Looks like this idea has reared its head again... A rail Link across the Bering Straits ( Sea?) to link China via Siberia, on into Alaska, Canada and the USA...
Here is the linked article:
@ http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/business/2014-05/08/content_17493399.htm
FTA: "... In not so distant future, people can take the train from China to the US, according to Beijing Times Thursday citing Wang Mengshu, a railway expert and academician of the Chinese Academy of Engineering..."
Seems like the last time there was a proposal to Bridge the Bering Straits, not a tunnel?
UPDATED to New LINK on 09/29/2014
OK, Sorry about the bad Linked article to the Bejing Times.
Went in this morning and have found a similar article but at a different site. This is the link to the Railway Technology. com ( unfortunately, it does not have the sexy illustration of a HSR Train with it.
Linked Site is @ http://www.railway-technology.com/news/newschina-proposes-new-high-speed-railway-line-to-us-4263463
article is : "...China proposes new high-speed railway line to US..." 9 May 2014
And then this article from the Economic Times that does have a similar, ( sexy) illustration of a Chinese HSR Train. [dated 9 May 2014]
Linked @ http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/international/business/china-plans-to-build-high-speed-rail-networks-to-us/articleshow/34873289.cms
Never will happen, but I like folks that dream big. We were good at that at one time, now all we want to know is how much will it cost, will it raise my taxes and how many frogs, bugs and flowers will it kill. China is the US circa 1890 in attitude- anything is possible, lets try to build it.
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
The link wasn't working this morning, but it is interesting to reflect the route would have to cross what is today Russian territory, but it is historically viewed by the Chinese as their hinterlands. Given its mineral riches one wonders how long the current situation will prevail.
Murphy, remember that a lot of the riders will be for intermediate destinations, as on Amtrak. I'd ride Minot-Peking!
A few points-
1. I suspect that this line would have no passenger service, being primarily for freight.
2. The gauge issue with Russia will be interesting.
3. Cost, as noted, will be astronomical, as will the time it takes to get the permits to cross the environmentally sensitive areas such as permafrost.
This could be a good idea as long as the trains bypass Manhattan. Maybe connecting trains can be used. lol
I would suggest that as time goes by the importance of an all weather transportation link between the two continents will grow to the point that it will be cost effective. Now? Probably not. But sometime in the next 25-50 years it will be. And the one there with the track laid and signals lit will be in charge of international trade from that time forth. This is not an idea to be sneezed at and made fun of but to be studied and taken seriously. We seem to be drifting to reliances and alliances in the Pacific Ring and away from Europe. Think and do before it's too late.
RIDEWITHMEHENRY is the name for our almost monthly day of riding trains and transit in either the NYCity or Philadelphia areas including all commuter lines, Amtrak, subways, light rail and trolleys, bus and ferries when warranted. No fees, just let us know you want to join the ride and pay your fares. Ask to be on our email list or find us on FB as RIDEWITHMEHENRY (all caps) to get descriptions of each outing.
Northwest,
The rational solution would be standard gauge since IIRC that is what the Chicoms have.
For Russian traffic do a side by side container swap where this line crosses the Trans Siberian.
Mechanics are easy. Politics are difficult.
Mac
The politics in this proposal are absolutely impossible. The proposal is probably a method of pushing China's longstanding claims to Russian territory northeast of the Amur River.
Probably a pipe dream but:
Standard gage definitely but where Russian gage ROW has the correct compass directions just add a third rail on the present track crossties. As traffic grows then standard gage could be added side by side of the Russian gage ? Dual gage tracks have a long history of success in the US ( mainly D&RGW ). and other locations.
Question are the specifications of China locos rail cars the same as North Anerican?. Buff strength, coupler strength, same knuckle system, coupler height, air brake system, MU cables, truck designs, axel loadings, wheel profile, rail profile, car clearances, dimensions, etc ?
FRA and AARR compliant
blue streak 1Question are the specifications of China locos rail cars the same as North Anerican?. Buff strength, coupler strength, same knuckle system, coupler height, air brake system, MU cables, wheel profile, rail profile, car clearances, dimensions, etc ?
There will be in the future be more and more international RR traffic. At present there are many RR systems world wide that are separate but barring unforeseen happenings many more will be connected.
Governing bodies of countries especially the EU, Russia, China, Canada, USA will need to come together now for world wide standards of interchange service. Already there are various trials of China = Western Europe service that will just increase over time?
The USA and Canada need to participate in writing these standards. If this Siberian - Alaska - USA rail link is ever built they might be left in a lurch ?
Other locations ------ Africa, South America, SE Asia probably would come willing or kicking and screaming ?
Australia would probably not be included barring some extreme tunneling advances ?
Another problem might be the sheer volume of traffic of this link ? Are per mile rail rates competitive with sea rates ? Since rail is faster ( ? ) a rail link might require 3 - 4 tracks to handle the load ? Just look at the Southern California traffic alone to Chicago & the east coast on UP & BNSF. .
dakotafred Murphy, remember that a lot of the riders will be for intermediate destinations, as on Amtrak. I'd ride Minot-Peking!
Well, if it's a railroad to haul mountains of freight traffic from China to the USA, why not a wide gauge? 6-7-8 feet maybe? I know what you're saying, but consider this: To make this work, you would need an eastbound lane, a westbound lane, and a passing lane. You'd also need sidings, division point, stations, shops, MOW facilities, etc. By the time you've overcome the financial, political, environmental, geological, weather, language, cultural, and seismic issues, the difficulties of wide gauge would be small potatoes. I say, by the time you have the route ready for rolling stock, you have spent more money than has ever been printed in all of history. A couple more billions for wide gauge locomotives and cars is a drop in the bucket.
The Russo-Japanese War developed out of the rivalry between Russia and Japan for dominance in Korea and Manchuria. In 1898 Russia had pressured China into granting it a lease for the strategically important port of Port Arthur (now Lü-shun), at the tip of the Liaotung Peninsula, in southern Manchuria. Russia thereby entered into occupation of the peninsula, even though, in concert with other European powers, it had forced Japan to relinquish just such a right after the latter's decisive victory over China in the Sino-Japanese War of 1894-95. Moreover, in 1896 Russia had concluded an alliance with China against Japan and, in the process, had won rights to extend the Trans-Siberian Railroad across Chinese-held Manchuria to the Russian seaport of Vladivostok, thus gaining control of an important strip of Manchurian territory. However, though Russia had built the Trans-Siberian Railroad (1891-1904), it still lacked the transportation facilities necessary to reinforce its limited armed forces in Manchuria with sufficient men and supplies. Japan, by contrast, had steadily expanded its army since its war with China in 1894 and by 1904 had gained a marked superiority over Russia in the number of ground troops in the Far East. After Russia reneged in 1903 on an agreement to withdraw its troops from Manchuria, Japan decided it was time to attack.
http://www.onwar.com/aced/data/romeo/russojapanese1904.htm
A region rich in resources, sparsely populated and of great strategic value has conflicting border claims where major powers grate. One power builds a railroad of extreme national interest through the region.
Nobody will much take note.
Murphy Siding Well, if it's a railroad to haul mountains of freight traffic from China to the USA, why not a wide gauge? 6-7-8 feet maybe? I
Well, if it's a railroad to haul mountains of freight traffic from China to the USA, why not a wide gauge? 6-7-8 feet maybe? I
Wide gage means heavier loads per foot of train. How can you overcome the approximately 70,000 # maximum axel load ?. Wheel sizes are almost at their maximum sizes.?
blue streak 1 Murphy Siding Well, if it's a railroad to haul mountains of freight traffic from China to the USA, why not a wide gauge? 6-7-8 feet maybe? I Wide gauge means heavier loads per foot of train. How can you overcome the approximately 70,000 # maximum axle load ?. Wheel sizes are almost at their maximum sizes.?
Wide gauge means heavier loads per foot of train. How can you overcome the approximately 70,000 # maximum axle load ?. Wheel sizes are almost at their maximum sizes.?
I think picking gauge, etc. is premature to begin with, but also, that with the size of this concept and project nothing should be taken for granted or assumed. A lot will depend on what is planned to be moved from one continent to the other and how frequently. After the nature of the commodities and the end points of the trips and the frequency(ies?) then the political wrangling can and will commence. Shooting for a plan by 2020 and construction start by 2025 is probably the absolute shortest time we could see something firm if what is said today is true today. While I think it is a fascinating and probably a good economic idea, I know I probably won't get to know anything more than I know about it now in my lifetime.
Maybe the Chinese government is looking around for places they can use the employes that were laid off from Chinese shipyards because of excess shipping capacity and we all know that marine transportation is cheaper than rail.
The Chinese are building railroads elsewhere because they have companies who do that. We have, too, and they build and operate railroads elsewhere. We just don't have a media that goes out looking for such stories.
May I stop laughing now?
This reminds me of a situation from the darkest days of WWII. The British government asked citizens for ideas for new weapons to be used in defense of the home islands. Any number came through with an idea to somehow solidify the light of an AA searchlight. When asked for details, the universal answer was, "I gave you the idea. Get the engineer boffins to work out the details..."
As I stated in an earlier, "Bridge over the Bering Strait," thread, I expect that humans will be mining asteroids and launching interstellar probes before flanged wheels roll from North America to Asia on steel rails. Sea transport is still the cheapest way, and nowhere near capacity maxed.
Chuck (ex sailor, ex aircraft mechanic)
Have fun with your trains
This is a little late . . . "April Fool's Day" was about 5 weeks ago.
- Paul North.
Another link. Many comments but only about 25% stick to the actual problems of building such a link. Biggest problem would seem to be providing the many construction materials plus all facilities for construction workers. Problem of supplies appears greater than the transcontinental RR ? Access points are only China, Trans Siberian RR, Bearing straight ( only part of any year ) , Alaska RR, CN RR.
Leaving money and tunnel design to others.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2014/05/09/china-may-build-an-undersea-train-to-america/?hpid=z4
A logistics problem during the 1860's U.S. Civil War was that mule or horse-drawn supply trains were limited to about 100 or 150 miles, because by that distance the animals and their 'drovers' would have had to consume all they could have hauled simply in order to survive (assuming no foraging possible from adjoining lands or towns). Notably, the application and use of the railroad in military transport solved that problem. For a more stark example, think of hauling supplies to crews in the Arctic regions - how much fuel can a snowmobile carry in order to get there and back ?
For this, the similar obstacle will not be physical supplies, but financial. It may be the type of project where the construction time is so long and the cost is so large that the resulting accumulated 'debt service' (principal and interest) is so high that there will never be enough earnings to repay or even justify it, regardless of how low the operating costs are (even if zero or 'free'). The project may be so expensive that the ongoing interest consumes all of the projected revenues, and it can never break even or get ahead - a 'downward spiral of debt', as it would be. "Feeding the beast" would be a never-ending proposition - it will only get bigger and hungrier. (Think of a loan shark or payday loan operation on a much larger scale.) Don't think you'll find many investors or even governments to back such a venture - there have to many other opportunities with a better return (however any of that might be measured).
Then again, how long have the Swiss been working on that tunnel under the Alps - 30+ years now ?
And the Japanese on the Hokkaido tunnel and bridge system ?
http://www.railway-technology.com/projects/seikan-tunnel/
How are/ were those projects managed to avoid this problem ?
The TV reports I have seen on this project illustrate a high speed passenger line, while I think the Chinese intention is to build a heavy duty freight hauler running at conventional (freight) speeds. The same line can't do both!
But doesn't talk of this project surface every ten or so years and has since 1900?
Paul_D_North_Jr A logistics problem during the 1860's U.S. Civil War was that mule or horse-drawn supply trains were limited to about 100 or 150 miles, because by that distance the animals and their 'drovers' would have had to consume all they could have hauled simply in order to survive (assuming no foraging possible from adjoining lands or towns). Notably, the application and use of the railroad in military transport solved that problem. For a more stark example, think of hauling supplies to crews in the Arctic regions - how much fuel can a snowmobile carry in order to get there and back ? For this, the similar obstacle will not be physical supplies, but financial. It may be the type of project where the construction time is so long and the cost is so large that the resulting accumulated 'debt service' (principal and interest) is so high that there will never be enough earnings to repay or even justify it, regardless of how low the operating costs are (even if zero or 'free'). The project may be so expensive that the ongoing interest consumes all of the projected revenues, and it can never break even or get ahead - a 'downward spiral of debt', as it would be. "Feeding the beast" would be a never-ending proposition - it will only get bigger and hungrier. (Think of a loan shark or payday loan operation on a much larger scale.) Don't think you'll find many investors or even governments to back such a venture - there have to many other opportunities with a better return (however any of that might be measured). - Paul North.
The interesting thing about that argument is that time provided the answers. Picture trying to sell the idea of a ship that can carry more than 1,000 truck size containers to those people pulling barges on the canal. Picture the economic arguments around the discussion of fleets of 300 passenger airliners presented to stage coach companies.
There are people who say it cannot be done and people who do it. I doubt this project will be done in the near future, but I would not be so arrogant as to say "never".
Dave
Lackawanna Route of the Phoebe Snow
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.