The Largest Infrastructure Project in History: Chinese High-Speed Rail to Europe

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

by limist • 16 years ago

68 92 16 years ago

cleantechnica.com

fbu2• 16 years ago

Any map so far ? They have to go through Iran, Russia or a myriad of ex-ussr countries, I can't see how that's gonna work out ...

DenisM• 16 years ago

Existing rail network covers entire world already and works without any drama.

fbu2• 16 years ago

It's like saying there are roads everywhere around the globe, but not super highways, because it's a huge investment. Therefore you need to be confident it's gonna be used for a long time.

gn2• 16 years ago

I've personally been to Iran, Russia, and a handful of other ex-USSR countries, and I can't see any real obstacles here. Even those countries in this region that suck at stable government tend to be fairly good at reliable infrastructure; California-style rolling brownouts or Manhattan-type shitty metro cars would be more or less unthinkable here. I'm pretty certain people and politicians alike are ready to embrace this project. In the former Soviet block and in the Middle East alike, especially in Turkey, rail networks still symbolize progress and prosperity like nothing else.

mseebach7• 16 years ago

One word: Visas. As it now, you need a transit-visa just to change planes in Moscow. Travelling through, what, 11 countries, each one insisting on confirming the identity of each person entering the country and making sure they exit again? The alternative is sealing people inside the cars, which is what they do on the Kaliningrad-Moscow train that passes through Lithuania and Belarus, but that's logistically problematic, when there are stops in more than two countries.

There are very real political problems to this, and while some of them can be resolved easily, I'd like to remind people that the TGV rail system in France is frequently brought to a halt by protesting farmers who park a tractor on the track. And that's just one country (two if you ask the angry farmers - Paris and the 'real people').

yread• 16 years ago

There is one here http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/2010/03/09/china-promotes...

drats2• 16 years ago

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

Can anyone say "IED derailment at 200kph+"?

fnid213• 16 years ago

Wow, why all the negativity? This is an awesome project and lots of rational reasons it should go through, but you and other commenters are being so irrationally negative. People in the old days said, "International plane flights will never work. People won't trust flying over the ocean."

This project will happen. It's inevitable. It's the only way people will be able to move between countries when planes are too expensive to fuel.

drats2• 16 years ago

It's not negativity, it's a dream that I hope one day will be established; people living in peace and traveling to each others countries to learn and trade, enriching and improving each other's lives.

I am being a realist, there are terrorist attacks almost daily in some ME countries and Pakistan. A train packed with tourists and businesspeople is pretty much the same target value to a terrorist as a plane, except you can attack it from the outside much more easily. The prevalence of IEDs and people willing to use them, highly mobile suicide car bombs and the doctrine of certain radical Muslims which allows for moral permissibility of killing fellow Muslims who are "dealing with the enemy" (strains of Wahhabi and Qutbism thinking like Bin Laden's) would make such an attack inevitable.

This "negative" attitude of mine is part of the economic damage that is done to the moderate Muslims of these countries by the extremists. How many tourists have decided not to take a trip to many of these countries? How many businesses haven't been set up? How many skilled workers have fled? It's a massive economic damage these people are inflicting beyond the scope of their deplorable murders.

tjmc• 16 years ago

Could you please list those rational reasons?

Surely trains only make sense when they get you from A to B faster than driving to airport A, flying to airport B and then driving to B. You could be delayed at the airports for a full day and still fly from London to Beijing faster than this train.

Trains are probably better for moving freight, but they don't have to be high speed. Unless JET-A fuel becomes so scarce that aviation is completely uneconomic (highly unlikely with current progress in biofuels IMHO), trains just don't make sense for distances over about 1000kms.

Bring in the security issues, where a large rock is just as dangerous as an IED and it's a non-starter.

mseebach7• 16 years ago

> Wow, why all the negativity?

Why all the positivity? It's a great project, but it's also a project faced by immense obstacles. If China wants to do this, good on them, and I wish them all the best.

Most of the suggested route go through political volatile areas, such as Iran. Say, they develop the nuclear bomb and NATO decides to bomb and/or invade. Now it's a war-zone and every foreign service in the world advises against travelling there. The link is unusable for 5-10-15 years. Russia frequently has fall-outs with their neighbours to the extend where they shut off gas in the middle of the winter.

But the biggest issue isn't what we know now - it's what we don't know. Such a rail road has a lifespan of decades, if not more. The Train-Siberian railroad is 100 years on. The combined expected volatility over a 100 year period of all the areas the route extends through is extremely high.

CapitalistCartr2• 16 years ago

This is not a big deal as an engineering project. It's a lot of expensive track-laying, but the obstacles are not as bad as some already conquered elsewhere.

Politically, it's basically impossible.

fnid213• 16 years ago

In the U.S. it'd be politically impossible, but not in other countries, especially not in China. All the other countries have to say is "yes" and they very likely will because it'll be cheaper to transport goods and people between their markets. The Eurail pass will take you nearly anywhere you want to go in Europe for 6 months and $2k. They love trains.

This project and this vision is another nail in the U.S. hegemony coffin.

waterlesscloud4• 16 years ago

Everyone has to keep saying "yes" in perpetuity, or the project has gaps and interruptions and is worth less than was planned.

17 nations with wildly different goals are unlikely to keep saying yes.

CapitalistCartr2• 16 years ago

Within the US, it'd be easier than going through the Middle East. To get Russia, Kazakhstan, Iran, Turkey, Poland Germany etc., totaling 17 countries in agreement is a monumental task, exceeding getting Israel and the Palestinians to settle their differences. Then every time China does something that annoys any of the 17 nations, those trains will be held hostage. Yeah, it's a huge challenge, but not because of the engineering.

That said, if it gets built, I'll be rushing to ride it.

heresy• 16 years ago

It would be possible in the U.S. because the U.S. does not think long term any more.

Everything is short term, and a failure if not successful within a very tightly compressed timeframe.

There is no vision or ambition in the U.S. any more when it comes to infrastructural projects like this.

ojbyrne• 16 years ago

A trans-North America high speed rail route would be pretty cool. This seems analogous to the way sputnik ignited the space race.

melling• 16 years ago

Yeah, someday we'll have high-speed rail in the US. It will probably take at least a decade to get the first one, if not a little longer.

In the meantime, read how GM paid to destroy our mass transit system so people would buy more cars.

http://www.trainweb.org/mts/ctc/ctc06.html

chancho• 16 years ago

Except that sputnik was a proxy for a nuclear weapon. "Look what we can put up above your heads, and there's not a thing you can do about it." High-speed rail doesn't have the same overtones.

Also, connecting 1.5 billion to 700 million is a lot more lucrative than connecting, what, 150 million to 50 million? Nevermind the fact that there are existing high-speed networks to connect with in Europe and China. What a fucking bummer it would be to take a 6 hour train trip from NY to LA then a 6 hour bus from LA to SF.

Xichekolas2• 16 years ago

To get from NY to LA in 6 hours would require a train that averages 410mph.

This is exactly the type of route that trains will not take from planes any time soon. The fastest train in the world is China's maglev that does almost 270mph.

But a trip from LA to SF, or St. Louis to Chicago, or NY to DC, or between any major city in Texas and any other one... that is the kind of route that rail would excel at, provided we had the motivation to build it.

All that said, I don't see the motivation to take a two day train trip from China to London when you could fly it in much less time. I understand the comfort factors and all, but when you are talking that length of time, I think the customer demand is going to be very limited (unless it's significantly cheaper than airfare).

jacquesm2• 16 years ago

Once it's done I'll travel that thing, what a unique perspective on the world it must be to see the landscape and the culture change like that.

It's a perspective that no airplane ride will ever give you.

waterlesscloud4• 16 years ago

Writer Paul Theroux has made essentially this trip twice now, decades apart.

Chronicled in his books THE GREAT RAILWAY BAZAAR and GHOST TRAIN TO THE EASTERN STAR.

stingraycharles2• 16 years ago

Well, you can already do something like that, just a little slower (which gives you more time to appreciate the landscape changing):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trans-Siberian_Railway

It essentially connects Vladivostok with Europe, going through countries like North Korea and China, making the railway even larger than the railway proposed in this article.

chrisb• 16 years ago

"going through countries like North Korea..."

Your geography and politics are slightly incorrect :)

ZeroGravitas• 16 years ago

You can do it virtually via Google:

http://www.google.ru/intl/ru/landing/transsib/en.html

sman• 16 years ago

Hard to make it happen politically. India tried something similar, to get gas from Iran in a pipeline. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran%E2%80%93Pakistan%E2%80%93I... The project has been gestating for the last 20 years with no real movement in the progress meter. And similar to what happened with the pipeline, I expect the US to spring roadblocks all over the place. Even if it cannot convince every country, it will convince enough to ensure gaps in the rail line undermining its usefulness.

fnid213• 16 years ago

In January 2010, the United States asked Pakistan to ... abandon its plan ... in order to isolate Iran.

What is an American to think of this? Am I suppose to like it because I'm an American or despise it because it is holding up a better life for humanity?

Qz4• 16 years ago

Nationalism is overrated, so I vote for despise it.

danw• 16 years ago

Any mention of what the route would be? And what's the anticipated travel time from London to China?

DFootball• 16 years ago

Good question. Wouldn't that still take almost a week?

limist3• 16 years ago

From the article:

"...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."

waterlesscloud4• 16 years ago

A 48 hr trip would have to average just over 100mph. Maybe, if it's got some pretty limited stops.

limist3• 16 years ago

Wow, didn't expect such interest from HN. Seems everyone loves trains. :)

Tangentially, what is it about trains anyway? Seems to me they hit the natural sweet-spot of "comprehensible speed" or speed at a near-human scale: not so fast and distant as to be alien like jets, but fast enough to be interesting. Oh, and stress-free compared to driving.

fnid213• 16 years ago

Have you traveled on trains? It's so much nicer than planes. No security check, no long waits, no cattle herding.

Plus, they are more efficient. They are transportation of the future. The world is going to be going backwards in time as energy becomes more expensive. This means leaving planes and going to trains and wind powered ships. It's already happening.

Plus, it is a national recognition that long term thinking is beneficial. China in this case is a visionary example for the world. I hope the U.S. wakes up soon.

shawndrost• 16 years ago

> ...as energy becomes more expensive.

Is energy becoming more expensive? A quick search (ie http://www.wtrg.com/oil_graphs/oilprice1869.gif) shows no such long-term trend.

Xichekolas2• 16 years ago

I want to qualify what I'm about to say with the fact that I love love love trains, and have spent significant (1000+) hours riding them.

I think trains, due mainly to speed, have a sweet spot to fill, and a future without air travel is not in the cards. Also, as trains become more popular, they will eventually become subject to the same security hassles as air travel.

So I'm not directly contradicting you. Trains will always be more spacious and allow more freedom to move about and dine in comfort than planes. I think they have a definite role to fill (any trip between 100 miles and 600 miles in length assuming decent speeds of 150mph+). I'm just saying the future is going to be a heterogeneous mix of transportation options.

Of course, if someone builds a train that moves at jet speeds, all bets are off.

limist3• 16 years ago

Thanks for the comment - my question/comment was about their seeming psychological appeal. Yes, they are usually more physically convenient and comfortable, but I believe there's something more to the experience than that. Just wondering aloud what that could be; I've felt more contemplative on trains than I ever recall being on a plane, or while being driven somewhere.

yosh• 16 years ago

> No security check, no long waits, no cattle herding.

Not all trains. With Eurostar (Paris<->London) there's a security checkpoint with an x-ray and metal detector, along with passport control.

erikstarck3• 16 years ago

Trains in vacuum tunnels would be able to go as fast as a jet plane. You'd lose the sightseeing though, unless the tunnels were built of glass. :)

erikstarck3• 16 years ago

I think this is more about the idea of a grand project filled with dreams of a better future than trains.

portman• 16 years ago

The largest PROPOSED infrastructure project in history would be the Transatlantic Tunnel.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transatlantic_tunnel

http://www.popsci.com/scitech/article/2004-04/trans-atlantic...

MaysonL• 16 years ago

As told by Harry Harrison: A Transatlantic Tunnel, Hurrah! http://www.fantasticfiction.co.uk/h/harry-harrison/tunnel-th...

aarghh• 16 years ago

First thing I thought of, too.

fnid213• 16 years ago

I shook my head when I read this part:

  Cost: $88 billion to $175 billion

Why on earth hasn't this project been started yet? We spend that in a few months in Iraq. We write checks for that and just give them to AIG, GS, and MS.

Seriously, what is going on? Why is our country like this?? When is it going to change? Is it going to change?

Should I just move to china? Seriously. I've considered it. Or India. Or even south america. I continue to ask myself, why do I choose to live in the U.S.? Because I was born here? Is that a good enough reason?

nfnaaron• 16 years ago

It does feel like the world is passing us by.

mseebach7• 16 years ago

Considering that none of the key technologies exist yet, I find that the cost is very optimistic. The "øresund" bridge linking Denmark and Sweden opened in 2000 at a cost of ~5.5 bln USD. It's 15.9 km = 9.9 miles, or $555 mio/mile. This was a successful project, using very well understood technology by people who just finished building a similar project 150 miles away, finished roughly on time.

A transatlantic tunnel would be 3500 miles, that's 350 times longer. Its completely unknown technology - no-one has ever submerged a vacuum tunnel, and no-one has build a mag-lev that actually goes 4000mph. And they're telling us it can be done for $50 mio/mile, less than a tenth of a regular bridge? I know it doesn't scale linearly, but I'd expect such a tunnel to be more, not less, expensive pr. mile. At the same mile-cost as a bridge, it'd cost $1942 bln.

I did a back-of-an-envelope calculation when this came out a while ago, that if all plane passengers from London to New York (can't remember the number now) were to switch to such a train, tickets would have to cost an average $10.000, one way, to cover 5% maintenance, interest and ROI.

martythemaniak• 16 years ago

With all the flack airlines and air transport is getting now because of climate change, maybe China can try and sell this is action on that front? Trains are more efficient than airplanes, are they not? (not a rhetorical question)

Even so, I doubt this will happen in 10 years.

zol• 16 years ago

With China's minimum wage being around US 60c an hour (http://bit.ly/6mDBYz) they are in a much better position to undertake such a labour intensive job as the West.

It is a smart move to receive payment in the form of natural resources as some of the countries involved in the network are economically poor but resource rich. It is likely the countries participating will end up paying a lot more in resources than they would have in cash.

It's my opinion that people are mistaken when viewing the proposal in terms of personal transport. It's not. It's a system designed to fuel China's growing demand for resources, which cannot be transported via air. In the other direction will come a high speed flow of manufactured goods.

erikstarck3• 16 years ago

For that kind of project it would make sense to develop robotics and other technology that could lower the cost dramatically.

Also, you can't just take the minimum wage from China and multiply with the number of workers, there are many costs added to having that many people in different countries. Food and housing in Germany, for example, are expensive.

thingie• 16 years ago

Hm, this doesn't really seems to be an attempt to divert passenger traffic from using the planes to some cross-continental HSR. On the other hand, it'd allow China to export much much more goods and much much faster than nowadays with ships [1]. And of course, it would also very much strengthen China's influence in the Middle east and around, as in this area, HSR travel times would be very interesting and provide (in comparison) wonderful connection with China.

You wouldn't travel from China to Europe by train even with this, of course. I wonder what would the Russian response be, as they are quite expected to maintain their strong influence in this region, and this isn't exactly going to support that.

[1] This is already being done, in a rather small scale.

The Largest Infrastructure Project in History: Chinese High-Speed Rail to Europe

Related Stories