China to USA railway?

[MattRat]

I'd like people's thoughts on this, as I have no idea what to think of this.

 

[edwin_m]

I'd like people's thoughts on this, as I have no idea what to think of this.

Quite a few misleading and inaccurate statements here. There seems to be no plan to actually run the train underwater, probably wise as Networker Turbos aren't known for watertightness. I think it would be in an underwater floating tunnel for the Russia-Alaska crossing only, otherwise overland.

The political and geographical obstacles over the rest of the route are stupendous.

 

[Gag Halfrunt]

I haven't watched the video, but a rail link between Russia and Alaska would be pointless because of the break of gauge, and because a rail connection between Alaska and Canada would also have to be built.

 

[Shimbleshanks]

A lot of political risk. Who knows what relations between the US and Russia or China will be like in even 12 months, let alone the time it would take to build this thing.

The constuctors would also have to decide whether they intend it to be a high speed passenger line or whether it would need heavy freight capability too. If the latter - which I suspect would be necessary for financial viability - there might be additional construction costs or compromises in terms of passenger speeds. Not sure what a rail line could bring to the party that airlines or shipping lines could not; the former would still be much faster, while the latter would win on cost for freight.

 

[PeterC]

My inner train-spotter wants this so much. My brain on the other hand can see all the down sides.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

The tectonic plates that occur in the area are very unpredictable, as anyone living in Japan will so testify.

Remember the American term for a billion is not the same as the British term for a billion and the accent of the speaker was most definately from "the other side of the pond". So his version stated a distance of 5,778 miles for 200 US billion dollars.

 

[PerryPacer]

America and Canada will never let China build it, with all the political tensions, and also as @edwin_m points out, Networker Turbos are not very watertight!

 

[Romsey]

OBB 4024 units are not that water tight either...
https://www.iflscience.com/technolo...an-8000mile-underwater-train-line-to-the-usa/

The final paragraph more or less kills the idea - flying or shipping are cheaper for the moment. ( Perhaps the ultimate W I B N ?)

Unfortunately, as impressive as the China-Russia-Canada-America line would be, it appears to have been put on hold for now. Critics have slammed the proposal for being economically redundant, stating that flight and cargo ships are a cheaper option for trade, and too complex. Whether they are right or not, tensions between the world superpowers mean such a collaboration – which would be the most expensive megaproject in world history – could be little more than a pipe dream.

 

[MattRat]

I haven't watched the video, but a rail link between Russia and Alaska would be pointless because of the break of gauge, and because a rail connection between Alaska and Canada would also have to be built.

According to the video, China and Russia are on good terms though, and since the line will be Chinese built, it would probably be green lit as just one gauge. That doesn't account for the other side, of course.

The constuctors would also have to decide whether they intend it to be a high speed passenger line or whether it would need heavy freight capability too. If the latter - which I suspect would be necessary for financial viability - there might be additional construction costs or compromises in terms of passenger speeds. Not sure what a rail line could bring to the party that airlines or shipping lines could not; the former would still be much faster, while the latter would win on cost for freight.

Freight would be the most logical, especially high speed freight as it would be faster than a ship, and not hold passenger trains.

My inner train-spotter wants this so much. My brain on the other hand can see all the down sides.

I had similar thoughts. I was like 'Wow. Cool', and then I thought 'I need to apply logic', so I came here.

 

[adamedwards]

I would assume the primary use is getting consumer and other goods from China to north America. In North America linking USA through Canada to Alaska also USA would make good sense. China probably has the money to make it happen. Russia gains revenue from the trains passing through. I suspect HS2 will get finished first....

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

You can never assume that North Korea would not see such a line as an opportunity to sneak ready-primed nuclear weapons into "the land of the free" ...

 

[edwin_m]

Based on some quick calculation the 14hr journey time needs an average speed in the region of 500km/h between NE China and Calfornia, which is more than any commercial steel-wheel technology. It might be possible for maglev or hyperloop, which would require new infrastructure over the entire length but that in itself isn't a huge downside, since there's very little rail infrastructure along the route that might be suitable anyway.

I think we discussed a rail link between Canada and Alaska on here a few months back, but this would have been conventional and driven by freight (probably mostly oil, which makes it unlikely to happen). Bits of this may actually make sense, but driven more by freight at more conventional speeds and using existing routes where there are any, rather than by something that might be competitive with airlines.

 

[MattRat]

Based on some quick calculation the 14hr journey time needs an average speed in the region of 500km/h between NE China and Calfornia, which is more than any commercial steel-wheel technology. It might be possible for maglev or hyperloop, which would require new infrastructure over the entire length but that in itself isn't a huge downside, since there's very little rail infrastructure along the route that might be suitable anyway.

I think we discussed a rail link between Canada and Alaska on here a few months back, but this would have been conventional and driven by freight (probably mostly oil, which makes it unlikely to happen). Bits of this may actually make sense, but driven more by freight at more conventional speeds and using existing routes where there are any, rather than by something that might be competitive with airlines.

Hyperloop is the definition of a pipe dream, but that's another topic entirely. Maglev would fit into the scope of this project, and China is developing their own Maglev (not just a Transrapid copy paste), however, then freight isn't an option, which not only cuts revenue, but also makes it harder to get into the USA. If there is one power than can push the US government around to back the project, it would be their rail freight companies, who would make a killing on China USA freight trains.

Also, Maglev removes rails' ace up it's sleeve, capacity. Just look at Japan Maglev compared to Japan bullet train to understand my point. Capacity is how you beat the plane with no comeback (which would be super sonic planes when talking speed). The more people you carry, the less each one has to pay to make the train profitable vs it's cost. The plane could be twice as fast, but a train might only be a third or a quarter the price. If you are in a lower income bracket, the train would then be a no brainer.

 

[flitwickbeds]

Remember the American term for a billion is not the same as the British term for a billion

They've been the same thing since 1974. We adopted the US version 47 years ago.