear weapons armed country certainly does not rely on such military strategies).
3) Economical projection of power could work this way, for reasons I will explain below. Political projection of power does not really gain something from such a project.
In my oppinion the reason someone came up with this idea is another one.
China has developed the technology to build reliable, high speed railway networks. Currently they use this capacity on a national level only.
However, they can realize such projects at very low costs (in comparison to other industrialized countries). They also bought the license for an EMU design from Siemens, that allows them to build high speed trains for rather low costs for the domestic market.
And I think the chinese see an opportunity to make use of these advantages in such an eurasian project (which would extremely boost their local industries in that sector).
So, chinese railway industries could project economical power (at a certainly unchallenged price). Additionaly, in the case of export oriented china the whole network could benefit other industries too, since it makes an additional option/means of transportation available on pan-eurasian level.
However, I cannot say if they will succeed in the south, but I really have my doubts regarding the northern project. When using freight and people transportation on the same line one would need at least 4 tracks. Additionaly, for high speed EMUs, the whole track must be electrified. There is a need for additional infrastructure along the tracks for maintenance and electricity. The initial costs will surely amount to over US$ 500 billion (based on the estimation that 25,000 km of HSR in china will cost US$ 300 billion - and 8,000km x 4 = 32,000km of track is needed). Now, US$ 500 billion is more like the lower end of the cost estimation and still a very large sum... (that might explain, why I have my little doubts about this).