International Railroad Discussion > The China-To-Europe Rail Link LA Times Article

http://www.latimes.com/world/asia/la-fg-china-silk-road-20160501-story.html

By Julie Makinen and Violet Law

I wonder if they're going to get serious about standardizing the gauge for the entire length of the route?

For much of the distance in Russia or it's former allies to the south, from China to Poland, there is more than one Russian controlled rail route. One of these could be converted and/ or expanded to connect China and Poland with an all Standard gauge route. Engineering simple. Politics not. Why would Russia agree to this? Has to be for possible additional revenue that can be extracted from shipper and political agencies (tariffs) to fund the gauge change. Ship cell guides for marine cons are all the same. Cons can go from China & SE Asia up the coast to a Russian port Nakhoda or Vladivostok. Or with global warming in some summer months to Arctic ports for transfer to rail Russian gauge. Shorter rail distance, only one gauge change not two.

As an interesting note, the reason for China pursuing this is more nuanced.

China, as a whole, sees the US navy as a threat to their ability to sustain economic growth. Effectively, the US Navy can shut down the oceans for anyone worldwide if they so decide. China wants to ensure their economy cannot be held up by this, so a strategic imperative is to ensure avenues of commerce that the US - or another navy - cannot shut down.

Thus, a land-bridge rail line to Europe, a massive market for Chinese goods. No navy to stop them, just some annoying breaks-of-gauge to deal with.

It is interesting to say that China did an agreement with Brazil to build a transoceanic railroad crossing Brazil from east to west and also Peru. The intention is avoid Panama canal for all loads from Latin America to China. They intend to start the construction this year.

Pedro Rezende
Vespasiano MG,
https://youtube.com/c/minasgeraisrailways1

This is an untimely, very late response, probably too late for anyone to read, but I will make it anyway. To zoroz, Chinese fears that the U S Navy will go out and try to prevent trade between nations or fire upon merchant ships among other nations borders on paranoia. The USA is a member of the United Nations, and any such action without a declaration of war by a US President approved by US Congress would meet with severe sanctions by the rest of the world. Or it is seen as a terrorist event as much against the USA or any other country. Almost all cargo between China and the USA (plenty) and China and all other nations, and the USA and all other nations, is moved by shipping companies, ships and even containers that are not controlled by the USA! Does China think shipping it's goods across Russia to reach Europe is safer from a military standpoint than the open seas? It is a real stretch of the imagination to think that the US Navy controls much of the sea-born commercial traffic in the world.I think China shipping to Europe by rail is simple economics. For higher value commodities it will succeed because of speed over a shorter rail distance than sea distance. Russia will co-operate if the Russian rail system (RZD) can make a profit. Like it or not, despite their politics, Russia and China are now both Capitalists even if their political rhetoric does not match.

To Pedro in Brazil. By my rather large but old globe (distances do not change over time), it is shorter from the East Coast of Brazil to Southeast Asia by sea via Cape of Good Hope than an existing or new rail line across the Brazil and the Andes to Southeast Asia. Rail costs are much higher than sea costs, and especially so for a new-built rail line that has to cover it's costs of construction. I sure would like to see a decent railway across Brazil to Bolivia, Peru or Chile, but it's economic reason to be built has to be more than avoiding the Panama canal, even the new wider one.

JL, Wilm, DE