# China-US high speed rail



## CHamilton (May 9, 2014)

Jis has posted several links to articles about this on Facebook. From NARP:



> According to several state-run Chinese news outlets, Chinese rail officials are considering the construction of a high-speed rail corridor that would connect China with the United States.
> 
> The proposed line would originate at Beijing, traversing Chinese soil before crossing Siberia and the Pacific Ocean to Alaska. The corridor would continue across Canada to the continental United States. The Chinese-funded project would allow a passenger to make the intercontinental journey in two days by means of 125 miles of tunnel under the Bering Strait, according to China Daily.
> 
> Chinese sources failed to mention whether the United States, Canadian or Russian governments have been consulted regarding the project, although they stated that Russia has been considering such an undertaking for some time. The massive project is only one of four similar international rail projects which the Chinese government is considering at this time. If completed, they would link China to cities as far away as Paris and London. China Daily emphasized, however, that "the details of this project are yet to be finalized."


----------



## Devil's Advocate (May 9, 2014)

I'm a huge proponent of passenger rail in general, but this story sounds just plain nuts. Even assuming it were technically possible, which is by no means clear, there are so many other methods of increasing passenger rail far more efficiently with much greater benefit to a much larger number of people. Start with the easy wins. Leave the crazy edge of the envelope stuff for the era when all the low hanging fruit has already been resolved.


----------



## jis (May 9, 2014)

I have difficulty believing that this will be built beyond Eastern Russia. I do believe that a link from North East China to Eastern Russia will be built. The line mentioned in the article from China to Southeast Asia will most certainly be bilt, and links between China and India will eventually be built too most likely. If a line is ever built to North America it will mainly be for freight, not passenger I think.


----------



## Anderson (May 10, 2014)

I tend to agree with Jis on this one. I will admit that I can see a scenario where Russian Railways runs some limited service into the US/Canada as a "prestige" operation, but I don't see it being more than a once-daily thing at most. On the Asian side, you'll get some regular local service within Siberia, but that will be local service on a branch line aimed at serving the resource extraction operations out there. On the North American side, I could see the Russian train picking off some odd-and-end business (for example, Fairbanks to wherever the customs/sorting yard is at the "border" would probably offer a modest amount of business; depending on the routing, I can see additional (local) traffic being picked off of the buses that run to Alaska. But it'll never be big business...you're going to be looking at total ridership on the North American side measured in the tens of thousands of annual riders in all likelihood, simply because of how sparsely populated the region is.

Edit: To be clear, the Russians are also looking at this and have been for a bit. I think both countries want the rail link...after all, the freight savings potential is impressive, particularly if you could manage through-shipping from parts of South/Southeast Asia as well. From what I recall reading, the Russians seem to think this could turn profits in the billions of dollars per year if completed.

Edit 2: And I think I may have figured out at least one element of what is going on here...namely, all of the trouble expanding the coal terminals on the west coast is likely playing a role here. With the railroad option, it is entirely possible you could route the tracks around British Columbia. The job creation possibilities are substantial in Alaska, and this would provide a viable substitute if problems ever arise with the pipeline up there.


----------



## Paulus (May 10, 2014)

Even for freight there is no point to such a line. I sincerely doubt anyone in a position of authority is stupid enough to consider such a thing seriously.


----------



## Green Maned Lion (May 10, 2014)

There is so a point to such a line. It could conceivably reduce shipping time from China for certain goods immensely. It would be immensely useful for shipment of electronics, for instance.


----------



## Paulus (May 10, 2014)

Green Maned Lion said:


> There is so a point to such a line. It could conceivably reduce shipping time from China for certain goods immensely. It would be immensely useful for shipment of electronics, for instance.


Not really. It's a significantly longer route and the trains aren't going to run any faster than a fast freighter (or, for that matter, a container ship not engaging in slow sailing). Fast freighters currently aren't much of a thing since fuel prices started climbing because you either care enough to spend the money shipping by air or you just go with the cheapest price you can. Meanwhile shipping on this railroad would probably cost more than air shipping because you need to recoup the capital costs of a 9,000 mile rail line going through hellacious terrain with a somewhat insane 125 mile long tunnel underneath the Bering Strait as the crown jewel. God alone knows what you'll need to pay in order to get MOW and T&E crews to live out there where you need them.

For what it's worth, Shanghai to Los Angeles is twelve days (another example here). Shanghai to Vancouver is 13 days. At best, at the very absolute realistic best performance for freight trains, you could shave a day off of that. Maybe two. Nobody is going to pay for that, especially when they could just pay the increased fuel costs of a faster freighter or spring to bring back NS Savannah (except made in Korea and focused on containers).


----------



## jis (May 10, 2014)

Have you bothered to look at what the great circle route, i.e. The shortest route between Beijing and Chicago is? No, I did not think so. 

Sent from my iPhone using Amtrak Forum


----------



## Paulus (May 10, 2014)

jis said:


> Have you bothered to look at what the great circle route, i.e. The shortest route between Beijing and Chicago is? No, I did not think so.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Amtrak Forum


A fantastic route to fly, not a terribly good idea for laying tracks what with the ice cap and ocean in the way.


----------



## Anderson (May 10, 2014)

I think one thing that is being missed is that all that stuff going to LA isn't going to LA. Containers get loaded onto the ship, sent to LA, and then offloaded in LA/Long Beach and sent to wherever they're _actually_ going. There's a reason you've got all these fun projects in Central America getting thrown about as well (the extra locks on the Panama Canal, the Nicaragua Canal, etc.).

The other jams here are:
-UP's Sunset Route is jammed with freight. Tehachapi is basically impossible to double-track at present. The Coast Line is probably in a similar boat (just _try_ to double-track the line through Vandenberg), etc. Per a study from a few years ago, these situations are not likely to resolve themselves.

-Container capacity at Long Beach (or indeed anywhere else on the West Coast) is not infinite, and you've got NIMBY issues all over the place.

-Again, with stuff going the other way, I don't see coal or oil shipments being popular on the West Coast. However, I can sure see Alberta leaping at the chance to ship stuff out via Alaska so they don't have to deal with British Columbia.

The other point to consider is that the Russians use an almost entirely electrified system, and that most of this is likely to be government-funded (by either the Chinese, Russians, or both), so it is entirely plausible that a large chunk of the capital cost is simply written off in the same way that the US wrote off the highway system.


----------



## afigg (May 10, 2014)

Anderson said:


> Edit 2: And I think I may have figured out at least one element of what is going on here...namely, all of the trouble expanding the coal terminals on the west coast is likely playing a role here. With the railroad option, it is entirely possible you could route the tracks around British Columbia.  The job creation possibilities are substantial in Alaska, and this would provide a viable substitute if problems ever arise with the pipeline up there.


The Trans Alaskan pipeline is likely to be shut down within 10 years due to declining production on the North Slope, so that won'r be a factor in any plans for a rail link through Alaska.

The vast distances involved just on the North American side make the economics of this idea shaky to say the least. According to Google maps, the driving distance from Chicago to Fairbanks is 3,456 miles via the Alaska Highway. Don't know where a rail line to Fairbanks would would start from in Canada between the existing CN and CP lines, but lets guess estimate it as 1,500 to 2,000 miles of new rail tracks to build through challenging terrain to the vicinity of Fairbanks. Then it would be another 600 to 700 miles, probably significantly more, through a winding route from Fairbanks to somewhere near Wales, Alaska where it would connect to a tunnel running under the Bering Strait.

The EIS for building a new 2 track rail line over that route would be a doozy. Since the purpose of this line is to compete with container and cargo ships, I figure it would have to be at least a 2 track line to carry enough volume to compete. Would be fun to see what the ballpark cost estimate is for building a freight line to the Bering Straits on the North American side. Eye popping number I'm sure. Then a cost estimate for the tunnel under the Bering Straits for more fun.

Yes, the US built the Alaska Highway to Fairbanks, but I don't know if it would have ever been built if had not been for the Second World War and the circumstances that existed in 1942. The original Alaska Highway was built in an astonishingly short time because it is one of those projects you can point to where the US government in the interests of national security in the middle of a world war wrote a blank check and said get it done _now_.

The economics of a rail service, either as high speed rail or a conventional freight rail line, over this route can't compete against giant container ships going across the Pacific Ocean. The route is remarkably close to the Great Circle line from China to Chicago, so it does have that going for it. Still, this proposal falls into the seriously crazy idea category.


----------



## Anderson (May 11, 2014)

True, though a sober analysis of a number of projects would probably have killed, among others, the Canadian Transcontinental Railroad (on numbers, it would probably have been cheaper to simply cut a deal with the US and connect to Vancouver via Seattle).

I agree that the project would inherently be at least a two-track one. Honestly, I'd probably just build the bridge-tunnel for four tracks, both on the assumption that you're going to be stuck doing some wacky shuttling of cars to deal with between customs stations, and so you don't have to come back and do this project again.

Edit: Also, what _is_ the cost of freight haulage with electric traction vs. diesel?


----------



## Paulus (May 11, 2014)

Anderson said:


> Edit: Also, what _is_ the cost of freight haulage with electric traction vs. diesel?


A rough rule of thumb I've noticed is 1/3rd the energy required with electric vs diesel. Notional average US freight train is about 6.5 gallons per train mile, so call it 81.25 kWh per train mile. Against this you have increases in MOW costs from the electrification (0.4-0.5% annually of capital costs according to British experience) countered by lowered locomotive maintenance (a difference of 5 pence per vehicle mile, again UK) with higher electric reliability (plus more powerful locomotives, up to 10MW on the HXD2) which means fewer locomotives required.

That said, electricity is incredibly expensive up there thanks to lack of infrastructure; much of it is via diesel generator. Ignoring some of the modular nuclear proposals for Alaska, geothermal is quoted at 22-25 cents per kWh out there, and about $500,000 per mile of power line (which is what railroad electrification costs in reasonable non-whatongodsgoodgreenearthareyousmokingcaltrain lands).


----------



## leemell (May 11, 2014)

Anderson said:


> The other jams here are:
> 
> -UP's Sunset Route is jammed with freight. Tehachapi is basically impossible to double-track at present. The Coast Line is probably in a similar boat (just _try_ to double-track the line through Vandenberg), etc.



One small question. The CA HSR project is planning in putting in two tracks through Tehachapi. Why is the double tracking impossible then?


----------



## Anderson (May 11, 2014)

leemell said:


> Anderson said:
> 
> 
> > The other jams here are:
> ...


Because it isn't actually through Tehachapi as we think of it, and the grades being planned on are inimical to freight. CAHSR wants to bore tunnels through a separate alignment, but doing so involves, among other things, grades of 3%+. As a rule, you do not want to go over 2% if you can help it.

Edit: I'd also note that were you looking at a fully-operational two-track system, it is entirely possible that there would be enough energy use to effect economies of scale on power generation in the region and use excess generation for any added local demand.


----------



## leemell (May 11, 2014)

Thanks. I was prteey sure it was something to do with routes and grades.


----------



## Anderson (May 11, 2014)

No problem. One thing to consider is that IIRC, the CAHSR Bakersfield-Burbank run is something like $15-20bn, and that's with high grades limiting tunneling. If you had to build a 2% grade for good freight operations, I can see a situation where you'd burn through $50bn or more to punch through the mountains, and the tunnels would probably be long enough to force electrification on top of that.


----------



## Paulus (May 12, 2014)

Anderson said:


> No problem. One thing to consider is that IIRC, the CAHSR Bakersfield-Burbank run is something like $15-20bn, and that's with high grades limiting tunneling. If you had to build a 2% grade for good freight operations, I can see a situation where you'd burn through $50bn or more to punch through the mountains, and the tunnels would probably be long enough to force electrification on top of that.


Keep in mind, however, that there's major detouring over to Palmdale and that high speeds limit the turn radius. For what it's worth, the state and BNSF are teaming up to add double tracking and improve capacity on the Loop.


----------



## George Harris (May 12, 2014)

Something like 20 years ago a person did a paper on the possibilities of a Bering Strait Tunnel. There have bees a couple of dream concepts for a Bering Strait Bridge. The tunnel appears to be feasible from an engineering perspective. In fact, it could be said that the tunnel is the easy part. Economics and how it gets connected up to the rest of the world is another story altogether. On each side of this location are thousands of miles of essentially empty and most inhospitable territory on this planet.

The connection can be built given a strong political will and huge money from all participants. I do not see it happening. There is no reason outside fantasyland to build this line. Shipping by ocean is far cheaper per ton-mile than by rail. Also, due to the climate this will be an expensive piece of railroad to operate as railroads go.


----------



## cirdan (May 12, 2014)

Devil's Advocate said:


> I'm a huge proponent of passenger rail in general, but this story sounds just plain nuts. Even assuming it were technically possible, which is by no means clear, there are so many other methods of increasing passenger rail far more efficiently with much greater benefit to a much larger number of people. Start with the easy wins. Leave the crazy edge of the envelope stuff for the era when all the low hanging fruit has already been resolved.


I agree with your arguments, but I guess this isn't a shovel ready project. Some visionary projects can take decades if not lifetimes to achieve. Look for example at the Panama Canal or the Channel Tunnel. I would put this more in that category. They would never have happened if somebody hadn't taken the first step, even if the initial proposal had little in common with what was finally built, and a lot of time elapsed between the two. If we start shouting people down for being visionary, big ideas will eventuall stop and progress will come to a halt.


----------



## cirdan (May 12, 2014)

Paulus said:


> Green Maned Lion said:
> 
> 
> > There is so a point to such a line. It could conceivably reduce shipping time from China for certain goods immensely. It would be immensely useful for shipment of electronics, for instance.
> ...


It depends.

It is likely that global warming will free up additional land in Siberia and Alaska, while at the same time making lands further south less inhabitable due to desertification etc. Human activity as a whole will thus move north. What is today tundra and wasteland may be tomorrow's bread basket and there will be cities filled with industry and innovation. It seems like a perfectly logical step to me to connect them up to support trade.


----------



## cirdan (May 12, 2014)

jis said:


> Have you bothered to look at what the great circle route, i.e. The shortest route between Beijing and Chicago is? No, I did not think so.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Amtrak Forum


Even taking into account the great distortion of scale that the Mercator projection implies?


----------



## Anderson (May 12, 2014)

The lack of infrastructure on the Russian side, in particular, is part of the point of this project. I strongly suspect the Russians will be looking at a network of branch lines going to mining areas they want to develop in Eastern Siberia, depending on what is found/available in different areas.

My suspicion is that the line within Siberia would make money on its own, but the Russians also want to heap a big "national pride" project onto things. Considering their cooperation in other areas, Russia and China teaming up on this seems quite plausible.

Edit: I do keep chewing this over, and things get to be more and more clear. I've flipped through some news stories on this, and I think I know some of what is going on:
-The HSR plan is likely one of a big stack that the Chinese are looking at. I would point out the New York EIS on the Upper Empire Corridor: There was a bullet train option in there, one which was ultimately thrown out.

-That said, the idea that the Chinese are looking at an investment deal with Russia is a lot less far-fetched. Russia is one of the biggest producers of oil and gas. If Europe doesn't want Russia's fuel, China is definitely in the market for it. Ditto other resources (the Chinese are grabbing as much gold as they can as well, if I'm not mistaken).

--In that context, the Chinese throwing a bunch of money at the Russian project might be a down payment for some stake in a resource operation in Eastern Siberia. The Russian line has been under construction for a while (it currently terminates across the river from Yakutsk).

-Whether the railroad simply goes deep into Siberia in the general direction of the Bering Strait or actually crosses it is the open question, but that is a different question than taking the whole project in a vacuum.


----------



## northnorthwest (May 14, 2014)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2014/05/09/china-may-build-an-undersea-train-to-america/?wprss=rss_world&clsrd

I don't even know where to begin with a discussion of this….

There's nothing in Alaska (or Siberia) at the moment. Does this rail line assume a future where these areas are much more populated due to changes from global warming?

If the train comes into Alaska, then we will need connections to the lower 48. Amtrak is in no position to build anything. Does this hint at a future in which China builds a modern rail network in the US?

How would this rail system compete with air travel in the future? I don't know where the economics of air travel are going with continued environmental destruction. Is long distance rail going to make a comeback?

And when I say long, I mean L O N G. If this gets built we could take a train from Miami up through Alaska to Russia and into Europe. It might require a more advanced version of amsnag. WOW...

Thoughts?


----------



## Just-Thinking-51 (May 14, 2014)

Sorry just one person pipe dream. Not even a government idea.

I love to see it done, but the politics would be a nightmare. Direct link to China.

Also the tunnel a no go in that area, a bridge is possible. (No ready source, but I do recall)


----------



## afigg (May 14, 2014)

As HSR, the idea makes no economic sense at all under the current circumstances while a freight line is a smidgen more rational. NYP to London would be a cool, albeit a very long rail trip.


----------



## jis (May 15, 2014)

As soon as we perfect the technology of anchored floating underwater tubes ......  the trip time to London could be cut down considerably, specially if it is an evacuated tube. 

Sent from my iPhone using Amtrak Forum


----------



## Green Maned Lion (May 15, 2014)

I think you can go from NYP to London, via Toronto.


----------



## George Harris (May 15, 2014)

Just-Thinking-51 said:


> Sorry just one person pipe dream. Not even a government idea.
> 
> I love to see it done, but the politics would be a nightmare. Direct link to China.
> 
> Also the tunnel a no go in that area, a bridge is possible. (No ready source, but I do recall)


I don't know who is saying the bridge is possible / tunnel impossible. Seems like it would more likely be the other way around.

The idea of this crossing seems to resurface at multi-year intervals. There was a discussion on a bridge in a Popular Science some 20 to 40 years ago. Sorry, I can't be more precise than that. There have been a couple of discussions on tunnels as well. One was written by a tunnel engineer, so as far as the tunnel itself went it was pretty good. His concept of connecting it up to the rest of the world left a lot to be desired. What was taken away from his article, which I read in an American Railway Engineering Association bulletin, was that the tunnel was quite feasible technically.

When you think sea ice, etc., the tunnel seems to be a much more viable alternative.

A little look at maps at scale should case these 100 mile plus ideas to go away. The distance is roughly 27 miles from Cape Wales, Alaska to the shore of Little Diomede island, about 6 miles from the east shore of Little Diomede Island to the west shore of Big Diomede Island and another roughtly 27 miles from there to the tip of the Siberian Penninsula., totally roughly 60 miles shore to shore. thanks to the mid channel islands, you have only about 30 miles between access points, which is very close to the English Channel tunnel length.

Should the transportation need for this facility develop, it can be built, but I cannot see any reason to get in a hurry to do it. There are many transportation projects that are far higher in priority than this one.

Given the relative economics of ocean shipping I would consider it highly unlikely that there would be much, if any, demand for use of this railroad at a rate that would cover or even come close to covering its operating expense, much less capital costs.


----------



## RailRide (May 16, 2014)

George Harris said:


> Just-Thinking-51 said:
> 
> 
> > Sorry just one person pipe dream. Not even a government idea.
> ...


I think a lot of that comes from the erroneous belief that this line would have to cross a subduction zone. I've had to correct a number of folks on a couple of other discussion boards (as well as inducing my first post on _Trains_ magazine's _Newswire_ comments) by pointing out the locations of the Aleutian Trench and Bering Strait, as well as mentioning that this line would be firmly on the North American Plate long before it left Russia.

---PCJ


----------



## George Harris (May 16, 2014)

There was a 6 page paper, 3 of them pictures by G. Koumal, titled the Interhemispheric Bering Strait Tunnel & Railroad publisned in American Railway Engineering Association Bulletin No. 748, December 1994, which became part of the AREA's Proceedings Volume 95 (1994). Mr. Koumal was described as being the President of Engineering Technology International U. S. Inc.

His opening statement is that there have been proposals for a tunnel here to as far back as 1849. Yes, that is eighteen forty-nine.

He gives an underwater distance of 52.2 miles from Alaska to Siberia, that including the distance under the Diomede islands. Among his other point is that the maximum depth of channel is 174 feet and the bottom of competent granite and limestone. He estimated a tunnel cost of $9 billion in 1986 dollars, with another $27 billion for the railroad lines to connect it to the rest of the world. I cannot comment on his tunnel cost estimate, other than to wonder if he considered remote location issues, but his railroad construction costs appear to be more appropriate to Kansas, that is wildly optomistic.

Anyone interested in reading this, send me an email address than can take an email with attachments and I will send a scan of it. the Plan-Profile sheet is so condensed as to be illegible, but otherwise, it can be read OK.


----------



## CHamilton (May 17, 2014)

This website has been up for quite a while, but I have no opinion about how useful the information on it is.

http://www.interbering.com/


----------



## George Harris (May 17, 2014)

WOW!! Thanks, CHamilton. This has far more detail that the little article I referenced.

I still tend to regard it as way off into dreamland, but this source at least is doing some coherent dreaming.


----------



## cirdan (Jun 2, 2014)

George Harris said:


> WOW!! Thanks, CHamilton. This has far more detail that the little article I referenced.
> 
> I still tend to regard it as way off into dreamland, but this source at least is doing some coherent dreaming.


The Channel Tunnel was first proposed in Napoleon's day. It took almost 200 years to become reality.

The daydreams of today may be feasible tomorrow. But if we don't daydream them first, we will never build them.


----------

