plawolf
Lieutenant General
A high speed rail through Russia actually makes the most sense if China wants to link Beijing to London via rail.
Economics case
Rail roads are infrastructure projects, and the biggest hallmark of a great infrastructure project is that it not only meets today's needs, but also that of future needs. London's humble sewers are a good case in point. They were designed and built in Victorian times over 140 years ago and stretches some 21,000km. In comparison, the Thames Tideway Tunnel expansion is budgeted to cost £4bn for a 25km stretch, and that's just the budgeted cost, the actual may turn out to be many times that.
Another key characteristic of infrastructure projects, especially transport ones, is that they carry massive positive externalities and multipliers for the local economy. That, in layman's terms means that whatever the direct cost, the positive benefit to the local areas are going to be many times that in cumulation.
Not only from the direct benefit of the money being spent on the actual construction work filtering down into the local economies in the form of job creation in direct construction and support services, but also from the increase traffic and investment the improved transportation connectivity will bring.
China's development strategy for its hinterland is another case in point. In all cases, they built good roads and other supporting infrastructure first, and enterprising people and firms quickly followed to take advantage and exploit the newly accessible markets and local talent/resources to the benefit of all.
Most of the above are the benefits to Russia.
The economic benefits for China of this project would be to give it direct land access to the European market. That will cut transport times and costs massively compared to current options of air or sea.
I would also only expect the Beijing-Moscow line to the the headline act, if China is to do this, it will also build multiple hubs to branch off from the main land to head south wards to give it access to markets in Central Asia and eventually onwards to the Middle East and maybe even Africa.
That would be the real prize, as doing so would help secure China's oil and gas supply from naval interference (and would probably be cheaper and certainly far less economically draining than having to establish a network of naval bases and a naval fleet capable of taking on the USN from the South China Sea all the way to the Suez cannel.
A direct rail link to Africa would also give China access to the last great undeveloped continent on earth. Much like Asia before it, Africa has the potential to become a new driver of world growth, and whoever has the most influence and best contacts and contracts in Africa can enjoy a massive advantage when that continent's development finally kicks off in earnest. Direct access to Chinese capital, technology, educate and enterprising spirit may just be the missing ingredient to help Africa get the ball rolling.
Although, to be honest, I think Chinese plans for the Middle East and Africa would not be served much by the northward Russian route, which is why I think China will probably eventually also build a southern route to Africa, through the Middle East. But that would be a long term project, whereas the Russia route would be the medium to short run goal.
The Russian line will improve Chinese access to the established markets of Europe, and could also serve as a powerful illustrative example of the enormous benefits such a project will bring to the local economies it passes through, and thus help to make things far easier in terms to motivating local governments and people's into signing on to the Southern route when that gets started.
As you may have already deduced. These are not 5 year plans or 10 year plans. We are talking about spending generations to lay the groundwork to secure China's future for decades and centuries to come. It is thinking on a scale unimaginable to western politicians, who tend not to look past the next poll or election.
Feasibility
Technologically, China has already demonstrated its ability to build high speed rail tracks over permafrost with its Beijing to Lhasa line. So the harsh Russian hinterland climate would not be an insurmountable challenge. If anything, the bleakness of much of that route would be a positive advantage as it means less complex, time consuming and expensive negotiations to move or bypass NIMBs (not in my backyard).
Russia is one country, so it would be far easier, quicker and cheaper to agree a common track standard with Russia than having to do the same with the myriad of small countries that all have to sign off for a southern route.
In addition to the universal track standards issue, all the small countries would demand to have as many stops in their territory as possible to reap the maximum long term economic benefit, which would slow down average speeds and lengthen the journey. Not such a big deal if the point is to link all of those economies and markets to China, but not so great if the goal is to present a viable alternative to air and sea travel to Europe, which again reinforces my earlier point that China will probably build two lines.
Challenges
The enormous economic cost would be the obvious one. But China knows the value of investment, and is actively looking for good investments for its massive dollar reserves as I'm sure Beijing is getting thoroughly cheesed off with all the losses inflicted on its holdings from all the US' currency manipulation in the form of quantative easing.
Dumping dollars isn't really a viable option, and China has already bought the most choice real estate it could during its great shopping spree. But it is running up against nationalistic protectionism that stops it from acquiring any western company of real value, so the scope for investment through acquisitions isn't all that bright.
In that respect, even though the cost of this project is going to be enormous, in Beijing's eyes, its probably far better than the alternative of just letting it sit as US T-Bills that the US can erode the value of at will and for no better reason than petty spite.
The biggest challenge is going to be political.
Russia is already nervy about its poor demography in its Far East and how that translations to the ethnic composition of its Siberian provinces neighbouring China.
This rail project will not only bring Chinese engineers and construction workers in vast numbers, but also huge numbers of Chinese traders, workers, and yes, hustlers, to all the regions newly opened up and made easily accessible by the new railway.
That could potentially see Russia's 'Siberian problem' being repeated in all those other sparsely populated Russian hinterlands.
That is going to be the biggest stumbling block, so China needs to reassure Russia that the increased Chinese presence will not threaten Russia's control of those areas.
The bright side is that the 'Siberian Problem' seems to have been largely dreamed up in Washington think tanks and fringe Russian ultranationalist groups, so it does not seem to have all that much common resonance with normal Russians, so the political hurdle should not be insurmountable.
And to be honest, a very convincing case could be made that the main reason those far off Russian regions are depopulating is because of its remoteness, lack of prospects and harshness.
A high speed rail can do nothing about the local weather, but it will make those regions accessible to the rest of Russia and the outside world like never before, bring with it development, jobs and potentially a baby boom. The harsh Russian weather will also serve as a strong disincentive for their less arctically acclimatised Southern Chinese neighbours to want to stay and put down roots.
Economics case
Rail roads are infrastructure projects, and the biggest hallmark of a great infrastructure project is that it not only meets today's needs, but also that of future needs. London's humble sewers are a good case in point. They were designed and built in Victorian times over 140 years ago and stretches some 21,000km. In comparison, the Thames Tideway Tunnel expansion is budgeted to cost £4bn for a 25km stretch, and that's just the budgeted cost, the actual may turn out to be many times that.
Another key characteristic of infrastructure projects, especially transport ones, is that they carry massive positive externalities and multipliers for the local economy. That, in layman's terms means that whatever the direct cost, the positive benefit to the local areas are going to be many times that in cumulation.
Not only from the direct benefit of the money being spent on the actual construction work filtering down into the local economies in the form of job creation in direct construction and support services, but also from the increase traffic and investment the improved transportation connectivity will bring.
China's development strategy for its hinterland is another case in point. In all cases, they built good roads and other supporting infrastructure first, and enterprising people and firms quickly followed to take advantage and exploit the newly accessible markets and local talent/resources to the benefit of all.
Most of the above are the benefits to Russia.
The economic benefits for China of this project would be to give it direct land access to the European market. That will cut transport times and costs massively compared to current options of air or sea.
I would also only expect the Beijing-Moscow line to the the headline act, if China is to do this, it will also build multiple hubs to branch off from the main land to head south wards to give it access to markets in Central Asia and eventually onwards to the Middle East and maybe even Africa.
That would be the real prize, as doing so would help secure China's oil and gas supply from naval interference (and would probably be cheaper and certainly far less economically draining than having to establish a network of naval bases and a naval fleet capable of taking on the USN from the South China Sea all the way to the Suez cannel.
A direct rail link to Africa would also give China access to the last great undeveloped continent on earth. Much like Asia before it, Africa has the potential to become a new driver of world growth, and whoever has the most influence and best contacts and contracts in Africa can enjoy a massive advantage when that continent's development finally kicks off in earnest. Direct access to Chinese capital, technology, educate and enterprising spirit may just be the missing ingredient to help Africa get the ball rolling.
Although, to be honest, I think Chinese plans for the Middle East and Africa would not be served much by the northward Russian route, which is why I think China will probably eventually also build a southern route to Africa, through the Middle East. But that would be a long term project, whereas the Russia route would be the medium to short run goal.
The Russian line will improve Chinese access to the established markets of Europe, and could also serve as a powerful illustrative example of the enormous benefits such a project will bring to the local economies it passes through, and thus help to make things far easier in terms to motivating local governments and people's into signing on to the Southern route when that gets started.
As you may have already deduced. These are not 5 year plans or 10 year plans. We are talking about spending generations to lay the groundwork to secure China's future for decades and centuries to come. It is thinking on a scale unimaginable to western politicians, who tend not to look past the next poll or election.
Feasibility
Technologically, China has already demonstrated its ability to build high speed rail tracks over permafrost with its Beijing to Lhasa line. So the harsh Russian hinterland climate would not be an insurmountable challenge. If anything, the bleakness of much of that route would be a positive advantage as it means less complex, time consuming and expensive negotiations to move or bypass NIMBs (not in my backyard).
Russia is one country, so it would be far easier, quicker and cheaper to agree a common track standard with Russia than having to do the same with the myriad of small countries that all have to sign off for a southern route.
In addition to the universal track standards issue, all the small countries would demand to have as many stops in their territory as possible to reap the maximum long term economic benefit, which would slow down average speeds and lengthen the journey. Not such a big deal if the point is to link all of those economies and markets to China, but not so great if the goal is to present a viable alternative to air and sea travel to Europe, which again reinforces my earlier point that China will probably build two lines.
Challenges
The enormous economic cost would be the obvious one. But China knows the value of investment, and is actively looking for good investments for its massive dollar reserves as I'm sure Beijing is getting thoroughly cheesed off with all the losses inflicted on its holdings from all the US' currency manipulation in the form of quantative easing.
Dumping dollars isn't really a viable option, and China has already bought the most choice real estate it could during its great shopping spree. But it is running up against nationalistic protectionism that stops it from acquiring any western company of real value, so the scope for investment through acquisitions isn't all that bright.
In that respect, even though the cost of this project is going to be enormous, in Beijing's eyes, its probably far better than the alternative of just letting it sit as US T-Bills that the US can erode the value of at will and for no better reason than petty spite.
The biggest challenge is going to be political.
Russia is already nervy about its poor demography in its Far East and how that translations to the ethnic composition of its Siberian provinces neighbouring China.
This rail project will not only bring Chinese engineers and construction workers in vast numbers, but also huge numbers of Chinese traders, workers, and yes, hustlers, to all the regions newly opened up and made easily accessible by the new railway.
That could potentially see Russia's 'Siberian problem' being repeated in all those other sparsely populated Russian hinterlands.
That is going to be the biggest stumbling block, so China needs to reassure Russia that the increased Chinese presence will not threaten Russia's control of those areas.
The bright side is that the 'Siberian Problem' seems to have been largely dreamed up in Washington think tanks and fringe Russian ultranationalist groups, so it does not seem to have all that much common resonance with normal Russians, so the political hurdle should not be insurmountable.
And to be honest, a very convincing case could be made that the main reason those far off Russian regions are depopulating is because of its remoteness, lack of prospects and harshness.
A high speed rail can do nothing about the local weather, but it will make those regions accessible to the rest of Russia and the outside world like never before, bring with it development, jobs and potentially a baby boom. The harsh Russian weather will also serve as a strong disincentive for their less arctically acclimatised Southern Chinese neighbours to want to stay and put down roots.
