If you think of it; Russia has a great potential in it's transsiberian railway.

If they adopted american-style gigantic and kilometer long cargo trains, that would go from China to central Europe; they might start to compete with cargo ships.

Sure, you wouldn't be able to have as much cargo as on a ship, but in the end it could turn out to be cost efficient since the price of shipping is getting higher with risk of piracy and higher fuels costs.

What do you think?

What do you think?

...damned 1520 mm gauge :bash:

Yeah, American railfreight is most efficient at long-distance bulk-goods transportation to the detriment of everything else (/snark). But a private operator linking the standard-gauge Chinese and Euro networks together would make a killing methinks. Especially if he/she/they had experience managing American railfreight.

A service recently started running from Chongqing to I-forget-where-in-Europe via Urumqi and the Transsib*. Even with the daylong layovers necessitated by the two gauge changes, IIRC the freight still got there in half the time (a week) than it could by ship.

With no gauge changes, and with good scheduling, I think it's possible to get freight from interior China's major rail termini (Chongqing on the Yangtze, and Xi'an/Lanzhou on the Yellow) to a major Central European rail terminus (either Rzeszów or Kosice, most likely) at a mean speed of 90-100km/h (~60mph) in about five days, and to undercut seaborne shippers while at it, too. Unfortunately, such a venture would necessitate a colossally expensive initial investment, just due to its sheer length--on the order of U.S. $500bn (and maybe as high as a trillion)--which is much too high to get financed without significant federal aid from interested countries, and which would also involve a Russian leg near Chechnya and through Astrakhan--a leg which Russia would (rightly) consider detrimental to its national security since it would provide strong competition with the Transsib.
____________
* If you look at the track maps it has to be the Transsib. Believe it or not, there's no intra-Kazakhstan railroad from Aral'sk to Almaty, much less along the natural extension of this route through Astrakhan.

Its generally believed that transporting goods by sea rather than by Rail due to better coastal access is one of the key economic advantages of Europe over the US.

Well,there are already pretty solid plans being made and it's got very far from idea level ;) One option would be this: China (and other countries in Asia) > Kazakhstan > Russia > Baltics. Apart from China all countries have 1520mm track gauge,so expensive switch gauge trains are not needed (trains will be loaded/unloaded at Chinese border)
In three Baltic countries - Estonia,Latvia & Lithuania - the cargo would be loaded onto ships and shipped to Western Europe etc. First container cargo train using such route should be operational within next few years.

Biggest unreliability will be Russia - this route is largely dependant on their railway taxes. If they will be raised,then the route would not manage to compete with ordinary shipping by sea.

That does not translate to an overall Eurasian context--or even to Central Europe east of the Germanic/Slavic language barrier, however--in other words, once sea access starts to require time-prohibitive detours. (Think about how much longer it takes to get cargo from New York to San Francisco via the Panama Canal vs. the UP and NS mains.) These detours to come into play, for example, when one has to navigate around India, through the Suez Canal, and around Iberia to ship cargo from London to Shanghai--or one has to navigate through the Oresund, around Iberia, through the Straits of Gibraltar, and up the Adriatic to bring cargo via the sea from Stockholm to Dubrovnik. In this case, fast rail service, again, becomes competitive with overseas shipping.

^^ I think land, border, gauge and tax issues all come to play against such alternative in the short term.

The US freight system is unique in its design meant to deal efficiently with long-distance freight.

However, one must not forget the detour via Panama Canal, and its limitations in regard of superlarge modern vessels, put transcontinental US rai shipment at greater advantage to sea transport than the relatively "mild" countours of India and Arabian Peninsule en-route to Suez.

As far as I'm aware, the European freight rail system isn't developed enough that it would serve as an effective "end of the line" of a system linking two of the three largest economies in the world, and having the EU unprepared for this sort of development when it'd be one of the major beneficiaries/utilizers of this sort of system due to sheer economic size makes me doubt the prospects of it, at least in the near future. Additionally, it seems like the efficiency in terms of freightload per train vs. cargo ships isn't favorable.

I'm asking out of ignorance, but is there some reason (other than avoiding pirates) that the Suez Canal isn't used as the main throughway from Asia to Europe? And if it's just the size of the passage, why wouldn't such a potentially valuable access point be enlarged?

However, one must not forget the detour via Panama Canal, and its limitations in regard of superlarge modern vessels, put transcontinental US rai shipment at greater advantage to sea transport than the relatively "mild" countours of India and Arabian Peninsule en-route to Suez.

The Panama Canal is in the process of being enlarged, isn't it? I'm not sure without looking it up how much larger ships it'll be able to accomodate.

I'm asking out of ignorance, but is there some reason (other than avoiding pirates) that the Suez Canal isn't used as the main throughway from Asia to Europe? And if it's just the size of the passage, why wouldn't such a potentially valuable access point be enlarged?
The Suez Canal can be an is used by most ships, only the largest oil tankers can´t use the canal (40% of all tankers). But the current largest container ships can pass the Suezcanal without any big problems.

The current tests runs with container trains via the Transiberian Railway has more to do with the railway companies (mainly the Russian Railways and DB Schenker) also wanting a piece of the pie of the growing container shipping market between China and Europe. They are marketing it as an inbetween alternative to container shipping and airfreight. It will only be successful if they can keep the costs and burocracy as low as possible, and at first only as niche market.

But if it works it could come quite successful, also because the manufacturing industry in China is also moving inland.

I'm asking out of ignorance, but is there some reason (other than avoiding pirates) that the Suez Canal isn't used as the main throughway from Asia to Europe? And if it's just the size of the passage, why wouldn't such a potentially valuable access point be enlarged?

But it is the main Aisan-Europe route! The Suez Canal has no locks, so almost all vessels can pass there.

The business plan for the Europe-Asia railway was that it would fill a niche between Sea (cheap but slow) and Air (expensive but fast)

There's more info here:

http://www.worldcargonews.com/htm/w20110412.518955.htm

http://www.railwaymarket.eu/rm2008/pdf/Is_there_a_Market_for_a_container_train_Bejing_-_Hamburg.pdf

Thanks Momo and Suburbanist. I suppose it's natural being an American and all, but I normally only ever hear about Panamax ships and the problem they present to trade, so I was just wondering. That being the case, despite the geographical and topographical features working against it, wouldn't it be a safe bet that future land shipping from East Asia to Europe will go across the Subcontinent and then leave from, perhaps, Mumbai and go through the Suez Canal?? Or is that just too far from reality to be feasible in the near future?

Thanks Momo and Suburbanist. I suppose it's natural being an American and all, but I normally only ever hear about Panamax ships and the problem they present to trade, so I was just wondering. That being the case, despite the geographical and topographical features working against it, wouldn't it be a safe bet that future land shipping from East Asia to Europe will go across the Subcontinent and then leave from, perhaps, Mumbai and go through the Suez Canal?? Or is that just too far from reality to be feasible in the near future?

You need a China-India railway line first.

Plus, it'd be faster and cheaper to ship from the port in Burma, after the China-Burma line is completed. The earliest date mentioned is 2015.

It will take some time before the economic utility of a Eurasian transcontinental can be realized...Regardless, to maximize its utility (and profitability) instances of transshipment (via gauge changes, ship-to-train transshipment, and interchanges) will need to be minimized, such those transshipments are the major time-killers.

With two transshipments (gauge change at Chinese-Kazakh border and port transshipment in the Baltics) a service running Chongqing/Lanzhou/Xi'an-Urumqi-Novosibirsk (Transsib interchange) should prove quite quick and cost-effective. However, once the initial cost-effectiveness is shown, shorter paths (via several means, including a cutoff through Kazakhstan to meet the Transsib closer to, say, Chelyabinsk, and an ambitious new standard-gauge mainline from Urumqi to a classification terminal in the EU's far east) will likely start to appear. This I would give a 50-year timeframe.*

Like I said, the type of operations that would be most profitable in this environment hew more towards American (Chinese, Russian, Australian)-style long-distance freight railroading than towards European short-distance truck competition. And like I also said, there are routes--predominantly in the EU's far east--where the marine detour makes long-distance freight railroading especially competitive. Rail Baltica is the northern end of such a corridor.
___________________
* The first U.S. transcontinental was completed in (IIRC) 1869, with the laying of the Golden Spike at Promontory Point, Utah; the last one ca. 1920 with the opening of the Milwaukee Road's (abandoned 1980) Pacific Extension. Canada also has two major transcontinentals--the Canadian National and Canadian Pacific--both also built during this time, and Mexico a fairly complete transcontinental rail system as well.

You need a China-India railway line first.

Plus, it'd be faster and cheaper to ship from the port in Burma, after the China-Burma line is completed. The earliest date mentioned is 2015.

Well right, but I figured that going through India (at whatever date) would then bring the Indian market directly into this "shipping lane", putting three/four of the world's largest economies in essentially direct contact.

^^hammersklavier you're also right, but considering that the Trans-Siberian railway goes through Siberia, i.e. essentially the middle of nowhere, and that the Chinese economy is and will likely continue to be centered in eastern, especially southeastern, China, you'd have to ship all those goods from that part of China up north. I'm not saying that the Trans-Siberian line isn't useful, but it probably won't be truly useful until Mongolia starts to develop its natural resources in...sometime in the future.

Incidentally, is there a thread here on the Chinese freight rail system?:?

I dunno about that thread, but do keep in mind that the cities I cited would be the primary points of classification between the industrial areas in East China and the long-distance main to Xinjiang. That is, the route I'm proposing already has rail connections to the sea--and avoids Mongolia.

E: Here's China's general railways thread (http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=496245). Although agreed it may be a good idea to have a freight-specific thread for that country. And more pictures. I like train pictures.

forget about the gauge

just build two terminals with automated cranes lifting the containers between two parallel trains, done in an hour
the bulk goods can be transferred with gravity

all thats needed is organizing the damn thing

^^
Even that ain't needed in these days - there are variable gauge trains which can run on both 1435mm & 1520mm tracks,given that gauge changers have been installed on tracks.

It's all about investments to rolling stock - if there's a company willing to buy such locomotives & freight cars,then the pan-Eurasian freight line could be operational even right now.

^^ The EURASIA | Railway Development (http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=576539) thread covers rail links between China and Europe.

If you think of it; Russia has a great potential in it's transsiberian railway.

If they adopted american-style gigantic and kilometer long cargo trains, that would go from China to central Europe; they might start to compete with cargo ships.

Umm, there are already kilometer long cargo trains everywhere on the Transsiberian and its branches. Additionally, already now quite a lot of goods are transported from Western Europe to Asia this way - you can see containers owned by chinese or western european companies on those trains all the time. For instance BMW is currently planning (or is even doing it already) to ship a lot of the car parts for their chinese factories from Germany via the Transsiberian.

The northwest passage might be just a few decades away from being passable. This circumstance would make any bigger investment in rail shipping between Europe and east Asia unprofitable.

If you think of it; Russia has a great potential in it's transsiberian railway.

If they adopted american-style gigantic and kilometer long cargo trains, that would go from China to central Europe; they might start to compete with cargo ships.


Well, Transiberian Railway already have that monstrous VL85 (http://trainpix.org.ua/photo/18045/) locos - 12-axle, 780 kWt each engine, resulting 9360 kWt. Even if it's not enough you can couple two VL85 and control them from a single cab. One more loco can also be coupled to the end of train, to give additional push, So we get a maximum of 28 080 kWt.

The all famous USA diesel locos are typically 4400 HP (correct me, if I'm wrong), which is roughly 3 280 kW.
USA intermodal train are typically no more than 6-8 locos, I suppose? That results in 19 680 - 26 240 kWt.

So the problem is not short/light trains.

^^
Even that ain't needed in these days - there are variable gauge trains which can run on both 1435mm & 1520mm tracks,given that gauge changers have been installed on tracks.

It's all about investments to rolling stock - if there's a company willing to buy such locomotives & freight cars,then the pan-Eurasian freight line could be operational even right now.
The cost of freight cars will skyrocket. So, transshipping is cheaper anyway.

A service recently started running from Chongqing to I-forget-where-in-Europe via Urumqi and the Transsib*. Even with the daylong layovers necessitated by the two gauge changes, IIRC the freight still got there in half the time (a week) than it could by ship.


It's a weekly service between Chongquin and Antwerp, Belgium.

Most of the spent time is at the border crossings.

There is also a serious problem of capacity. On the transsib (a double track
electrified all the way) freight trains follow each other every 5 to 10
minutes in each direction, and usually consist of 80 to 100 cars each.
Most of this is domestic russian freight traffic. That country has almost
no roads (not a single paved road extending from east to west) so rail
carries most (above 60%) of the shipments.

I do not know which itinerary this train follows, but if it really goes through
the Dostyk-Alashankou border crossing, the map at the URL below will show
you that there are plenty of possibilities to arrive there without going via
the transsib.

http://www.bueker.net/trainspotting/map.php?file=maps/kazakhstan---uzbekistan---kyrgyzstan---tajikstan/kazakhstan---uzbekistan---kyrgyzstan---tajikstan.gif

So I was mistaken then. It looks like the fastest, most logical route is via Almaty-Aralsk-Astrakhan and on into the Ukraine.

Border crossings and transshipments are what slows this service down. But once you have the service, then you can work to optimize it. And in this case, that means making it able to carry more cargo, and carry it faster.

XAN--to answer your first question to some extent, most heavy trains in the U.S. use three or four AC4400CWs or horsepower kin (the latest GE models are the ES40DC and ES44AC). AC equipment in particular runs at a fast clip on fairly level ground (low ruling grades) but slows to a craw on steeper grades--an issue that slows our railfreight network down some--and to answer your second question, if the cost of freight cars skyrockets, then the cheapest solution would be to eliminate transshipment (which is effected by either moving the cargo or the car). Rail-to-rail transshipment of the type gramercy suggests would triple the count of freight cars needed to move the load. (Transshipment 1: China-Kazakh border; Transshipment 2: Ukrainian-Polish/Slovak border.)

Variable-gauge axles are a reasonable interim solution but IMHO are too complex (have too many moving parts) to be robust and reliable enough for equipment that will typically be moving for at least a week before the next reasonable full inspection--probably more. The equipment this service needs is extremely tough and durable, able to weather anything thrown at it...exactly the same type of demands routinely placed on transcontinental railroads in Australia, Russia, and the Americas.

Rail-to-rail transshipment of the type gramercy suggests would triple the count of freight cars needed to move the load. (Transshipment 1: China-Kazakh border; Transshipment 2: Ukrainian-Polish/Slovak border.)


Don't forget there is a Russian gauge extension being made up to Vienna. This method could be very useful for shipments to Eastern and Central Europe from there.

It's a weekly service between Chongquin and Antwerp, Belgium.

Most of the spent time is at the border crossings.

There is also a serious problem of capacity. On the transsib (a double track
electrified all the way) freight trains follow each other every 5 to 10
minutes in each direction, and usually consist of 80 to 100 cars each.
Most of this is domestic russian freight traffic. That country has almost
no roads (not a single paved road extending from east to west) so rail
carries most (above 60%) of the shipments.

I do not know which itinerary this train follows, but if it really goes through
the Dostyk-Alashankou border crossing, the map at the URL below will show
you that there are plenty of possibilities to arrive there without going via
the transsib.

http://www.bueker.net/trainspotting/map.php?file=maps/kazakhstan---uzbekistan---kyrgyzstan---tajikstan/kazakhstan---uzbekistan---kyrgyzstan---tajikstan.gif

"The Eurasian Land Bridge passes Xinjiang’s Alataw Pass and Kazakhstan, ends in Russia’s Moscow, and the freight rail was expanded to Germany’s Duisburg through Poland in March 2011 before further extending to Antwerp in May."

http://www.supplychain.cn/en/articles/printview.asp?3980

So I was mistaken then. It looks like the fastest, most logical route is via Almaty-Aralsk-Astrakhan and on into the Ukraine.

Border crossings and transshipments are what slows this service down. But once you have the service, then you can work to optimize it. And in this case, that means making it able to carry more cargo, and carry it faster.

XAN--to answer your first question to some extent, most heavy trains in the U.S. use three or four AC4400CWs or horsepower kin (the latest GE models are the ES40DC and ES44AC). AC equipment in particular runs at a fast clip on fairly level ground (low ruling grades) but slows to a craw on steeper grades--an issue that slows our railfreight network down some--and to answer your second question, if the cost of freight cars skyrockets, then the cheapest solution would be to eliminate transshipment (which is effected by either moving the cargo or the car). Rail-to-rail transshipment of the type gramercy suggests would triple the count of freight cars needed to move the load. (Transshipment 1: China-Kazakh border; Transshipment 2: Ukrainian-Polish/Slovak border.)

Variable-gauge axles are a reasonable interim solution but IMHO are too complex (have too many moving parts) to be robust and reliable enough for equipment that will typically be moving for at least a week before the next reasonable full inspection--probably more. The equipment this service needs is extremely tough and durable, able to weather anything thrown at it...exactly the same type of demands routinely placed on transcontinental railroads in Australia, Russia, and the Americas.

If traffic builds up, it would make more sense to make the Russian gauge track dual-guage. Then both types of trains can just run as normal.
Or just build a new standard gauge trunkline like Kazahkstan is thinking about, that is designed for much longer trains.

There are all sorts as benefits as standard gauge is what North America, Europe, China and the Middle East use. It costs less to build, the rolling stock is cheaper and more readily available etc etc
The new railway lines in South East will be standard gauge instead of the existing narrow gauge for these reasons.

If traffic builds up, it would make more sense to make the Russian gauge track dual-guage. Then both types of trains can just run as normal.
Or just build a new standard gauge trunkline like Kazahkstan is thinking about, that is designed for much longer trains.

There are all sorts as benefits as standard gauge is what North America, Europe, China and the Middle East use. It costs less to build, the rolling stock is cheaper and more readily available etc etc
The new railway lines in South East will be standard gauge instead of the existing narrow gauge for these reasons.
One big problem with creating dual-gauge track in your instance is that the difference in gauge between the two is about as insidious as a difference can be - 85 mm (1435 vs. 1520 mm). They are too far apart for equipment to be able to run directly between them and too close together to easily create dual-gauge track by laying a third running rail (as can be done between, for example, France and Spain). Standard/Russian dual-gauge track would require four running rails.

The coupling standards between the three are also incompatible with each other ('buffer and chain' used in Europe/SA3 used in Russia and the other countries of the former Soviet Empire/AAR used in China/Middle East/North America) and that would have to be resolved. Of the three, AAR knuckle couplers are the strongest and thus allow for the longest and heaviest trains.

Mike

1) I did a little bit of research on the 'net and it seems that the Antwerp-
Chongquin service goes not through the Dostyk-Alashankou border point,
but well via the classical itenerary through Mongolia.

2) I was myself on the transsiberian-transmongolian itenerary earlier
this month and observed that while the couplers are indeed exchanged
at the Belarus border in Brest-Litovsk, they are not at the Mongolian/
Chinese border in Erlian. So even if ex-USSR uses SA3 and China uses
AAR, those two seems to be 100% compatible with each other.

3) There isn't enough difference between 1435 and 1520 mm tracks to
put in place a third rail. In the boggie exchange facilities, 1435 mm boggies
run on 1520 mm tracks and are prevented from de-railing by inner rails that
keep them centered. In Erlian, the track just beside the station building
is dual-gauge, but uses 4 rails to achieve that.

4) As far as I know, the 1520 mm track extension to Vienna is still at the
early proposal stage, no decision to build it has been taken yet.

5) Transshipment from 1435 to 1520 rolling stock can be cheap and very
automated for goods travelling in standard containers lying on flat bed cars.

6) I don't believe you can couple 2 VL85 together as this would probably
exceed coupler strength. While I was there I have seen many formations
of 1 + 1/2 VL80, but all VL85 I have seen were running solo.

7) While I was there, I noticed already a lot of western containers travelling
on russian and mongolian rails. It's still a bit surprising, even 20 years after
the fall of the soviet empire, to see a train of APL (American President's Line)
containers in Itkursk...

An old article of Railway Gazette International :

http://www.railwaygazette.com/nc/news/single-view/view/trans-kazakhstan-link-will-complete-standard-gauge-transcontinental-artery.html

Does anyone knows whether parts of this plan have already been realized,
or at least started, or is this just more hot air ?

Don't forget there is a Russian gauge extension being made up to Vienna. This method could be very useful for shipments to Eastern and Central Europe from there. Well, the project seem to be either frozen or semi-frozen.
It seems that Slovakia hadn't decided yet, and other countries aren't rushing the project either. So until there would be at least a detailed project with milepost and etc. - you may forget about broad gauge to Vienna.

An old article of Railway Gazette International :

http://www.railwaygazette.com/nc/news/single-view/view/trans-kazakhstan-link-will-complete-standard-gauge-transcontinental-artery.html

Does anyone knows whether parts of this plan have already been realized,
or at least started, or is this just more hot air ?
I don't know about KZT part, but Ukrainian state railway never heard about a standard gauge trans-Ukrainian railway. :ohno:

6) I don't believe you can couple 2 VL85 together as this would probably
exceed coupler strength. While I was there I have seen many formations
of 1 + 1/2 VL80, but all VL85 I have seen were running solo.


Its possible. Many VL85 have an electrical sockets for Multiple-unit train control, it just aren't widely used nowadays.
And SA3, AFAIK is at least 2/3 as strong as AAR?

and to answer your second question, if the cost of freight cars skyrockets, then the cheapest solution would be to eliminate transshipment (which is effected by either moving the cargo or the car). Rail-to-rail transshipment of the type gramercy suggests would triple the count of freight cars needed to move the load. (Transshipment 1: China-Kazakh border; Transshipment 2: Ukrainian-Polish/Slovak border.)

Variable-gauge axles are a reasonable interim solution but IMHO are too complex (have too many moving parts) to be robust and reliable enough for equipment that will typically be moving for at least a week before the next reasonable full inspection--probably more. The equipment this service needs is extremely tough and durable, able to weather anything thrown at it...exactly the same type of demands routinely placed on transcontinental railroads in Australia, Russia, and the Americas.
Well, I actually wanted to say, that introducing variable gauge will cause price skyroketing. A passenger variable gauge bogies are expensive, even the passenger cars aren't cheap themselves, and the freight variable gauge bogies (and their maintence!) gonna be times expensive than classic variant.

There is also a serious problem of capacity. On the transsib (a double track
electrified all the way) freight trains follow each other every 5 to 10
minutes in each direction, and usually consist of 80 to 100 cars each.
Most of this is domestic russian freight traffic. That country has almost
no roads (not a single paved road extending from east to west) so rail
carries most (above 60%) of the shipments.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/de/Map_Trans-Siberian_railway.png

Well capacity isn't that big problem. Ironically, the Baikal-Amur mainline (green) is catastrophically underutilized! (the old good Transsib is red). And it is still possibly to make train ever longer, e.g. by using 2 vl80 instead of 1,5 or 2 vl85 instead of 1.

In long term there will be two routes or network of routes. First the existing route trough Russia. Second a route south of the black sea following the old silk road. The second one will be standard gauge while the first one Russia gauge.
In my opinion the best solution is to have a few high capacity inter modal facility which can load and unload a two kilometer train in less than an hour. Provide access for trains of different gauges, trucks and ships. Through running trains are not that important as the different containers have many different final destination. And its more efficient to just move containers that to have a classification yard for the trains. There are already the first multiple units for cargo trains, so single rail cars cannot be detached anymore. Contrary to US practice the network is or will be electrified so having heavy locomotives pulling unpowered railcars will be a thing of the past. multiple units are more expensive than rail cars but cleverly used the will have much a higher average speed and a minimum waiting time. Like ships trains will move between the large terminals.
Problem for such a big network is that there are four gauges. Meter gauge in South-East Asia, Standard Gauge in Europe and China,Russian Gauge and Indian Gauge. As well as different loading gauges, couplers, etc. Its already a trouble to have trains moving on the European network. The issue with containers is that rail cars can hold more cargo. This problem can be solved by introducing a wider container.

In long term there will be two routes or network of routes. First the existing route trough Russia. Second a route south of the black sea following the old silk road. The second one will be standard gauge while the first one Russia gauge.
In my opinion the best solution is to have a few high capacity inter modal facility which can load and unload a two kilometer train in less than an hour. Provide access for trains of different gauges, trucks and ships. Through running trains are not that important as the different containers have many different final destination. And its more efficient to just move containers that to have a classification yard for the trains. There are already the first multiple units for cargo trains, so single rail cars cannot be detached anymore. Contrary to US practice the network is or will be electrified so having heavy locomotives pulling unpowered railcars will be a thing of the past. multiple units are more expensive than rail cars but cleverly used the will have much a higher average speed and a minimum waiting time. Like ships trains will move between the large terminals.
Problem for such a big network is that there are four gauges. Meter gauge in South-East Asia, Standard Gauge in Europe and China,Russian Gauge and Indian Gauge. As well as different loading gauges, couplers, etc. Its already a trouble to have trains moving on the European network. The issue with containers is that rail cars can hold more cargo. This problem can be solved by introducing a wider container.

SE Asia is going with standard gauge for the new lines. As is Kazakhstan when they finally get going.

Well, the project seem to be either frozen or semi-frozen.
It seems that Slovakia hadn't decided yet, and other countries aren't rushing the project either. So until there would be at least a detailed project with milepost and etc. - you may forget about broad gauge to Vienna.

First from all, Slovakia cannot afford to build the extension. Second, it would be pointless for Slovakia to waste billions to build the railway to Vienna and thus lose income from transhipping.

SE Asia is going with standard gauge for the new lines. As is Kazakhstan when they finally get going.

Malaysia is improving its metre gauge now. I doubt they want to change the gauge after the work is done. They run Intercity trains at 160 km/h on metre gauge. Even express freight wont be faster. Technically container trains could run also 160 km/h on metre gauge. So need to rebuilt the entire network.
India is doing the Unigauge Project to re gauge most of their lines to broad gauge. Pakistan and Bangladesh also use the Indian Broad gauge. Those countries have a very large population.

Sure there will be one standard gauge Link from China to Europe following the silk road. But there will be still need facility to allow transshipment to other rail gauges and oder modes.

If we even think further and include Africa.Then such facilities become inevitable

Even that ain't needed in these days - there are variable gauge trains which can run on both 1435mm & 1520mm tracks,given that gauge changers have been installed on tracks.

That's theoretically possible, however the cost of those systems, specially the cost of the freight cars (around 40% more), is way too high and maintenance costs are also higher (around 15%), plus those variable-gauge cars weigh slightly more (around 2 to 3 tonnes) and so they can carry less goods by the same volume and that's highly undesirable for such a long service. It makes more sense for relatively short trips, e.g. 2 hours cargo transfer over a total of 6 hours trip is a lot of time, but losing 2 hours over a trip of 144 hours (6 days) is not much.

If we even think further and include Africa. Then such facilities become inevitable.

Northern African lines are already standard gauge (from Mauritania to Egypt), they are located quite near to each other but are not phisically (or politically...) interconnected. The whole network of the south is cape gauge (South Africa and nearby countries), with some metre gauge just to the north. Between them, there is nothing but some isolated lines here and there.

With China and Europe using standard gauge there is just one way to make a eurasian rail-link viable, create a standard gauge route from one end to the other. Whether this means re-gauging existing lines or constructing a complete new one is a different matter. Extending broad gauge to Vienna, however, seems rather pointless to me.

Only a small share of the traffic will be transit. a lot of the cargo will come from or go to destinations in the ex USSR and central Asia.
So a broad gauge to Vienna still makes sense because it is a good location for a inter modal terminal. Standard gauge and Broad gauge as well as Trucks and and there is also quite an amount of cargo on the Danube. It makes more sense to place the transshipping facility near an economic center than just in the middle of nowhere on the border.

Of course re gauge the entire network is technically possible but i don't think it is politically viable. Just take the city Lviv in western Ukraine. A Hundred year ago it was called Lemberg and Belonged to Austria-Hungary. Of course the rails where standard gauge. Than it become a part of the USSR and gauge changed to Russia gauge. During WW2 the Germans changed the track to standard gauge and at the end the soviet used their gauge again.
Or the first Transib passed trough China to Port Arthur (Dalian) this was regauged by the Chinese to unify their gauge.

Don't forget there is a Russian gauge extension being made up to Vienna. This method could be very useful for shipments to Eastern and Central Europe from there.
I had no idea. Thanks for the info.
If traffic builds up, it would make more sense to make the Russian gauge track dual-guage. Then both types of trains can just run as normal.
I don't think that's possible. IIRC standard-Russian are just far enough apart that they're not interoperable (like e.g. Finnish-Russian) and just close enough together that it's impossible to lay standard-Russian dual-gauge track.
Or just build a new standard gauge trunkline like Kazahkstan is thinking about, that is designed for much longer trains.
Even if it only got to the Caspian for the moment, it should still be time-competitive with the various routes that involve gauge conversion to Russian and back again. (Especially if there's a standard-gauge railhead in Azerbaijan.)
There are all sorts as benefits as standard gauge is what North America, Europe, China and the Middle East use. It costs less to build, the rolling stock is cheaper and more readily available etc etc
Quoted for truth. If the line were privately financed, built, and operated, it would likely use standard gauge equipment (initially acquired used) with the widest possible dynamic envelope to make the most generous possible use of equipment derived from NA, European, Chinese, and Australian sources. This being the cheapest way to get the trains going.
The new railway lines in South East will be standard gauge instead of the existing narrow gauge for these reasons.
I thought e.g. Malaysia just finished a refurbishment of their Cape gauge lines? So conversion's at least a generation off.

But in the long sense, agreed. Cape gauge is more useful on islands, where space is most constrained and intragauge connections don't normally exist. On mainland Indochina, southward creep of standard-gauge railheads from China (to Bangkok, Kuala Lumpur, and eventually Singapore) is probably inexorable.

^^ Malaysian railways are metre gauge. Cape gauge (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cape_gauge) is 3 ft 6 in (1067 mm).

Dual Russian and standard gauge track (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Haparanda-Tornio_rail_bridge_Sep2008.jpg) is possible with four rails laid so that the tracks overlap each other.

Isn't the proposed Penang-Kuala Lumpur-Singapore railway supposed to be a new standard gauge line?

^^ Malaysian railways are metre gauge. Cape gauge (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cape_gauge) is 3 ft 6 in (1067 mm).
Ah. Thanks. These narrow gauges are impossible to keep track of! Three-foot, meter, Cape...next thing you know, some genius up in Maine (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sandy_River_and_Rangeley_Lakes_Railroad) will develop a two-foot gauge railroad (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monson_Railroad)! Ah crap...
Dual Russian and standard gauge track (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Haparanda-Tornio_rail_bridge_Sep2008.jpg) is possible with four rails laid so that the tracks overlap each other.
Like an extended gauntlet track? True, that's possible, but that's got to be really expensive to implement and requires a little extra electronic equipment for the signaling and dispatch (again, like gauntlet tracks). Given how open the land is in (e.g.) interior Kazakhstan, and therefore how cheap ROW acquisition ought to be, laying a standard-gauge line side-by-side with a Russian-gauge one is, in the long run, probably less expensive (less wear and tear) and hence more feasible.

I can't stop thinking about an extreme wide gauge for very long distance cargo. I've imagine wide enough for two containers beside each others, at least two containers high, I imagined 3 actually. Combining all larger European industries areas, with an link trough the Russian steppes to Asia, and in far away future, a link to Africa.

Just some facts, an ISO standard container 2,44 meters width (8 feet) and 2,6 meters high (8,5 feet) and variable length.

The Nazi regime had plans for everything, and they also had a plan for this. They called it Breitspurbahn (Broad Gauge Rail) originally it should be 4 meters gauge, in 1942 they decided for a 3 meter gauge. It actually was one of Hitler's "favourite plans". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breitspurbahn

^^I was just going to write something similair.
If we're about to create rails for shipping; to compete with trans-oceanic ships; then the broader the gauge, the better. Right?

First regularly scheduled Chongqing-Xinjiang-Europe freight service started on July 30th. Final stop will be Duisburg in Germany.

Chongqing, bridgehead of New Eurasian Continental Bridge
2011-08-01 16:26:47

CHONGQING (CQNEWS) -- Filled with electronic products, the 41-container international freight train headed for Duisburg, Germany along Chongqing-Xinjiang-Europe International Railway from the railway container terminal of Tuanjie Village, Shapingba District, Chongqing at 20:51 on July 30, 2011. Most of the products are collected from coastal regions, which symbolizes that Chongqing has become an important hub and bridgehead for exports from China's coastal regions to Europe and Chongqing-Xinjiang-Europe International Railway, the New Eurasian Continental Bridge, will thus change China's logistics pattern gradually.
Because of this railway, less delivery time is needed to Europe than that from coastal regions. In future, more goods in coastal regions will be transported through this railway. Meanwhile, Chongqing-Xinjiang-Europe International Railway will make Chongqing the transportation frontier of China's foreign trade exports and the bridgehead of Sino-European trade.

^^ I think land, border, gauge and tax issues all come to play against such alternative in the short term.

The US freight system is unique in its design meant to deal efficiently with long-distance freight.


And don't forget the "Jones act", which also puts rail at an advantage in the US.

^^I was just going to write something similair.
If we're about to create rails for shipping; to compete with trans-oceanic ships; then the broader the gauge, the better. Right?

I'm sorry, but that's just daydreaming.

A new international railway from Europe to China (and India?) will take ages
and cost a fortune to build, and will never be profitable quick enough to
attract private inverstors. Don't dream about states building it, most states
in this world are just almost bankrupt, without even the money to maintain
correctly the infrastructure they already own.

A new railway with a different, wider gauge would not be able to carry any
local traffic, because it would not be able to interchange with the local
rail networks. So it would have to rely only on the long-distance traffic for
its revenues, and this traffic only will never use the total capacity of the
line, so it would never pay for itself.

The only possibility is to use the networks already in place, smoothen the
operations, eliminate the bottlenecks, eradicate the border formalities,
increase the speeds, may be enlarge the loading gauge to allow double
stack operation like in the US, and that's about it. That's already more
than what most of the concerned railways can afford without external
financial assistance.

All studies about Eurasian landbridge show that the break of gauge is the
most significant barrier. You are not going to make anything better by
creating yet another one. If there are tons of money available somewhere,
the best way to spend it would be to create a standard gauge link all the
way.

And don't forget the "Jones act", which also puts rail at an advantage in the US.

Could you expand on this?

I'm sorry, but that's just daydreaming.

A new international railway from Europe to China (and India?) will take ages
and cost a fortune to build, and will never be profitable quick enough to
attract private inverstors. Don't dream about states building it, most states
in this world are just almost bankrupt, without even the money to maintain
correctly the infrastructure they already own.

A new railway with a different, wider gauge would not be able to carry any
local traffic, because it would not be able to interchange with the local
rail networks. So it would have to rely only on the long-distance traffic for
its revenues, and this traffic only will never use the total capacity of the
line, so it would never pay for itself.

The only possibility is to use the networks already in place, smoothen the
operations, eliminate the bottlenecks, eradicate the border formalities,
increase the speeds, may be enlarge the loading gauge to allow double
stack operation like in the US, and that's about it. That's already more
than what most of the concerned railways can afford without external
financial assistance.

All studies about Eurasian landbridge show that the break of gauge is the
most significant barrier. You are not going to make anything better by
creating yet another one. If there are tons of money available somewhere,
the best way to spend it would be to create a standard gauge link all the
way.

I think there's probably enough traffic to justify a new standard gauge between China and parts of Kazakhstan

That still leaves Russia, the Ukraine and a big swathe of sparsely populated Kazakhstan...

I think there's probably enough traffic to justify a new standard gauge between China and parts of Kazakhstan

That still leaves Russia, the Ukraine and a big swathe of sparsely populated Kazakhstan...

Not Russia nor Ukraine. The nearest narrow gauge railhead is on Iran-Turkmenistan border, in Sarakhs.

Kazakhstan has little to gain by simply regauging, because that would mean huge cost, no intrinsic improvement in railways and losing the working rail connections to Russia and Central Asia.

Would Kazakhstan, however, gain by allowing China to build "Silk Railway" of 1435 mm gauge, next to 1520 mm route that stays functional, and through major business centres? This way, there is still need to transload to get things delivered to 1520 mm network, but transloading is not limited to remore border posts - it can be done in freight yards at suburbs of major cities, and the goods can be loaded to trucks as well, or consumed/produced/processed in the city?

How is the Žetigen-Khorgos railway on Kazakh side progressing?

Could you expand on this?

The Jones act requires that transportation between to US ports is done by US flagged and build ships. Especially the requirement that domestic trade is carried on US _build_ ships makes that domestic shipping by sea is more expensive in the US than it is for example in Europe. This skews the market in favor of rail.

Hi! Maybe you can help me guys. I need drawings and tables of different clearances and loading gauges in use now all around the world. In particular for 1000, 1435 and 1676 mm gauges. If anyone have this info post it here or send me a private message...
Sorry for my english, I don't use it often. Thanks!

Do you need the trans-siberian loading gauge?

Anyone you have. I see that you 're talking about various systems in Central Asia so any info you have it can help me...

Standard loading gauge (http://www.wedebruch.de/gesetze/betrieb/eboanl.htm#anl1) of the EBO (http://www.wedebruch.de/gesetze/betrieb/ebo1.htm) which applies for German mainline railways.