All is not what it seems within China's High Speed Rail development.

solarz

Brigadier
Just to add to what others have said, I have a few points.

Trains are cheaper than Jet Liners to build and maintain.

Trains carry a lot more people than even the largest Jet Liner.

Trains tend to go right into the heart of major cities, while Airports tend to be on the outskirts. In addition some budget airlines land at nearly 100 miles from their quoted destinations.

Trains can turn around faster than Planes - and you do not need to check in hours in advance

This also means that trains can run at faster intervals than Planes.

Trains can stop more frequently and move of again more quickly, allowing customs officials to board at International borders and inspect Passports etc while the train is moving.

Synthetic fuel is about dealing with shortfalls not competing in price. Oil is ready cooked for free in mother natures kitchen and so will always be cheaper than a synthetic product where energy has to be input at cost. It will also be highly efficient by consequence.

Further Aviation Fuel costs the same whenever you burn it, but the price of electricity varies depending on the time of day. Night time trains should be very cheap as they would be buying up surplus load from power stations that want to avoid having to shut down turbines and restarting them just a few hours later.

Well said. Having traveled relatively extensively in China by train, and having been forced to endure flights as well, I have to say that I much prefer travelling by train than by plane, even if the latter takes a bit more time.

Price-wise, trains are still generally cheaper than plane tickets. Comfort-wise, trains beat planes hands down. The only downside is the travel time, and even then it depends.

For short inter-city distances, HSR beats planes. Travel from Shanghai to Hangzhou on HSR takes only 40 minutes for a 200 km trip. From Shanghai to Zhengzhou on HSR takes 5-6 hours for a trip of 1000 km. That's roughly on par with the time it takes for traveling by plane, with a fraction of the hassle.

The longest trip I ever made by train was from Shanghai to Hami, Xinjiang: 40 hours by traditional rail. Almost 2 days, but it allowed me the unique experience of seeing China's landscape from the Eastern Coast to the Western Desert. If HSR was ever built on that route, I imagine the travel time would be shortened to maybe 10-15 hours, merely half a day!
 

Asymptote

Banned Idiot
This asks for a few remarks.
EV means, for the time being, carrying heavy batteries, which is inefficient. Later EV will mean vehicles with fuel cells ( twice the efficiency of the infernal combustion engine ) and perhaps synthetic fuel.
But using rail will be faster and less tiring travel.
The main change in the next ten to fifteen years will be the development of Thorium Molten Salt Reactors by China and, I hope, by other countries. This will provide a nuclear reactor that is safer and have about twice the thermal efficiency of the Light Water reactors we're used to. ( Also the world has about forty times as much Thorium as U235.) They can provide electricity to the railways, and everything else, replacing coal burning plants, and provide the energy for synthetic fuel.
For China that would mean an end to the import of coal, except coking coal, and oil and perhaps LNG.

I agree, railway is faster, that advantage I can't deny. But there is no reason to say future speed limit won't stay the same - perhaps with better safety standard and technology (auto-drive technology - as seen in "iRobot") could significantly increase the vehicle speed on bus-way and highway to similar speed as HSR. As for it is more "tiring" trip on a bus vs rail, besides the speed difference, if bus is raise to the same speed as HSR (high speed rail), I think this won't be an issue.

I like especially the return of the airship. Not in the shape of the Zeppelin but using what is called a Metalclad. The fuel would be liquid hydrogen. Liquid hydrogen tanks are huge for a given energy value because LH2 weights 90 kg per cubic meter. Winged aircraft with this fuel look hideous with their large tanks, but in an airship this is not a problem.
The "metalclad" would not be built from metal, as the first was, ZMC-2, but from fiber reinforced plastic. You can than safely use hydrogen as lifting gas and reduce lift by burning some of the gas, increase lift by evaporating more LH2 than you burn. An airship of this kind with the length of the "Hindenburg" might be twice as fast as that ship and fly halfway around the world after loading the same fuel fraction, 3.5 % of total weight, that "Hindenburg" loaded to fly from Frankfurt to New York.
Such an airship will need less ballast and thus carry more load than a Helium filled airship and its lifting gas is very much cheaper.



Are you kidding? what you proposing is basically the return of "Hindenburg" disaster! :D

[video=youtube;q7Fc8kIyMCo]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q7Fc8kIyMCo&feature=related[/video]

There is a reason after Hindenburg, everyone abandoned the metal clad, hydrogen based design.
 

solarz

Brigadier
I agree, railway is faster, that advantage I can't deny. But there is no reason to say future speed limit won't stay the same - perhaps with better safety standard and technology (auto-drive technology - as seen in "iRobot") could significantly increase the vehicle speed on bus-way and highway to similar speed as HSR. As for it is more "tiring" trip on a bus vs rail, besides the speed difference, if bus is raise to the same speed as HSR (high speed rail), I think this won't be an issue.

Auto-drive would be great for improving the efficiency of an existing network of highways, but would be largely unnecessary if an extensive network of HSR is the norm.

People might argue that being able to drive one's own car is more flexible. I would argue that on the contrary, in a country where space is as valuable as gold, parking would quickly become an unaffordable luxury to many drivers. Instead, I see an extensive improvement of public transit to be the norm of the future.

If a traveler has a lot of luggage, or can't take public transit for whatever other reason, then he can make use of taxis, which are relatively inexpensive in China.
 

delft

Brigadier
Are you kidding? what you proposing is basically the return of "Hindenburg" disaster! :D

There is a reason after Hindenburg, everyone abandoned the metal clad, hydrogen based design.
Hindenburg, as a Zeppelin, consisted of a metal framework (there have even been wooden airships!) with a cotton cover within which there were 16 gas cells with a maximum volume of 200.000 cu.m. There was always some leakage out of those cells into the air between the cells and the cover, which is very dangerous in in hydrogen filled ship. It is the pressure difference between the gas inside and the air outside the gas cells that carries the ship. That pressure is zero at the bottom and maximal at the top. H. burned because a spark ignited the cover which was protected against the weather by a very dangerous lacquer.
The metalclad has a load bearing skin within which is a membrane that carries no pressure between the lifting gas on top and the air in the underside of the hull. Compression forces in the hull structure are reduced by having some over pressure in the ship similar to that used in a non-rigid airship.
The metalclad was invented in Detroit in the '20's to avoid the high cost of maintenance of the Zeppelin. The only one ever built was knitted together from very many small aluminum alloy plates. She flew in 1930 and the Depression as well as the success of DC-2 and-3 ended the interest in the concept. She was demolished in 1940.
A modern metalclad would be built from large panels of fiber reinforced plastic which would be bonded together to form the ship. The whole would be very much safer than the zeppelin. Passengers might fly in a modern metalclad from Australia to Europe in four days in the comfort of a hotel rather than as nowadays in 26 hours in the comfort of a sardine tin. Fuel cost would be very much lower, but of the other costs little can be said until a few medium sized ships have actually been built and flown
 

delft

Brigadier
I don't understand why you would think it is not a fair comparison between railway vs bus-way?
Both form of transportation are almost identical except one runs on track, and the other one runs on road. If you ever taken an interstate coach service (like the ones in america) where you have toilets at the back and regular stops for rest, its pretty enjoyable, and relaxing to be honest.

Also, a bus is more modular than a train. You can increase number of buses on demand while you cannot do that with the train once it leaves the station.



For one thing, with railroad tracks you need flat-bottom steel rails (costly!) supported on timber or pre-stressed concrete sleepers (referred to as railroad ties in the US), which are themselves laid on crushed stone ballast. Cost of raw materials (iron ores, even coals are now imported from Australia) are increasing EVERY YEAR for the past 10 years. That's something China needs to buy from OUTSIDE CHINA. Making asphalt road on other hand are relatively inexpensive by comparison - largely because you can get asphalt IN CHINA EVERYWHERE. Also, consider the maintenance issue - maintaining rail tracks requires specialized equipment and specially trained crews - while maintaining the road requires minimal training of the crew, and relatively inexpensive equipments (at most basic level - workers with shovels are all that needed. Most developed countries use road roller to compact the road surface). Also when you are maintaining the rail track, the whole rail track is almost always down, where as for bus-way/highway they can do that incrementally working on one lane at a time, thus the service can continue uninterrupted (closing only one lane while all traffic drive on the other lanes).

Now, also consider the train signal lights are all networked and needs to be programmed and scheduled meticulously (to avoid catastrophic collisions). There are also overhead power line (and power substations) for trains that are highly specialized for design, construction and maintainances to consider. These are high skill, highly specialized works. Compare this to highway/busway, there is no need for traffic light. Road signs are needed but its not like it requires very high skill workers to put them up or designing them. On most highways, the speed limit is almost always either 100 km/hr or no limit (on European highway). So you don't really need to enforce speed limit since everyone knows its 100 km/hr (I never seen speed limit sign on highway). Just consider this scenerio: If railway track has problem, do you call any guy on the street to fix it?? :D You need highly qualified railway engineers to do it. For road surface, anyone with shovel can fill up the pot holes.


Of course, I know the bus/coach is slower than a HSR, but there is no reason to discard the idea. Its highly possible car makers in China can develop high speed buses that goes up to 200 miles per hour!! (and runs on fuel cell) :D


Obama Replaces Costly High-Speed Rail Plan With High-Speed Bus Plan
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!



Seriously, I think there are merits to this satirical video.
Let's look at costs. The bus is more modular, but that means there is one driver for on average 30 or 40 passengers going at a block speed of 70 km/h over a road that needs resurfacing every four (?) years. A typical modern train has one driver and a couple of conductors for on average 500 passengers and goes at a block speed two to four times 70 km/h. The track is regularly measured by special rail cars and the bed is maintained every so many years by highly automated machines, but the rails stay in use for forty years or so. In China all the old lines are relaid with very much heavier rail to save on maintenance cost.
The rolling resistance of rubber on asphalt is twice that of steel wheel on steel rail. Because a train is much larger than a road vehicle the influence of air resistance is much smaller for the train.
All together the energy cost and the maintenance cost per unit transport production are both lower for the train than for the bus or lorry.
Btw a former Dutch astronaut is promoting a bus able to go at 250 km/h between Amsterdam and Groningen. A full scale model was last year (?) exhibited in Beijing, but the prospect of building the asphalt track between these towns is dim. Of course, if that track is built, the bus might be caught in traffic congestion at each end.
P.S. The current Dutch government is introducing a higher maximum speed on some motorways, 130 km/h rather than 120 km/h, saving seconds on the distance from The Hague to the German border
 

Asymptote

Banned Idiot
Let's look at costs. The bus is more modular, but that means there is one driver for on average 30 or 40 passengers going at a block speed of 70 km/h over a road that needs resurfacing every four (?) years. A typical modern train has one driver and a couple of conductors for on average 500 passengers and goes at a block speed two to four times 70 km/h. The track is regularly measured by special rail cars and the bed is maintained every so many years by highly automated machines, but the rails stay in use for forty years or so. In China all the old lines are relaid with very much heavier rail to save on maintenance cost.
The rolling resistance of rubber on asphalt is twice that of steel wheel on steel rail. Because a train is much larger than a road vehicle the influence of air resistance is much smaller for the train.
All together the energy cost and the maintenance cost per unit transport production are both lower for the train than for the bus or lorry.
Btw a former Dutch astronaut is promoting a bus able to go at 250 km/h between Amsterdam and Groningen. A full scale model was last year (?) exhibited in Beijing, but the prospect of building the asphalt track between these towns is dim. Of course, if that track is built, the bus might be caught in traffic congestion at each end.
P.S. The current Dutch government is introducing a higher maximum speed on some motorways, 130 km/h rather than 120 km/h, saving seconds on the distance from The Hague to the German border


Good points, I do agree for the shear volume and speed of transport, railway wins hands down. I am still not convince about the economy of train vs bus though - of the upfront infrastructural cost, and maintainability issue.

BTW, is this the "Superbus" you are talking about?

[video=youtube;K7wEaG2u-BY]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K7wEaG2u-BY[/video]

It looks more like a stretch limo than a bus LOL.


I found this one by accident while browsing through youtube :

[video=youtube;Hv8_W2PA0rQ]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hv8_W2PA0rQ[/video]

This looks fascinating, I quite like the idea.
 

delft

Brigadier
It is indeed. Wockels is Wubbo Ockels, who is or was professor in Delft after his journey with a Space Shuttle.
I never looked sharply at the bus, but now I see many doors, no doubt on both sides. Easy for entering and leaving the vehicle but making the structure decidedly heavier.
That Chinese bus is just unbelievable.
 

bladerunner

Banned Idiot
Heres an interesting article by JP Morgan on Chinas HSR, sorry I Lost the link

China’s High Speed Rail Boom – a New Era of Mobility
China’s railway boom bears many comparisons with the construction of the U.S.
interstate highway system and that of Japan’s Shinkansen train network, which
were both developments that exerted great influence on socio-economic trends.
However, due to the immense scale of construction, faster service speeds and
China’s vast population, the transformative impact may be even more profound.
China invested about RMB 600 billion in railway construction last year (+80%
YoY) and will invest a further RMB 823.5 billion in 2010. The Ministry of
Railways (MOR) estimates that RMB 5 trillion in investment will be needed to
meet the 120,000 km railway network target by 2020. In our recent meetings
with China Railway Construction, leading property developers such as Huayuan
Property and Beijing Capital Land, and consumer product companies such as Li
Ning, one common theme seems to have struck a chord. The senior executives
of these diverse companies all argued that the enhanced mobility created by
China’s high-speed rail (HSR) program is altering the landscape of consumer
and property markets.
We see the following benefits arising from the development of China’s railways:
Accelerating business expansion and relocation to inland China over the
next 10 years, as closer linkages allow companies to take advantage of
lower labor, land and utility costs.
The alleviation of freight infrastructure bottlenecks and establishment of
more integrated national supply chains.
Strong real estate demand in lower-tier cities served by the HSR network as
wealth is more evenly distributed to less developed regions of the country.
Rising incomes will support faster consumption growth, benefiting
discretionary retail and tourism in the cities along HSR routes.
The network of operational high-speed railways in China is already the longest in
the world at 6,552 km, and is due to double to 13,000 km by 2012, according to
the MOR. This includes newly built high-speed links and existing track that has
been upgraded to accommodate trains running 200-250 km/hour. The tangible
economic benefits of this build-out – in terms of employment, heightened
construction and materials demand are fairly obvious. According to a regional
representative of the MOR, railway construction last year created about 6 million
jobs and generated demand for 20 million tons of steel and 120 million tons of
cement. A less tangible, but far more important product of China’s expansion of
transportation infrastructure is the potential to facilitate the relocation of
manufacturing to inland regions, improve logistics, boost property markets and
promote tourism and consumption.
Accelerating business expansion and relocation to inland China. Over
the next 10 years, the Ministry of Railway plans to construct a further 34,000
km of railway track in the country (of which 18,000 km will be HSR), more
closely linking the Central and Western regions to coastal provinces.
According to J.P. Morgan Research, these construction plans could be
brought forward for completion in 2015, implying an almost doubling in the
growth rate of the country’s railway length to 5.7% per annum.
HANDS-ON CHINA REPORT
March 30, 2010
Jing Ulrich
Managing Director, Chairman,
China Equities & Commodities
+852 2800 8635
[email protected]
2
Jing Ulrich HANDS-ON CHINA REPORT – March 30, 2010
As these plans are implemented, more businesses will be encouraged to relocate their operations
inland, benefiting Central and Western provincial economies and prompting wealthier coastal
provinces to focus on developing higher value added industries and services. Attracted by lower
labor, land and utility costs, major international companies like Intel, Foxconn and HP have
relocated or established new manufacturing operations in large inland cities such as Chengdu,
Wuhan and Hefei.
Accelerated inland investment in 2009 has already benefited some large provinces in China’s
interior, helping them achieve above average rates of economic growth. Of the 10 provinces that
posted the highest GDP growth in 2009, 8 were from China’s Central and Western regions. A
similar trend can be observed in income and expenditure growth rankings – as Figure 1 shows, 7
or the top 10 provinces by income growth are situated in Central and Western regions. As Figure
2 shows, 6 of the top 10 provinces by household expenditure growth were situated in Central and
Western China. In 2009, China’s Central and Western regions achieved average income and
expenditure growth of 11.9% and 11.3%, respectively, compared to a national average of 10.7%
and 9.1%.
Long commuting times between cities and regions have imposed limits on the transport of people
and goods, and hindered the establishment of national supply chains. We expect inland
economies will continue to experience above average growth rates, and will attract a deeper
0.0%
2.0%
4.0%
6.0%
8.0%
10.0%
12.0%
14.0%
16.0%
Inner
Mongolia
Yunnan
Sichuan
Jilin
Jiangxi
Heilongjiang
Tianjin
Zhejiang
Jiangsu
Liaoning
Figure 2: Figure 2: TToopp 1100 pprroovviinncceess bbyy eexxppeennddiittuurree ggrroowwtthh
Central and Western provinces
Eastern provinces
Source: CEIC
10.0%
10.5%
11.0%
11.5%
12.0%
12.5%
13.0%
13.5%
Guizhou
Liaoning
Sichuan
Jiangxi
Chongqing
Heilongjiang
Inner
Mongolia
Jiangsu
Jilin
Tianjin
FFiigguurree 11:: TToopp 1100 pprroovviinncceess bbyy iinnccoommee ggrroowwtthh
Central and Western provinces
Eastern provinces
Source: CEIC
3
Jing Ulrich HANDS-ON CHINA REPORT – March 30, 2010
presence by manufacturing employers and national retailers. This will in turn the growth of
property markets and enhance the potential for income growth in the poorer Central and Western
provinces.
Alleviating freight congestion. China’s railway network has one of the highest freight densities
in the world. From 2004-2009, freight traffic grew by 8.6% CAGR while the length of the rail
network only grew by 2.9%. Freight infrastructure bottlenecks have long affected the cost of
transportation in China and deterred businesses from relocating operations inland, despite land
and labor cost advantages. The developing network of high speed railway lines is facilitating the
delivery of more freight through existing railway tracks. For instance, during the 26-day period
following the Chinese New Year, Guangzhou Railway Group transported 450,000 tons of coal, oil
and steel and iron, while previously freight services would need to be suspended during the
holiday period.
Real Estate Demand. Improved infrastructure will boost real estate demand and underpin inland
property prices. As Figure 3 shows, property investment growth in lower tier cities with existing or
planned HSR linkages has generally outpaced that of first tier cities. According to the Tianjin
Commission of Commerce, the 2008 launch of the Beijing-Tianjin HSR has improved foreign
investor confidence and contributed to a rise in real estate prices. According to the Tianjin
Economic Development Institute, over 15% of real estate sales in 2008 were sold to residents of
Beijing. Thus far, housing sales in lower-tier markets have tended to more closely reflect enddemand,
as compared to speculative demand that has driven up prices in first-tier housing
markets.
We anticipate the upcoming HSR network expansion will have a similar effect on cities along its
routes. However, the beneficiaries will not all be as developed as Tianjin, rather, many will be the
underdeveloped cities and towns of the hinterlands. The HSR will play a pivotal role in
redistributing wealth to the less developed regions, which will counter the widening of already
disparate levels of income between developed and underdeveloped cities in China.
Boosting discretionary retail. Relatively healthy housing demand in smaller cities will help lift
consumer sentiment and support retail consumption. Lower incomes, differing consumer tastes,
-20.0%
-10.0%
0.0%
10.0%
20.0%
30.0%
40.0%
50.0%
60.0%
70.0%
Harbin
Taiyuan
Shijiazhuang
Xian
Kunming
Chongqing
Ningbo
Wuhan
Nanchang
Jinan
Qingdao
Wenzhou
Hangzhou
Shenyang
Shanghai
Tianjin
Nanjing
Hefei
Changsha
Chengdu
Guangzhou
Beijing
Shenzhen
Figure 3: Property investment growth in 2009: cities with Figure 3: Property investment growth in 2009: cities with eexxiissttiinngg oorr ppllaannnneedd hhiigghh ssppeeeedd rraaiill ssttaattiioonnss **
Lower tier cities
First tier cities
Source: CEIC * Includes existing and proposed stations, but excluding 10 cities where property investment data is unavailable
4
Jing Ulrich HANDS-ON CHINA REPORT – March 30, 2010
and slower penetration by international brands have given domestic brands a first-mover
advantage in reaching second-tier city consumers. Domestic retailers typically sell at a lower price
point, have a stronger understanding of Chinese consumer preferences, and better distribution
networks in second and third-tier cities. With incomes rising, logistics improving, and residents
trading-up, international brands are also expanding aggressively into lower-tier markets.
A boon for tourism. The HSR will bring tourists and business to cities along its routes, especially
those that act as hubs on the network. Take the Beijing—Tianjin Intercity Train (a HSR linking the
two cities) as an example. The HSR commenced operation on August 1, 2008. In the same year,
tourists and tourist expenses in Tianjin increased 13.3% and 14.2% respectively, the highest in 10
years. The Tianjin Commission of Commerce estimates that 35% of tourism growth in 2008 is
attributable to the HSR, which operated for only 4 months. Visitors traveling into Tianjin on the
HSR claim an estimated one third of total visitor spending.
Recent HSR Experiences
Last year, China opened two long distance high-speed railways – one between the city of Wuhan in
central China and Guangzhou, and another linking the central China city of Zhengzhou and the
northwestern city of Xian. These railway linkages reduced the travel time from 10.5 hours to 3 hours,
and from 6 hours to under 2 hours, respectively. According to Guangzhou Railway Group, the
Guangzhou-Wuhan line operated at 98% capacity in the first 26 days of the Chinese New Year, while
the Zhengzhou Railway Bureau notes that the new Xian-Zhengzhou line is seeing similar rates of
passenger traffic. Next year, the 1,318km Beijing-Shanghai line is slated for completion, reducing
travel time between the two metropolises from 10 hours to 4 hours. These are just three of 42 high
speed rail lines slated to open by 2012.
A system that brings such a myriad of benefits comes at a high price. In order to break even, the cost
of traveling on HSR is projected to be 0.46RMB/km. This is more than three times the price of
traveling on normal trains. Affordability of HSR travel has generated much debate, but we believe that
the situation is much less severe than it seems.
HSR travel in China is priced competitively in international comparison, without allowing for income
discrepancies. Travel on the Guanzhou-Wuhan HSR line costs RMB 0.46/km, compared to RMB
1.89/km on the Tokyo-Osaka Shinkansen route and RMB 2.00/km on Germany’s Frankfurt-Cologne
ICE line. Moreover, an increasing proportion of long-distance passengers in China are choosing
luxury services. This includes choosing sleeping bunks over seats and air-conditioned cars over
ordinary cars, indicating an increasing willingness to purchase comfort at a premium. The number of
luxury trains outgrew the number of ordinary trains in 2005, and has continued to rise.
As the Chinese government has placed narrowing the poverty gap on the top of their priority list, we
expect that it will take strong measures to facilitate the migration of passenger share from ordinary to
high-speed rail. Railways are controlled solely by the MOR, which will likely reduce the number of
ordinary trains as HSR routes become available. They have done so in the past when the Wuhan-
Guangzhou HSR was brought into operation, reducing 4 out of the 9 trains that ran between the two
destinations, thereby encouraging travel on the HSR. See Figure 4 for an illustration of major planned
and existing HSR routes.
 

bladerunner

Banned Idiot
Futher more to JP Morgans discussion about railways and freight heres an interesting article I found about the experiment with rail freight from Germany to China. ( Apologies if the article has been posted before)

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Dec 13, 2009 James Graham

Next year could see a viable land alternative to moving containerised cargo between two of the world's most important economic blocs by sea.
Instead of long sea journeys lasting many weeks between Asia and key ports such as Hamburg Rotterdam and Felixstowe, in 2010 containers could make the journey in under two weeks by train. In 2008, trains hauling containers between China and markets in the EU were trialed by German railroad Deutsche Bahn (DB) to consider the viability of serving Australasian shippers and freight forwarders who want a faster container service than traditional ships can provide.

Promoters accept that the sheer scale of the traffic flows between the two blocs mean that rail will only take a minor share of the millions of containers travelling between the two regions; following the successful test run of a fully-loaded container train from Beijing to Hamburg, it only requires certain technical and bureaucratic hurdles to be overcome for the service to operate.

Aside from the technical issues, planners of the 10,000km train journey have to decide whether there is significant demand from shippers and forwarders who want to select a third option between expensive but quick air freighting or slower but lower cost seaborne transport.

When the test train, branded the Beijing-Hamburg Container Express, arrived in Hamburg at the end of January, 2008 it had completed a 15-day, 9,954km journey from Beijing through Mongolia, Russia, Belarus and Poland. The service served as a demonstration of the Eurasian Land Bridge project jointly proposed by six national rail operators.

The train departed from Beijing’s Dahunmen Station in early January and consisted of 49 flat cars handling 98 containers. The rail journey took 15 days and the train arrived in Hamburg almost 20 hours ahead of schedule. This would contrast with a typical journey to Europe of around 40 days by sea.

In fact, six months after the test train, in September 2008 a container train carrying fifty containers of Fujiusu Siemens IT products left Xiangtang in China for the seventeen day to Hamburg in Germany. Crossing the Russian border near Irkutsk through Novosibirsk, Omsk and Ekaterinburg to Moscow and then through Belarus and Poland to arrive in Hamburg on October 6th.

On arrival in Hamburg, the fifty containers were forwarded in two directions: the monitors continued by train to Fujitsu Siemens’ European distribution centre in Worms and the chassis were taken directly to the assembly plant in Augsburg.
Significant Gauge Breaks Faced

During the trial run, the train travelled via the Trans-Siberian Railroad line and passed over the rails of China, Mongolia (MR), Russia (RZD), Belarus (BCh), and Poland (PKP Cargo) on its way to Germany. After leaving China, the train traversed the Gobi Desert.

More significantly for the logistics of the operation, during its journey the train faced two significant gauge breaks. The first occurred at the Chinese-Mongolian border at Erlianhot/Zamyn Ude where the China Railway’s standard gauge (1,435 mm) meets the Russian broad gauge (1,520 mm). The second occurred at the border between Belarus and Poland at Brest/Malaszewicze where it returned to standard gauge.

The equipment used is not pooled so containers had to be handled on to new flatcars with the appropriate wheel gauge. In addition locomotives and train drivers were not in a pool and took the train on their own domestic leg of the journey. The train originally carried 49 flat cars but had to be divided in Brest because it was too long for operation on the German railway network.

Railroad Employees Co-Operation Praised
Speaking at the time of the trial run, DB chairman Hartmut Hehdorn, said: “The excellent co-operation between the railroad employees of the six participating companies is impressive proof that Asian-European freight transport along the Eurasian Land Bridge has a future.

“If we can overcome further technical and bureaucratic hurdles and upgrade the infrastructure, and if the demand for transport services from Europe to Asia also grows, by the end of the decade we can aim at launching regular freight transport services along this axis.”

The cargo on the trial Beijing-Hamburg run included consumer electronic equipment, clothing and shoes.
One of the barriers to the project identified by DB is that, in comparison to ocean freight, rail transport is burdened by price disadvantages caused by additional costs for positioning and leasing containers as well as by running costs for empty, backhaul freight cars; this contrasts with ships who are able to move full containers in both directions while at sea. There is relative little freight from Europe to Asia.
There is also a need to expand the capacities of the regauging facilities at the Sino-Russian border for the long-term viability of the service.
Over to Chinese Exporters

The service will targets goods originating in western and northern China that require long shipping times within China to reach seaports where they are transferred to ships; secondly goods that have to be shipped quickly but at less cost than airfreight.
This category includes special sales goods for the clothing industry, electronic goods, as well as project deals for the machinery and plant construction business; and thirdly, goods that can be shipped via the Eurasian Land Bridge instead of air or ocean freight in order to eliminate bottlenecks in the delivery chain or to secure long-term supplier loyalty in supply chains.
This service was planned when world trade was booming: ship rates were booming and capacity on container ships to Europe was tight. Now rates are lower and many ships are sailing at less than full capacity.

Read more at Suite101: Container Train Service Between Asia And Europe: New service looks to slash weeks off supply chains to Europe.
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
 
Last edited:

Roger604

Senior Member
The brains behind research and development of China's high-speed rail allegedly has a whopping $2.8 billion in US and Swiss accounts!!!

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


A quick execution is too kind for him.
 
Top