16 ms·

First China-U.K. Freight Train Departs as Xi Seeks to Lift Trade

168 points by caf 10y ago

MengerSponge 10y ago
Does anyone know how the train compares to ships wrt CO2/kg shipped? I'm sure the train comes out on top, but by how much? Also, how frequently could one of those trains run?
- seanmcdirmid 10y ago
  Not sure about CO2 impact, but one problem is that these trains are running pretty empty back to china (china doesn't want to import so much from Europe by rail). I think they are running 50 trains a year, with a heavy subsidy to make it affordable (half the cost).
  - notgood 10y ago
    One thing China likes to import from uk: tourists
    - seanmcdirmid 10y ago
      They usually fly though.
      - deleted 10y ago
        [deleted]
      - notgood 10y ago
        That's never a good view.
  - mvid 10y ago
    Maybe China could import the trains back by container ship... one way train line.
    - seanmcdirmid 10y ago
      That...makes sense. The containers at least can come back by ship, assuming there is enough capacity. Then you just have the engine to get back.
  - corobo 10y ago
    Do the freight ships do the same? What do they bring back with them?
    - seanmcdirmid 10y ago
      Good question. I know freight charges are cheaper going to china than coming from china, so I guess there is a demand mismatch.
    - stuaxo 10y ago
      Mostly they are empty IRCC.
- ec109685 10y ago
  Price would also be good to know. If it is 1/100 of the price, then 100 trains could be run for every boat.
  - Gustomaximus 10y ago
    This article says train is ~50% of air. According to this quick google that makes the cost range a 3x to 18x of sea freight cost. https://www.transporteca.com/transportpedia/sea-freight-air-freight/ https://www.transporteca.com/transportpedia/sea-freight-air-...
  - pcurve 10y ago
    Looks like its cheaper than boat... http://richardtorian.blogspot.com/2012/01/cost-per-ton-mile-for-four-shipping.html http://richardtorian.blogspot.com/2012/01/cost-per-ton-mile-...
    - djsumdog 10y ago
      This would make sense. I remember reading about a company adding kites/sails to some shipping vessels to help reduce fuel costs. Even when ships match the sea current, you still need a lot of fuel to keep that inertia in the ocean. With trains you're talking about the rolling friction of metal on metal. Even if it didn't out preform ships, it outperforms trucks. That would feed the market for faster shipping of small volumes vs slower shipping of larger orders.
      - dx034 10y ago
        Nothing outperforms shipping when it comes to cost. It's actually very easy to move an extremely heavy ship. Fuel costs are not even the biggest problem (which is why sailing is still not used widely). Ships become so big because you need fewer employees, which are still a considerable factor.
    - bkor 10y ago
      That data is highly questionable. Suggest trying to get some quotes for the different modalities. Via ocean is cheapest by far. To deliver to the final destination the price increases in order of barge/rail/truck. I work for a shipping company btw. Don't have experience about the prices globally, but that source divides data from two completely different sources. That often doesn't end well. There are companies tracking the average price of shipping a container across various trades.
- jdietrich 10y ago
  According to figures in an OECD report, rail freight has significantly higher CO2 emissions per tonne-km - 41-102g vs 30-40g. http://www.oecd.org/trade/envtrade/2386636.pdf http://www.oecd.org/trade/envtrade/2386636.pdf (p. 29)
  - claudius 10y ago
    Note that this is for diesel trains. While likely most of the length of the track won’t be electrified soon, essentially all tracks in western Europe (France, Germany, possibly Poland) are already electrified. This means that using nuclear or renewable energy generation, the trains can run emission-free there, in particular avoiding the strongly localised particle emissions by ships in and around harbours.
    - guard-of-terra 10y ago
      Most of the length is electrified already. Yekaterinburg-Madrid definitely, Kazakhstan-Yekaterinburg likely, China-Kazakhstan connection and Chinese side probably remains an issue.
      - jdietrich 10y ago
        I would wager that Chinese and Russian electricity is no cleaner than diesel. They have an awful lot of old coal power stations burning lignite and sub-bituminous coal.
        guard-of-terra 10y ago
        Most of Russian generation is natural gas, with notable hydro and nuclear. Anyway, this is fixable. Planes and ships are not.
        _coldfire 10y ago
        The Chinese source 25% of their electricity from renewables. US is at 15%. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_electricity_production_from_renewable_sources https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_electrici...
- CaliforniaKarl 10y ago
  How frequently? If this was a dedicated, two-track main line, then standing trackside I'd expect to see one train coming in each direction every 20 minutes. Of course, that depends on having massive infrastructure at each end to service those trains. To see an example of that in action in the US, head to LA, and take Amtrack or Metrolink to Fullerton station, paying attention to BNSF's facilities in LA County. Then, hang out at Fullerton for a few hours, taking note of the number (and length) of trains. More likely, you'll see one train per day, mainly because of choke points like the Eurotunnel. It's also likely that cargo will have to be moved around at least once, since rolling stock (train cars, etc.) aren't normally certified for high-speed running. Plus, you've got a mix of at least high-voltage AC (for Eurotunnel) and diesel, so there would be engine changes. Plus, many USSR countries aren't on "standard gauge", so you either need rolling stock with wheel sets of different gauges (widths), or you need to move cargo at specific transfer points.
  - dx034 10y ago
    You could see a train every 3-5 minutes if it was a dedicated track. Trains in Europe are much shorter than the ones in the US (and don't stack containers), but with the right signalling you can run trains at high frequencies if they're all at similar speeds. In this case it's not a track at all, more like a schedule that uses different kinds of tracks and is actually run by different companies along the way. The track is also not owned by one company (like in the US), but by a different operator in each country. According to an article, the train set is changed twice for the trains coordinated from Germany. Eurotunnel is likely not the choke point here (they could just load it on a ferry and only lose 1-2 hours), it's the change of rolling stock along the way, and other traffic it has to share the track with.
    - CaliforniaKarl 10y ago
      I expect this is where all of the infrastructure investment is going. Assuming these trains run in both directions, then to keep speeds steady you'll need either double track, or you'll need appropriately-sized passing sidings. And then, as soon as you have the first slowdown, all that goes to pot.
samhamilton 10y ago
I would guess that this is rolling out just for the PR, the sheer number of trains needed to replace one decent sized container ship just makes this all prohibitive to ever replace much sea freight plus launching when there is a glut of container ships floating around as well, which is keeping the price lower than most ship owners can breakeven. Ok so it's quicker, but it's not that quick. The only winners would be the goods owners who are winning form short term lower prices - is that enough for a long term business?
- martinald 10y ago
  Agreed. I really can't see this being a success for anything more than PR. If you need it ASAP, you're going to use airfreight. If you don't you're going to have it by sea. I don't see much of a need for something in between those two timeframes. Anyone specialised in logistics care to comment if there is an actual market here?
  - stock_toaster 10y ago
    My guess is simply logistical redundancy. If the shipping lanes were impassible for some reason (blockade? ports damaged due to tsunami?), goods could still be sent/received via rail more cheaply than by air. Could also be a way to spur growth too. If you need to spend money on something, infrastructure seems like a decent choice.
  - nullnilvoid 10y ago
    Compared to container ships, freight train is another option. Although not many, there are times when the goods are needed more urgently than container ships (think of some industries that require parts urgently but cannot afford air). In addition, some landlocked cities simply do not have container ships as an option. They need to ship goods to a nearby port by train or truck and then load all the containers to a ship. From this article http://richardtorian.blogspot.com/2012/01/cost-per-ton-mile-for-four-shipping.html http://richardtorian.blogspot.com/2012/01/cost-per-ton-mile-..., you can cut the shipping costs by train to a pretty low level.
  - CaliforniaKarl 10y ago
_Codemonkeyism 10y ago
This has been going on with Germany for quite some time now (years) and is expanding in Germany, so it seems to work. I also found it interesting though more goods are shipped from China, a significant amount of goods is shipped to China.
zhte415 10y ago
This is about opening up Central Asia to China soft power. Rail is the only means Central Asia going to trade (export/import) anything, and strengthens China's West, Xinjiang, etc.
- niftich 10y ago
  This, and other geopolitical implications. The 'New Silk Road' effort has been China's focus for a while, and envisions two corridors along which overland trade can flow: the status quo through Russia, and an alternate one to the south that avoids Russia and remains resilient should their partnership sour.
ChuckMcM 10y ago
While 200 containers is not much compared to a container ship it is sufficient to carry all of the material for a Combat Brigade :-) More seriously though, it seems like an awesome rail trip if you can convince them to pull your private rail car.
- lostboys67 10y ago
  That was my thought add a couple of extra passenger cars and a buffet car and you would have an interesting trip and get to see some of the less travelled part of the world.
- stuaxo 10y ago
  You can already travel from China to London (or more likely in reverse) by train with a few changes, it's definitely worthwhile.
  - paradite 10y ago
    Interesting. How do you go about buying tickets for such trips?
    - guard-of-terra 10y ago
      You can probably book Paris-Moscow and Moscow-Beijing from Russian Railways website. You'll need some visas to be done in advance. Better make a few stops along the way.
    - sanxiyn 10y ago
      You can buy tickets for Trans-Siberian Railway at http://eng.rzd.ru/ http://eng.rzd.ru/ , English website of Rossiyskie Zheleznye Dorogi.
    - joemclo 10y ago
      I highly recommend looking through this site which extensively covers travel by train. http://www.seat61.com/ http://www.seat61.com/ I've travelled by rail through Russia, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan and Kyrgyzstan. It's not always easy to buy (cheap) tickets online or in advance outside of Russia but it's worth taking the risk and buying in-country for the experience of the 3 + day journeys
gaius 10y ago
Who would be a British factory worker? You pay your taxes which the government immediately spends on infrastructure to help offshore your job!
jakozaur 10y ago
Some more detail articles about current China <-> Europe regular train connection (actually it goes weekly to Poland): http://postandparcel.info/56547/news/innovation/dhl-launches-weekly-train-link-from-china-to-poland/ http://postandparcel.info/56547/news/innovation/dhl-launches... http://www.forbes.com/sites/wadeshepard/2016/06/28/what-the-newly-branded-china-europe-silk-road-trains-really-mean/#22e225e1d852 http://www.forbes.com/sites/wadeshepard/2016/06/28/what-the-... It make sense for goods that sending them by air is too expensive, but they are too time sensitive to send them by ship. It takes a day by plane, 14 days by train, 45 days by the ship. I would expect in good scenario that train would be somewhat similar popular as air, but nowhere near close volume as by sea.
- jakozaur 10y ago
  Some price estimates: (very crude, but shows magnitude of price) Rail is 4 times more expensive than by sea. Air is at least 6 times more expensive than rail, but can be even 18 times more expensive if payload is heavy. Cost of shipping 40′ HC container: - by sea: $1,600 - by train: $6,800 - by air, light, so you pay for volume: 4.6 USD / kg, 40 ft got volume 67.7 m3 * 143 kg / m3 ~= 9 tons, $41,400 - by air, heavy, so you pay for real weight: 4.6 USD / kg, 40tf can be 27tons, $124,200 Shanghai <-> Gdynia, Poland: http://www.transportchiny.pl/ceny_transportu_z_chin.php http://www.transportchiny.pl/ceny_transportu_z_chin.php Shanghai <–> Małaszewicze, Poland http://gocargo.pl/czy-transport-koleja-z-chin-jest-oplacalny/ http://gocargo.pl/czy-transport-koleja-z-chin-jest-oplacalny... By Air: http://www.chinaimportal.com/blog/air-freight-import-china-guide/ http://www.chinaimportal.com/blog/air-freight-import-china-g... Container: https://www.searates.com/reference/equipment/3/ https://www.searates.com/reference/equipment/3/ Excuse me for non-English links, but that was the easiest what I can find.
  - SixSigma 10y ago
    Pollution - Air cargo - 0.8063 kg of CO2 per Ton-Mile - Truck - 0.1693 kg of CO2 per Ton-Mile - Train - 0.1048 kg of CO2 per Ton-Mile - Sea freight - 0.0403 kg of CO2 per Ton-Mile So I see this competing with air freight, not sea. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_impact_of_transport https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_impact_of_transp...
omegaworks 10y ago
Awesome. Brings us all closer together. Alternate transportation systems for the win. Probably a good hedge against Suez Canal issues and Souh China Sea contention.
ptaipale 10y ago
Round-trip 4 weeks is OK; it will be interesting to see the packet loss rate in this service. The roads around here (Helsinki, Finland) used to be congested by trailer trucks transporting new Japanese cars from the harbour in Hanko across border to St. Petersburg. Bothered by the flow of trucks, I asked why didn't they send the cars across from Japan over Trans-Siberian railway? I was told that too many cars disappeared on the way. In fact, sometimes a whole train disappeared. Now Russia has built a suitable harbour of its own closer to St. Petersburg so that the flow of new cars doesn't need to come to the ringroads of Helsinki (and, I expect, the economic situation means fewer cars are sold there).
brunnsbe 10y ago
China, Poland, Germany, Belgium and France uses the standard gauge of 1,435mm but Russia, Belarus and Kazakhstan has 1520mm. I guess they are shifting wagons at the borders of China and Kazakhstan and Belarus and Poland. Or are the wagons mixed-gauge?
- paradite 10y ago
  Quick wikipedia yields this: It has been reported that, for example, when containers are shipped by a "direct train" from China to Europe, it is only containers, and not the railcars, which move from China's railway network to that of Kazakhstan. At the border station at Khorgos, two trains (the Chinese standard-gauge one and the Kazakh Russian-gauge one) would stand side by side at parallel tracks, while the cranes would move the containers from one train to the other in as short time as 47 minutes. - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Break-of-gauge#Containerisation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Break-of-gauge#Containerisatio... A break of gauge needs to be crossed when entering Mongolia from China (or Russia directly from China, if traveling via Manzhouli/Zabaykalsk), and then another one when leaving Belarus for Poland. - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trans-Eurasia_Logistics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trans-Eurasia_Logistics
- mattdoughty 10y ago
  When I crossed the border on a passenger train from Poland to Belarus and from Mongolia to China, the train went into a warehouse where the compartment was lifted and new bogies slid underneath. All while the passengers remained on the train https://www.flickr.com/photos/mjdoughty/8502710543/ https://www.flickr.com/photos/mjdoughty/8502710543/
- fennecfoxen 10y ago
  Loading gauges might be a problem as well. Parts of the UK rail network are still on W6a, which means the clearance from tunnels and bridges and turns is too small to take standard containers on standard wagons: you need special low-deck wagons where the container sits down between the wheels (so there's extra space between the containers, where the rail bogies are). This isn't the most efficient way imaginable to move goods over long distances. The W10 standard (which allows the taller Hi-Cube containers for refrigerated goods and the like) is available only on a few corridors. (Mind you, in the US, they use low-deck cars like this for about 70% of containers... the difference being that the US railways can double-stack the containers. It's a wonderful rail system.)
lispm 10y ago
Duisburg/Germany now has eight (!) trains per week from China. http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2016-07/23/c_135534991.htm http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2016-07/23/c_135534991.htm
golergka 10y ago
Such an article without a map and figures? Could modern journalism get any worse
mtw 10y ago
What I found interesting is that it still takes 15 days for a freight train to do the journey. With the recent $500 billion plan for high-speed rail network in China, surely it also makes sense to modernize this Asia<->Europe track? For example building a dedicated track with standard gauge in Kazakhastan, Russia, or developing a more powerful locomotive dedicated to this.
ksec 10y ago
Offtopic: How far are we from shortening this trip from 15 days to say, 12 or 10 days? 15 days is half a month. But if this could be shortened to 10 days, it is 3 regular shipment in a month. For someone like Apple, this could be extremely cost efficient. Rather then paying the high price to book every single possible fright from China, they could now do it via train, at least to everywhere in Europe.
- johansch 10y ago
  The article says 18 days and 12000 km. That's just ~28 km/h on average. I ride my bicycle faster than that :).
  - adamjc 10y ago
    For 24 hours a day? ;)
    - johansch 10y ago
      Admittedly not.
  - tombone12 10y ago
    That seems like a very low speed while the train is actually in motion, although apparently[1] american freight trains average around ~40 km/h. I would guess mostly it is various delays that keeps the average that low, and it seems most data is just distance/time estimates, not actual averages of instantaneous speed measurement. [1] A bit old but fairly indicative as far as I can tell: https://www.rita.dot.gov/bts/sites/rita.dot.gov.bts/files/publications/transportation_statistics_annual_report/2010/html/chapter_02/table_04_33.html https://www.rita.dot.gov/bts/sites/rita.dot.gov.bts/files/pu...
    - ksec 10y ago
      Thanks. Then I think the problem / bottleneck isn't with speed of the train. More likely it is stopping at each location waiting for custom clearance.
chiph 10y ago
The advantage might come if you regard the railcars as a stream of product on it's way to your warehouse, rather than a single delivery. So high latency, but the bandwidth is respectable once it starts. :)
zeristor 10y ago
Although it might be quicker than sea freight, if the frequency is less it will end up waiting too long to start its journey in the first place. Speed and frequency are both important, unless you have the liberty to synchronise.
thedogeye 10y ago
Ryan from Flexport here. Been trying to sell rail freight from China to the EU since start of 2016 with no luck. It's too much more expensive than sea freight and too much slower than air freight. We will keep plugging though because we think its super cool.
- sfoon 10y ago
  Why drum up business for a dictator led authoritarian government that suppresses its own people and other countries and pollutes the environment?
angelohuang 10y ago
The new silk road is a decent project, but of course it's not purely for China to dump it's products abroad. Besides, I believe it's a matter of time before anti-China sentiment in Europe will be like the American-version propagated by Trump.

168 points by caf 10y ago

Does anyone know how the train compares to ships wrt CO2/kg shipped? I'm sure the train comes out on top, but by how much? Also, how frequently could one of those trains run?

seanmcdirmid 10y ago
Not sure about CO2 impact, but one problem is that these trains are running pretty empty back to china (china doesn't want to import so much from Europe by rail). I think they are running 50 trains a year, with a heavy subsidy to make it affordable (half the cost).
- notgood 10y ago
  One thing China likes to import from uk: tourists
  - seanmcdirmid 10y ago
    They usually fly though.
    - deleted 10y ago
      [deleted]
    - notgood 10y ago
      That's never a good view.
- mvid 10y ago
  Maybe China could import the trains back by container ship... one way train line.
  - seanmcdirmid 10y ago
    That...makes sense. The containers at least can come back by ship, assuming there is enough capacity. Then you just have the engine to get back.
- corobo 10y ago
  Do the freight ships do the same? What do they bring back with them?
  - seanmcdirmid 10y ago
    Good question. I know freight charges are cheaper going to china than coming from china, so I guess there is a demand mismatch.
  - stuaxo 10y ago
    Mostly they are empty IRCC.
ec109685 10y ago
Price would also be good to know. If it is 1/100 of the price, then 100 trains could be run for every boat.
- Gustomaximus 10y ago
  This article says train is ~50% of air. According to this quick google that makes the cost range a 3x to 18x of sea freight cost. https://www.transporteca.com/transportpedia/sea-freight-air-freight/ https://www.transporteca.com/transportpedia/sea-freight-air-...
- pcurve 10y ago
  Looks like its cheaper than boat... http://richardtorian.blogspot.com/2012/01/cost-per-ton-mile-for-four-shipping.html http://richardtorian.blogspot.com/2012/01/cost-per-ton-mile-...
  - djsumdog 10y ago
    This would make sense. I remember reading about a company adding kites/sails to some shipping vessels to help reduce fuel costs. Even when ships match the sea current, you still need a lot of fuel to keep that inertia in the ocean. With trains you're talking about the rolling friction of metal on metal. Even if it didn't out preform ships, it outperforms trucks. That would feed the market for faster shipping of small volumes vs slower shipping of larger orders.
    - dx034 10y ago
      Nothing outperforms shipping when it comes to cost. It's actually very easy to move an extremely heavy ship. Fuel costs are not even the biggest problem (which is why sailing is still not used widely). Ships become so big because you need fewer employees, which are still a considerable factor.
  - bkor 10y ago
    That data is highly questionable. Suggest trying to get some quotes for the different modalities. Via ocean is cheapest by far. To deliver to the final destination the price increases in order of barge/rail/truck. I work for a shipping company btw. Don't have experience about the prices globally, but that source divides data from two completely different sources. That often doesn't end well. There are companies tracking the average price of shipping a container across various trades.
jdietrich 10y ago
According to figures in an OECD report, rail freight has significantly higher CO2 emissions per tonne-km - 41-102g vs 30-40g. http://www.oecd.org/trade/envtrade/2386636.pdf http://www.oecd.org/trade/envtrade/2386636.pdf (p. 29)
- claudius 10y ago
  Note that this is for diesel trains. While likely most of the length of the track won’t be electrified soon, essentially all tracks in western Europe (France, Germany, possibly Poland) are already electrified. This means that using nuclear or renewable energy generation, the trains can run emission-free there, in particular avoiding the strongly localised particle emissions by ships in and around harbours.
  - guard-of-terra 10y ago
    Most of the length is electrified already. Yekaterinburg-Madrid definitely, Kazakhstan-Yekaterinburg likely, China-Kazakhstan connection and Chinese side probably remains an issue.
    - jdietrich 10y ago
      I would wager that Chinese and Russian electricity is no cleaner than diesel. They have an awful lot of old coal power stations burning lignite and sub-bituminous coal.
      - guard-of-terra 10y ago
        Most of Russian generation is natural gas, with notable hydro and nuclear. Anyway, this is fixable. Planes and ships are not.
      - _coldfire 10y ago
        The Chinese source 25% of their electricity from renewables. US is at 15%. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_electricity_production_from_renewable_sources https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_electrici...
CaliforniaKarl 10y ago
How frequently? If this was a dedicated, two-track main line, then standing trackside I'd expect to see one train coming in each direction every 20 minutes. Of course, that depends on having massive infrastructure at each end to service those trains. To see an example of that in action in the US, head to LA, and take Amtrack or Metrolink to Fullerton station, paying attention to BNSF's facilities in LA County. Then, hang out at Fullerton for a few hours, taking note of the number (and length) of trains. More likely, you'll see one train per day, mainly because of choke points like the Eurotunnel. It's also likely that cargo will have to be moved around at least once, since rolling stock (train cars, etc.) aren't normally certified for high-speed running. Plus, you've got a mix of at least high-voltage AC (for Eurotunnel) and diesel, so there would be engine changes. Plus, many USSR countries aren't on "standard gauge", so you either need rolling stock with wheel sets of different gauges (widths), or you need to move cargo at specific transfer points.
- dx034 10y ago
  You could see a train every 3-5 minutes if it was a dedicated track. Trains in Europe are much shorter than the ones in the US (and don't stack containers), but with the right signalling you can run trains at high frequencies if they're all at similar speeds. In this case it's not a track at all, more like a schedule that uses different kinds of tracks and is actually run by different companies along the way. The track is also not owned by one company (like in the US), but by a different operator in each country. According to an article, the train set is changed twice for the trains coordinated from Germany. Eurotunnel is likely not the choke point here (they could just load it on a ferry and only lose 1-2 hours), it's the change of rolling stock along the way, and other traffic it has to share the track with.
  - CaliforniaKarl 10y ago
    I expect this is where all of the infrastructure investment is going. Assuming these trains run in both directions, then to keep speeds steady you'll need either double track, or you'll need appropriately-sized passing sidings. And then, as soon as you have the first slowdown, all that goes to pot.

samhamilton 10y ago

I would guess that this is rolling out just for the PR, the sheer number of trains needed to replace one decent sized container ship just makes this all prohibitive to ever replace much sea freight plus launching when there is a glut of container ships floating around as well, which is keeping the price lower than most ship owners can breakeven. Ok so it's quicker, but it's not that quick. The only winners would be the goods owners who are winning form short term lower prices - is that enough for a long term business?

martinald 10y ago
Agreed. I really can't see this being a success for anything more than PR. If you need it ASAP, you're going to use airfreight. If you don't you're going to have it by sea. I don't see much of a need for something in between those two timeframes. Anyone specialised in logistics care to comment if there is an actual market here?
- stock_toaster 10y ago
  My guess is simply logistical redundancy. If the shipping lanes were impassible for some reason (blockade? ports damaged due to tsunami?), goods could still be sent/received via rail more cheaply than by air. Could also be a way to spur growth too. If you need to spend money on something, infrastructure seems like a decent choice.
- nullnilvoid 10y ago
  Compared to container ships, freight train is another option. Although not many, there are times when the goods are needed more urgently than container ships (think of some industries that require parts urgently but cannot afford air). In addition, some landlocked cities simply do not have container ships as an option. They need to ship goods to a nearby port by train or truck and then load all the containers to a ship. From this article http://richardtorian.blogspot.com/2012/01/cost-per-ton-mile-for-four-shipping.html http://richardtorian.blogspot.com/2012/01/cost-per-ton-mile-..., you can cut the shipping costs by train to a pretty low level.
- CaliforniaKarl 10y ago

_Codemonkeyism 10y ago

This has been going on with Germany for quite some time now (years) and is expanding in Germany, so it seems to work. I also found it interesting though more goods are shipped from China, a significant amount of goods is shipped to China.

zhte415 10y ago

This is about opening up Central Asia to China soft power. Rail is the only means Central Asia going to trade (export/import) anything, and strengthens China's West, Xinjiang, etc.

niftich 10y ago
This, and other geopolitical implications. The 'New Silk Road' effort has been China's focus for a while, and envisions two corridors along which overland trade can flow: the status quo through Russia, and an alternate one to the south that avoids Russia and remains resilient should their partnership sour.

ChuckMcM 10y ago

While 200 containers is not much compared to a container ship it is sufficient to carry all of the material for a Combat Brigade :-) More seriously though, it seems like an awesome rail trip if you can convince them to pull your private rail car.

lostboys67 10y ago
That was my thought add a couple of extra passenger cars and a buffet car and you would have an interesting trip and get to see some of the less travelled part of the world.
stuaxo 10y ago
You can already travel from China to London (or more likely in reverse) by train with a few changes, it's definitely worthwhile.
- paradite 10y ago
  Interesting. How do you go about buying tickets for such trips?
  - guard-of-terra 10y ago
    You can probably book Paris-Moscow and Moscow-Beijing from Russian Railways website. You'll need some visas to be done in advance. Better make a few stops along the way.
  - sanxiyn 10y ago
    You can buy tickets for Trans-Siberian Railway at http://eng.rzd.ru/ http://eng.rzd.ru/ , English website of Rossiyskie Zheleznye Dorogi.
  - joemclo 10y ago
    I highly recommend looking through this site which extensively covers travel by train. http://www.seat61.com/ http://www.seat61.com/ I've travelled by rail through Russia, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan and Kyrgyzstan. It's not always easy to buy (cheap) tickets online or in advance outside of Russia but it's worth taking the risk and buying in-country for the experience of the 3 + day journeys

gaius 10y ago

Who would be a British factory worker? You pay your taxes which the government immediately spends on infrastructure to help offshore your job!

jakozaur 10y ago

Some more detail articles about current China <-> Europe regular train connection (actually it goes weekly to Poland): http://postandparcel.info/56547/news/innovation/dhl-launches-weekly-train-link-from-china-to-poland/ http://postandparcel.info/56547/news/innovation/dhl-launches... http://www.forbes.com/sites/wadeshepard/2016/06/28/what-the-newly-branded-china-europe-silk-road-trains-really-mean/#22e225e1d852 http://www.forbes.com/sites/wadeshepard/2016/06/28/what-the-... It make sense for goods that sending them by air is too expensive, but they are too time sensitive to send them by ship. It takes a day by plane, 14 days by train, 45 days by the ship. I would expect in good scenario that train would be somewhat similar popular as air, but nowhere near close volume as by sea.

jakozaur 10y ago
Some price estimates: (very crude, but shows magnitude of price) Rail is 4 times more expensive than by sea. Air is at least 6 times more expensive than rail, but can be even 18 times more expensive if payload is heavy. Cost of shipping 40′ HC container: - by sea: $1,600 - by train: $6,800 - by air, light, so you pay for volume: 4.6 USD / kg, 40 ft got volume 67.7 m3 * 143 kg / m3 ~= 9 tons, $41,400 - by air, heavy, so you pay for real weight: 4.6 USD / kg, 40tf can be 27tons, $124,200 Shanghai <-> Gdynia, Poland: http://www.transportchiny.pl/ceny_transportu_z_chin.php http://www.transportchiny.pl/ceny_transportu_z_chin.php Shanghai <–> Małaszewicze, Poland http://gocargo.pl/czy-transport-koleja-z-chin-jest-oplacalny/ http://gocargo.pl/czy-transport-koleja-z-chin-jest-oplacalny... By Air: http://www.chinaimportal.com/blog/air-freight-import-china-guide/ http://www.chinaimportal.com/blog/air-freight-import-china-g... Container: https://www.searates.com/reference/equipment/3/ https://www.searates.com/reference/equipment/3/ Excuse me for non-English links, but that was the easiest what I can find.
- SixSigma 10y ago
  Pollution - Air cargo - 0.8063 kg of CO2 per Ton-Mile - Truck - 0.1693 kg of CO2 per Ton-Mile - Train - 0.1048 kg of CO2 per Ton-Mile - Sea freight - 0.0403 kg of CO2 per Ton-Mile So I see this competing with air freight, not sea. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_impact_of_transport https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_impact_of_transp...

omegaworks 10y ago

Awesome. Brings us all closer together. Alternate transportation systems for the win. Probably a good hedge against Suez Canal issues and Souh China Sea contention.

ptaipale 10y ago

Round-trip 4 weeks is OK; it will be interesting to see the packet loss rate in this service. The roads around here (Helsinki, Finland) used to be congested by trailer trucks transporting new Japanese cars from the harbour in Hanko across border to St. Petersburg. Bothered by the flow of trucks, I asked why didn't they send the cars across from Japan over Trans-Siberian railway? I was told that too many cars disappeared on the way. In fact, sometimes a whole train disappeared. Now Russia has built a suitable harbour of its own closer to St. Petersburg so that the flow of new cars doesn't need to come to the ringroads of Helsinki (and, I expect, the economic situation means fewer cars are sold there).

brunnsbe 10y ago

China, Poland, Germany, Belgium and France uses the standard gauge of 1,435mm but Russia, Belarus and Kazakhstan has 1520mm. I guess they are shifting wagons at the borders of China and Kazakhstan and Belarus and Poland. Or are the wagons mixed-gauge?

paradite 10y ago
Quick wikipedia yields this: It has been reported that, for example, when containers are shipped by a "direct train" from China to Europe, it is only containers, and not the railcars, which move from China's railway network to that of Kazakhstan. At the border station at Khorgos, two trains (the Chinese standard-gauge one and the Kazakh Russian-gauge one) would stand side by side at parallel tracks, while the cranes would move the containers from one train to the other in as short time as 47 minutes. - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Break-of-gauge#Containerisation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Break-of-gauge#Containerisatio... A break of gauge needs to be crossed when entering Mongolia from China (or Russia directly from China, if traveling via Manzhouli/Zabaykalsk), and then another one when leaving Belarus for Poland. - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trans-Eurasia_Logistics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trans-Eurasia_Logistics
mattdoughty 10y ago
When I crossed the border on a passenger train from Poland to Belarus and from Mongolia to China, the train went into a warehouse where the compartment was lifted and new bogies slid underneath. All while the passengers remained on the train https://www.flickr.com/photos/mjdoughty/8502710543/ https://www.flickr.com/photos/mjdoughty/8502710543/
fennecfoxen 10y ago
Loading gauges might be a problem as well. Parts of the UK rail network are still on W6a, which means the clearance from tunnels and bridges and turns is too small to take standard containers on standard wagons: you need special low-deck wagons where the container sits down between the wheels (so there's extra space between the containers, where the rail bogies are). This isn't the most efficient way imaginable to move goods over long distances. The W10 standard (which allows the taller Hi-Cube containers for refrigerated goods and the like) is available only on a few corridors. (Mind you, in the US, they use low-deck cars like this for about 70% of containers... the difference being that the US railways can double-stack the containers. It's a wonderful rail system.)

lispm 10y ago

Duisburg/Germany now has eight (!) trains per week from China. http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2016-07/23/c_135534991.htm http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2016-07/23/c_135534991.htm

golergka 10y ago

Such an article without a map and figures? Could modern journalism get any worse

mtw 10y ago

What I found interesting is that it still takes 15 days for a freight train to do the journey. With the recent $500 billion plan for high-speed rail network in China, surely it also makes sense to modernize this Asia<->Europe track? For example building a dedicated track with standard gauge in Kazakhastan, Russia, or developing a more powerful locomotive dedicated to this.

ksec 10y ago

Offtopic: How far are we from shortening this trip from 15 days to say, 12 or 10 days? 15 days is half a month. But if this could be shortened to 10 days, it is 3 regular shipment in a month. For someone like Apple, this could be extremely cost efficient. Rather then paying the high price to book every single possible fright from China, they could now do it via train, at least to everywhere in Europe.

johansch 10y ago
The article says 18 days and 12000 km. That's just ~28 km/h on average. I ride my bicycle faster than that :).
- adamjc 10y ago
  For 24 hours a day? ;)
  - johansch 10y ago
    Admittedly not.
- tombone12 10y ago
  That seems like a very low speed while the train is actually in motion, although apparently[1] american freight trains average around ~40 km/h. I would guess mostly it is various delays that keeps the average that low, and it seems most data is just distance/time estimates, not actual averages of instantaneous speed measurement. [1] A bit old but fairly indicative as far as I can tell: https://www.rita.dot.gov/bts/sites/rita.dot.gov.bts/files/publications/transportation_statistics_annual_report/2010/html/chapter_02/table_04_33.html https://www.rita.dot.gov/bts/sites/rita.dot.gov.bts/files/pu...
  - ksec 10y ago
    Thanks. Then I think the problem / bottleneck isn't with speed of the train. More likely it is stopping at each location waiting for custom clearance.

chiph 10y ago

The advantage might come if you regard the railcars as a stream of product on it's way to your warehouse, rather than a single delivery. So high latency, but the bandwidth is respectable once it starts. :)

zeristor 10y ago

Although it might be quicker than sea freight, if the frequency is less it will end up waiting too long to start its journey in the first place. Speed and frequency are both important, unless you have the liberty to synchronise.

thedogeye 10y ago

Ryan from Flexport here. Been trying to sell rail freight from China to the EU since start of 2016 with no luck. It's too much more expensive than sea freight and too much slower than air freight. We will keep plugging though because we think its super cool.

sfoon 10y ago
Why drum up business for a dictator led authoritarian government that suppresses its own people and other countries and pollutes the environment?

angelohuang 10y ago

The new silk road is a decent project, but of course it's not purely for China to dump it's products abroad. Besides, I believe it's a matter of time before anti-China sentiment in Europe will be like the American-version propagated by Trump.