Asia - Europe High Speed Rail

[quantinghome]

A few months ago I suggested (half-jokingly) that you could build a high speed railway running the whole way to China from Europe as an alternative to flying, with the longest journeys (e.g. Paris to Beijing) requiring only 1 night, starting in the morning and finishing the evening of the following day. Given the development of high speed rail in China the idea isn't half as silly as it appears.

This article suggests the idea may well have legs: https://www.railwaygazette.com/high-speed/crrc-unveils-gauge-changing-high-speed-train/57630.article

The train has been developed for cross-border operation between China’s 1 435 mm gauge network and the 1 520 mm gauge used in neighbouring Russia and the CIS countries. The manufacturers cite one potential application as a Beijing – Moscow through service. A multi-system traction package will allow the train to run on different power supplies.

This is a remarkable piece of engineering, exceeding that of Spain and Japan. If a Moscow - Beijing high speed service proves feasible, how long until we get an extension to Western Europe?

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

There are still a lot of gaps in the high-speed network from China to western Europe.
Not to mention the long breaks for immigration/customs at multiple borders.
The market for through passenger service is currently very limited, too.

 

[Austriantrain]

There are still a lot of gaps in the high-speed network from China to western Europe.

There *is* no High-Speed-network between the Russian border and Western Europe and it will not come anytime soon. The most to be expected are some stretches of HSL, but it will probably never amount to a through 300+ km/h route.

Also, if this Forum thinks that there is no relevant market for overnight trains within Europe, there will certainly be no market for a 36 house journey from Beijing to Paris (except for some, just for the thrill of it, but probably only once in a lifetime).

 

[TheGrew]

Honestly I would have thought a standard gauge freight route would be more useful. I imagine the main problems will be political though. From China the route would either need to go through southerly through at the least Pakistan, Iran and Turkey or go northerly through Russia. None of those countries are terribly friendly with 'the west' so it is probably still easier to fly over them.

 

[edwin_m]

Honestly I would have thought a standard gauge freight route would be more useful. I imagine the main problems will be political though. From China the route would either need to go through southerly through at the least Pakistan, Iran and Turkey or go northerly through Russia. None of those countries are terribly friendly with 'the west' so it is probably still easier to fly over them.

Most of the freight travelling this sort of distance is intermodal so break of gauge isn't a huge problem, just trans-ship the containers onto a different set of wagons as it done today.

 

[Austriantrain]

Honestly I would have thought a standard gauge freight route would be more useful. I imagine the main problems will be political though. From China the route would either need to go through southerly through at the least Pakistan, Iran and Turkey or go northerly through Russia. None of those countries are terribly friendly with 'the west' so it is probably still easier to fly over them.

There is a long-standing project mainly pushed by Russia to extend Broad-Gauge towards the East of Vienna. It will probably never come to anything because there is no viable case for it - it would be a simple change of the transshipment point. Some Austrian politicians were in favor originally but there is huge opposition locally and I - thankfully, because it would be pure waste of money - think everyone has gone lukewarm on this.

 

[Gag Halfrunt]

Helmut Uttenthaler (of Vienna-Pyongyang rail odyssey fame) points out in a series of tweets in German that services from China to cities in the Russian Far East would be a more realistic use for a variable gauge high speed train, provided that the Russian government is comfortable with further strengthening of the region's economic ties to China. He suggests Beijing - Shenyang - Jilin - Hunchun - Vladivostok and Beijing - Shenyang - Harbin - Suifenhe - Vladivostok or Khabarovsk as possible routes.

 

[popeter45]

not a china route but how much time could a 350km/h HS line from Warsaw - Minsk - Moscow save on the 21hr Berlin - Moscow Train?

 

[edwin_m]

The EU is funding Rail Baltica (which isn't particularly high speed) to link the Baltics and ultimately Finland with Poland and beyond. This is largely driven by the strategic objective of tying these more fringe member states into the core of Europe, and it's unlikely they would consider anything similar that links to further east, which range from unreliable allies to outright enemies. Even if individual member states wanted to do it themselves, the ones in question couldn't afford it.

 

[MarkyT]

The EU is funding Rail Baltica (which isn't particularly high speed) to link the Baltics and ultimately Finland with Poland and beyond. This is largely driven by the strategic objective of tying these more fringe member states into the core of Europe, and it's unlikely they would consider anything similar that links to further east, which range from unreliable allies to outright enemies. Even if individual member states wanted to do it themselves, the ones in question couldn't afford it.

A mixed traffic concept rather like the Swiss Alptransit tunnels. Fast intermodal freight mixed with passenger trains on standard gauge. Maybe some slower freight at quieter times when there are longer intervals between the expresses. There are also proposals for a link onwards from its northern extremity, Tallinn, Estonia, to Helsinki via a tunnel under the Gulf of Finland.

 

[edwin_m]

A mixed traffic concept rather like the Swiss Alptransit tunnels. Fast intermodal freight mixed with passenger trains on standard gauge. Maybe some slower freight at quieter times when there are longer intervals between the expresses. There are also proposals for a link onwards from its northern extremity, Tallinn, Estonia, to Helsinki via a tunnel under the Gulf of Finland.

Indeed. Very different from the out-and-out high speed line you'd need to get a vaguely reasonable journey time to somewhere as far away as China.

 

[MarcVD]

Seeing that even the channel tunnel struggles to maintain profitability, with all the traffic they have, I really don't see how a tunnel double the size and much less traffic could even achieve positive results.

 

[JonasB]

Seeing that even the channel tunnel struggles to maintain profitability, with all the traffic they have, I really don't see how a tunnel double the size and much less traffic could even achieve positive results.

There are many countries where profitability is not that important when it comes to infrastructure. How many rail lines are profitable?

 

[Taunton]

Seeing that even the channel tunnel struggles to maintain profitability, with all the traffic they have, I really don't see how a tunnel double the size and much less traffic could even achieve positive results.

The trick is to get the EU in Brussels to pay for it. Whether it's in any way financially worthwhile is by-the-by.

I just don't get this "through from the Far East" stuff. Any route north of The Himalayas is going to be a substantial proportion of the mileage on onetime Soviet 5'0" gauge. And the current Soviet approach has been to extend this, such as pushing the 5'0" gauge line that penetrates to Kosice in eastern Slovakia on to Vienna (this one on ice at the moment because the other end goes into Ukraine, not currently Russia's best friend). If you managed to go south of The Himalayas, far more of a geological route challenge, it's the same with the Indian/Pakistan 5'6" system, let alone further political issues. No wonder it seems more straightforward to just put the container on a ship at Hong Kong and off in Western Europe.

The Trans-Siberian is a notably efficient operation, for all its challenges, but trans-shipping the containers twice in the transit, at the Chinese and EU borders, means it is certainly not a through operation. Don't think that you can just change bogies, as the Russians/Finland use different couplings as well, the SA3. The same issue would afflict any route under the Gulf from Estonia to Finland - different gauge, different couplings. The Finns are not going to change as they have a very substantial freight interchange with the Russian railways, wood products, oil, etc, and as the three Baltic States, all the way from the Polish border are the same any new standard gauge line is going to be an orphan, unable to connect items on. But whatever, if you can get Brussels to pay for it.

The recent times "through train from China to London" really should have been subject to a challenge from the Advertising Standards Agency, as I believe they trans-shipped three times, doing so in Germany as well.

 

[MarkyT]

The trick is to get the EU in Brussels to pay for it. Whether it's in any way financially worthwhile is by-the-by.

I just don't get this "through from the Far East" stuff. Any route north of The Himalayas is going to be a substantial proportion of the mileage on onetime Soviet 5'0" gauge. And the current Soviet approach has been to extend this, such as pushing the 5'0" gauge line that penetrates to Kosice in eastern Slovakia on to Vienna (this one on ice at the moment because the other end goes into Ukraine, not currently Russia's best friend). If you managed to go south of The Himalayas, far more of a geological route challenge, it's the same with the Indian/Pakistan 5'6" system, let alone further political issues. No wonder it seems more straightforward to just put the container on a ship at Hong Kong and off in Western Europe.

The Trans-Siberian is a notably efficient operation, for all its challenges, but trans-shipping the containers twice in the transit, at the Chinese and EU borders, means it is certainly not a through operation. Don't think that you can just change bogies, as the Russians/Finland use different couplings as well, the SA3. The same issue would afflict any route under the Gulf from Estonia to Finland - different gauge, different couplings. The Finns are not going to change as they have a very substantial freight interchange with the Russian railways, wood products, oil, etc, and as the three Baltic States, all the way from the Polish border are the same any new standard gauge line is going to be an orphan, unable to connect items on. But whatever, if you can get Brussels to pay for it.

The recent times "through train from China to London" really should have been subject to a challenge from the Advertising Standards Agency, as I believe they trans-shipped three times, doing so in Germany as well.

It is a through guaranteed service organised by one shipper though and the trans-shipments are rail to rail within the same terminals. I'm sure they had their lawyers look at it before making the claim!
You make good points about the compatibility not only of gauge, but of other aspects of the equipment. The southern route is very difficult politically, but standard gauge already extends all the way through Turkey and Iran to the Afghani border today with extension to Herat in progress and beyond planned, albeit with a train ferry across Lake Van in eastern Turkey. I'm not sure if they're running freight through Istambul's Marmary tunnel yet although that is definitely intended. China's standard gauge network extends as far west as Kashgar in Xinjiang, under one thousand tantalising miles from Herat as the crow flies... Turkey has proposed a through route around Lake Van to avoid the ferry if traffic ever builds up sufficiently, but the terrain is very difficult.

 

[MarcVD]

The southern route is very difficult politically, but standard gauge already extends all the way through Turkey and Iran to the Afghani border today with extension to Herat in progress and beyond planned, albeit with a train ferry across Lake Van in eastern Turkey. I'm not sure if they're running freight through Istambul's Marmary tunnel yet although that is definitely intended. China's standard gauge network extends as far west as Kashgar in Xinjiang, under one thousand tantalising miles from Herat as the crow flies... Turkey has proposed a through route around Lake Van to avoid the ferry if traffic ever builds up sufficiently, but the terrain is very difficult.

I was going to say that too. The only way to keep standard gauge all the way is go go through Afghanistan. Haven't see this proposed yet, though, and probably for good reasons.

Regarding the lake Van issue, the last, and most sensible proposal I have seen is to build a line east of Kars to Nakhichevan an from there reuse the existing line to Jolfa. It would need to be regauged, as it is russian gauge now, but this line is currently completely disconnected from any other russian gauge line, so it shouldn’t be an issue. It would require much less work than building a new line around the lake, where the terrain is indeed very difficult.

 

[bussikuski179]

A mixed traffic concept rather like the Swiss Alptransit tunnels. Fast intermodal freight mixed with passenger trains on standard gauge. Maybe some slower freight at quieter times when there are longer intervals between the expresses. There are also proposals for a link onwards from its northern extremity, Tallinn, Estonia, to Helsinki via a tunnel under the Gulf of Finland.

As someone who’s actually Finnish and lives in Helsinki, I think it’s pretty much nonsense. It’s a 2 hour ferry which leaves from 3 harbours in Helsinki, about every hour to two. It’s very convenient and I think Estonia should more be focusing on getting trams to the port of Tallinn to replace bus number 2.

 

[MarkyT]

As someone who’s actually Finnish and lives in Helsinki, I think it’s pretty much nonsense. It’s a 2 hour ferry which leaves from 3 harbours in Helsinki, about every hour to two. It’s very convenient and I think Estonia should more be focusing on getting trams to the port of Tallinn to replace bus number 2.

Thanks for your local perspective. I tend to agree about the value of the tunnel, although the rest of Rail Baltica is sensible IMHO. The tunnel doesn't help freight much due to the gauge incompatibility with the rest of the Finnish rail network, so transshipment would still be required.

 

[JonasB]

As someone who’s actually Finnish and lives in Helsinki, I think it’s pretty much nonsense. It’s a 2 hour ferry which leaves from 3 harbours in Helsinki, about every hour to two. It’s very convenient and I think Estonia should more be focusing on getting trams to the port of Tallinn to replace bus number 2.

That is a bit like saying the tunnel under the English channel is nonsense, it's only a 2 hour ferry ride from Dover to Calais. Yes, the tunnel will be expensive and probably won't become reality for many years. But the main point is not local trains to Tallinn but that is enables longer distance trains such as Finland to Lithuania and Finland to Poland e.g.

 

[Austriantrain]

That is a bit like saying the tunnel under the English channel is nonsense, it's only a 2 hour ferry ride from Dover to Calais. Yes, the tunnel will be expensive and probably won't become reality for many years. But the main point is not local trains to Tallinn but that is enables longer distance trains such as Finland to Lithuania and Finland to Poland e.g.

Which is exactly what the Channel tunnel did not achieve Amsterdam after 20 years, yes - nothing else (and not much better for freight either).

 

[JonasB]

Which is exactly what the Channel tunnel did not achieve Amsterdam after 20 years, yes - nothing else (and not much better for freight either).

True, but the Channel tunnel has a couple of problems a tunnel under the Gulf of Finland would not have. Both Finland and Estonia are part of the Schengen area, so no border control issues. And I see no reason for security checks at the tunnel.

 

[edwin_m]

True, but the Channel tunnel has a couple of problems a tunnel under the Gulf of Finland would not have. Both Finland and Estonia are part of the Schengen area, so no border control issues. And I see no reason for security checks at the tunnel.

However the combined populations of Finland and Estonia are less than that of London, so the market is much smaller.

 

[Bald Rick]

True, but the Channel tunnel has a couple of problems a tunnel under the Gulf of Finland would not have. Both Finland and Estonia are part of the Schengen area, so no border control issues. And I see no reason for security checks at the tunnel.

The Channel Tunnel created a fixed link between Europe’s second largest economy and the rest of the continent....

 

[bussikuski179]

There really is no efficient place to put the tunnel exit in Helsinki, or really in Tallinn either. In Helsinki the Central Railway Station faces north, only north, so they’d either have to build a whole new station somewhere, new underground platforms, or building a railway straight through Central Helsinki, which is impossible. The underground platforms option was the only possible option of those 3. The difference between the Channel Tunnel and the Helsinki-Tallinn tunnel is that the Channel Tunnel allowed trains to run direct from London to Paris, two massive cities, which Helsinki and Tallinn aren’t. London also had stations already facing South, and Paris had North-facing ones, which neither Tallinn or Helsinki does. Of course it will be a really convenient connection though, once it opens sometime in the late 2090s.

 

[JonasB]

There really is no efficient place to put the tunnel exit in Helsinki, or really in Tallinn either.

That is probably the smallest problem. Just put the tunnel entrances/exits somewhere else and use existing lines through the cities, like the Öresund bridge was built.

The difference between the Channel Tunnel and the Helsinki-Tallinn tunnel is that the Channel Tunnel allowed trains to run direct from London to Paris, two massive cities, which Helsinki and Tallinn aren’t.

True, none of them are huge 10 million cities. But neither are Copenhagen and Malmö, and it can be interesting to compare the effect the Öresund bridge has had on those cities. Sure, the Gulf of Finland is wider than Öresund and the tunnel will cross a language barrier as well and construction will cost more, but the tunnel would be great for connecting Finland and Estonia.

But to be honest, there are probably more important projects to spend money on first.

 

[rf_ioliver]

As someone who’s actually Finnish and lives in Helsinki, I think it’s pretty much nonsense. It’s a 2 hour ferry which leaves from 3 harbours in Helsinki, about every hour to two. It’s very convenient and I think Estonia should more be focusing on getting trams to the port of Tallinn to replace bus number 2.

It'll be more for the freight than passenger I think. It'll be interesting to see how the gauge changing willl work - maybe an on-the-fly Talgo-like system as the trains leave/enter the tunnel so they can join Rantarata near to Kirkonummi or whereever the tunnel entrance is now being planned (I think Helsinki would like it to come up in Pasila now).

If the tunnel is built then it'll affect the Helsinki-Tallinn ferry traffic in much the same way as Dover-Calais I guess

 

[JonasB]

It'll be more for the freight than passenger I think. It'll be interesting to see how the gauge changing willl work

For freight I guess the easiest way to solve the gauge problem is to use containers and build a freight terminal somewhere where the containers are moved from standard gauge cars to broad gauge cars.

 

[rf_ioliver]

There really is no efficient place to put the tunnel exit in Helsinki, or really in Tallinn either. In Helsinki the Central Railway Station faces north, only north, so they’d either have to build a whole new station somewhere, new underground platforms, or building a railway straight through Central Helsinki, which is impossible. The underground platforms option was the only possible option of those 3. The difference between the Channel Tunnel and the Helsinki-Tallinn tunnel is that the Channel Tunnel allowed trains to run direct from London to Paris, two massive cities, which Helsinki and Tallinn aren’t. London also had stations already facing South, and Paris had North-facing ones, which neither Tallinn or Helsinki does. Of course it will be a really convenient connection though, once it opens sometime in the late 2090s.

The tunnel portal on the Finnish side is proposed to be in Kirkonummi with a link to Rantarata (The Coast Line) to Helsinki from there. Similarly on the Estonian side the portal is to the west of the city. Helsinki City Council would like it in Pasila IIRC, but then again they also want a 300kmh railway in tunnel from Helsinki to the Airport and then onto St.Petersburg for airport traffic....

t.

Ian

 

[popeter45]

if the Beijing-Moscow trains where replaced by somthing like a chinnese made Talgo 250 dual (i dont belive the Trans–Mongolian Railway is electrified and not sure about the manchurian route) how much time could that save on the trip?, removing the multi-hour bogie change as well as all the loco changes must shave off at least half a day?

 

[MarcVD]

No the trans-mongolian is not electrified. Not that it should be difficult, though : I don't remember having seen any tunnel on that route, and bridges are not very frequent either. Supplying electricity might be complicated, but with a 2x25 kV scheme, you don't need that much injection points. Traction becomes diesel as of Ulan-Ude in Russia, till somewhere in China ; when I did the trip, a chinese diesel loc took us all the way from the chinese border to Beijing.