Russia Approves Siberia-Alaska Railway

An anonymous reader writes "In what could easily be one of the boldest infrastructure developments ever announced, the Russian Government has given the go-ahead to build a transcontinental railway linking Siberia with North America. The massive undertaking would traverse the Bering Strait with the world's longest tunnel – a project twice the length of the Chunnel between England and France. The project aims to feed North America with raw goods from the Siberian interior and beyond, but it could also provide a key link to developing a robust renewable energy transmission corridor that feeds wind and tidal power across vast distances while linking a railway network across 3/4 of the Northern Hemisphere."

Comments

But what...

[MischaNix]

do I watch instead of Ice Road Truckers?

Re:But what...

[Jeremiah Cornelius]

Sarah Palin's house?

Re:But what...

[greymond]

Followed, in about 15 years, by Ice Pipe Tunnelers.

So - Discovery Channel time?

[Penguinisto]

Didn't the Discovery Channel have an Extreme Engineering episode covering such a thing, like, 10 years ago?

If that's the case, I cannot frickin' wait to see the mile-high tower/city complex in Tokyo.

One question, though... who the hell is footing the bill for this thing, and what is the expected ROI timeline?

I can't wait . . .

[StefanJ]

. . . to see bearded guys in furs hanging around in Penn Station, waiting for the track announcement for the train to Moscow (first stop Secaucus Junction, of course).

Re:I can't wait . . .

[TWX]

On a serious note, the Standard Gauge of 4 ft 8 12 in that North America uses is narrower than the old Soviet 4 ft 11 56 in gauge in Russia and many of the former Soviet bloc states. Negotiations between the US, Russia, and Canada to a lesser extent would have to happen to determine which gauge would be used, or if an attempt for dual-gauge (probably requiring four rails due to the closeness of the two gauges) would be made. It would potentially be an option to use bogies capable of being adjusted between the two gauges as well.

It would be pretty kick ass to be able to take the train all of the way from Boston to London, by way of Canada, the US, Russia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Germany, Belgium, and France...

Total Nonstarter in the US.

[NeutronCowboy]

#1 It involves Russia. There are too many people who will be worried about pinko-commies invading the American Heartland.
#2 it involves rail. Yes, freight-rail primarily, which has some presence in the US. But there's no way that the US will build the kind of rail network that will link a tunnel on the far-western side of Alaska with the rest of the US in order to import Russian goods.
#3 It will cost money. Considering that our lovely congress-critters are willing to blow up the US over money that has already been spent on previously approved projects, I can't see how the US government will spend even a penny on this completely pie-in-the-sky project.
#4 It requires significant infrastructure projects in Alaska to link a tunnel ending at an uninhabited point in Alaska with places that can actually use all the stuff coming through. Not gonna happen, for the reasons listed above.

Nice dream, but not gonna happen. Even (I would say especially) if Russia funds the entire cost of the tunnel.

Re:Total Nonstarter in the US.

[mozumder]

The libertarian/conservative philosophy is dying off. Everyone's going Big Government with Big Spending Projects these days.

Meanwhile, the REAL reason it's going to happen is because import businesses want it. I actually import goods from China/India, and it takes weeks to deliver. Eliminating this shipping time is absolutely key in a competitive environment.

The days of "Hard-Working-Corporations-Can-Solve-All-Our-Problems" are over.

It is now time for government to solve all our problems.

Re:Total Nonstarter in the US.

[MightyMartian]

But it wouldn't just be Russian markets opening up. It would be opening up East Asia entirely. I wouldn't be surprised at the end of the day if you didn't see China throwing money at something like this.

Re:Total Nonstarter in the US.

[mozumder]

I plan to write congress if this doesn't get the green light.

Every corporation in America is going to want this, from individual importers/exporters to Wal Mart.

This is inevitable due to globalization.

Re:Total Nonstarter in the US.

[Dr. Spork]

I doubt that this would make shipping cheaper than it is now. In fact, I expect it to be far more expensive than the current cargo ships. One big difference is that it will be a lot faster and it will route around the unionized dock workers. Regarding speed and tonnage capacity, a lot depends on the rest of the North American railway net, which would need serious upgrading to accommodate all the new cargo. As it stands now, the idea of building a railroad link between Alaska and Canada is being "studied". (link) So long as that remains, this would be the ultimate tunnel to nowhere.

Re:Total Nonstarter in the US.

[currently_awake]

#1 It involves jobs during an recession, #2 Alaska has oil money to pay for this. #3 Greedy Americans can be shown pictures of all the valuable things they can buy/sell, and it's just down the road from here. #4 You can offshore the remains of your economy to Russia. #5 A rail line will make it cheaper to bring in Chinese than Mexicans.

Re:Total Nonstarter in the US.

[slater.jay]

#4.5 It requires massive, incredible infrastructure projects in Russia. The nearest *paved road* to the Bering Strait is 1200 miles away. The nearest rail head is 2000 miles away.

Re:Total Nonstarter in the US.

[0123456]

The libertarian/conservative philosophy is dying off. Everyone's going Big Government with Big Spending Projects these days.

Kind of hard when you don't have the Big Money to spend.

Re:Total Nonstarter in the US.

[antifoidulus]

#2 it involves rail. Yes, freight-rail primarily, which has some presence in the US. But there's no way that the US will build the kind of rail network that will link a tunnel on the far-western side of Alaska with the rest of the US in order to import Russian goods.

You best be checking your facts there. Freight rail has more than "some" presence in the US, the US probably has the worlds most advanced freight rail system in the WORLD. From 'kipedia

In the 1950s, the U.S. and Europe moved roughly the same percentage of freight by rail; but, by 2000, the share of U.S. rail freight was 38% while in Europe only 8% of freight traveled by rail.

Its because of the US freight rail system that you can buy cheap Chinese goods in New York, shipping them by truck would cost considerably more. Not even worth reading the rest of your post, you obviously have NO idea what you are talking about.

Re:Total Nonstarter in the US.

[ColdWetDog]

#1 It involves jobs during an recession

A couple thousand, true enough

#2 Alaska has oil money to pay for this.

Not a chance. Although Alaska is doing "OK" from the oil money we get, it is dwindling rapidly and everyone knows it. Alaska can't even afford to push a gas pipeline down to the lower 48 to sell off all of the neato natural gas we have. The economics of nat gas have gotten so bad that we've shut down the LNG facility that shipped it to Asia.

#3 Greedy Americans can be shown pictures of all the valuable things they can buy/sell, and it's just down the road from here.

"Just down the road"??? Look at a map of Alaska. Look at the distance from Alaska to anywhere else. One hella road.

#4 You can offshore the remains of your economy to Russia.

?

#5 A rail line will make it cheaper to bring in Chinese than Mexicans.

Perhaps disaffected Siberians, but it's not going to be cheaper than bulk freighters.

Re:Total Nonstarter in the US.

[Solandri]

Freight rail has more than "some" presence in the US, the US probably has the worlds most advanced freight rail system in the WORLD.

True, but the fly in the ointment for this idea is that transporting cargo by container ship is about 1/3rd the cost of rail per ton-mile. It's cheaper to load the freight into containers in Russia, transport those containers through Siberia to the Pacific via rail, and load it onto a cargo ship for the trip to the U.S. West coast.

Re:Total Nonstarter in the US.

[wvmarle]

China to New York usually goes all the way by ship (via the Panama channel). Takes longer but much cheaper than unloading in Long Beach and then by rail across the continent. New York still has a sizable port.

Re:Awesome

[Cornwallis]

Once they build it maybe they can take a detour through Nepal to pick up some Sherpas to carry the freight throughout the United States because they're about the only ones who'd be able to traverse our rapidly decaying road system!

Mixed views

[JoshuaZ]

On the one hand, I'm worried about the environmental damage that such an endeavor would do. On the other hand, in the long run if done properly this could save on a lot of shipping that would be more environmentally damaging. Also there are serious issues with lack of infrastructure in the US. This isn't within the US itself but would help solve some of the same problems that such infrastructural collapse is causing. The system will link into the larger North American rail system which is in decent shape as far as moving freight is concerned (I'd like more investment in it in directly in the US but that seems unlikely right now). The price tag on this project is massive, TFA says $65 billion for the whole project with around $10 billion for the main tunnel. That's a lot of money, and I can't help wonder if there aren't a lot of small projects that would have a better return. In general small projects have a very high rate of marginal return, but that may be more true in the sciences than other areas. I don't know how true that is for something like this. And TFA correctly points out that this could give a lot of economic stimulus in terms of jobs, which is something that both the US and Russia sorely need right now. TFA doesn't address what American permits are needed for this. I would imagine that state and federal approval would be necessary but the article doesn't discuss that at all. Overall, I'm skeptical that this will end up going through successfully anytime soon. But the idea of being able to take a train from Boston to Moscow certainly sounds appealing.

Re:Russia approves?

[Hatta]

Increasing trade grows the economy and increases revenue. You really do have to spend money to make money.

Re:Russia approves?

[MightyMartian]

An actual direct-rail transport corridor from East Asia to the Americas would pay for itself. It would be costly up front, but as a transport corridor it would basically be akin to how opening up the North American frontier to rail created a whole series of economic opportunities.

Being a Russian citizen for 30 years

[mapkinase]

After being a Russian citizen for 30 years, I can tell you right away that this will be one of the most spectacularly disgraced projects in history. There are oh so many ways to screw this up and for Russians one is usually enough.

In soviet russia Government railroads you!

[Joe_Dragon]

In soviet russia Government railroads you!

Re:The Palin/Putin Connector

[Penguinisto]

That would be cool as hell, but damn... you'd better be single.

I say this because when you're single, long road trips are liberating, exciting, and just plain damned fun. Marriage and kids turn that idea into a grueling endurance run, complete with large numbers of restroom, tourist-trap, and restaurant stops.

Then again, Siberia would be an excellent place to hide a body, no?

Re:Awesome

[Wyatt Earp]

Do you know how I know you've never driven to Alaska? Because you think a 300 mph train would work across northern Canada, Alaska and the Russian Far East.

Re:Russia approves?

[currently_awake]

Russia exports oil, US imports oil. Sky high oil prices (courtesy of peak oil) mean lots of money coming in to pay for this. As for selling the oil to china, that's the point. Selling Alaska oil to china will pay more once the US defaults.

! transcontinental

[Marc_Hawke]

There are a lot of transcontinental railroads in the US. I'd assume they have some in Russia too. This would be an 'intercontinental' railroad.

(It's possible it could be called 'trans-oceanic' but that would be only a technicality.)

No foreign exchange problems either

[turkeyfeathers]

You won't have to worry about converting from dollars to roubles... by the time this tunnel is finished, Bitcoins will be the worldwide currency.

Funnything

[Adam Appel]

Being that I live in Anchorage, I would think someone in Alaska would talk about this. Not so, it's all quite on the Alaska news front. In fact I just drove the Alcan for my 17 time. FYI, it's still not "done". They are still working to finish paving above Destruction Bay. Why is it a bunch of people who have never set foot in the Yukon think that they can put a rail in? Then the miles in Western Alaska that has never seen a road. I would love to see land based access open up in western AK, but I see this project as wishful thinking based on the current admin in power in Alaska.

Ships are much cheaper

[billstewart]

Yes, there are pollution problems, because they're typically not run cleanly, but ships are efficient. has figures that say that "domestic waterborne" shipping uses about 50% more energy per ton*km than "Class 1 rail", but domestic waterborne shipping is going to be less efficient than international, because it uses smaller ships than the container ships that have revolutionized global commerce. A more important issue is really how far you have to haul goods using the two different methods - Vladivostok to Los Angeles is probably a lot closer by water than by rail, and certainly Shanghai to LA is closer by water.

Re:Russia approves?

[shutdown -p now]

I thought they were more broke than we are

Russian external public debt is 3% of the country's GDP - in fact, it's one of the countries with the lowest corresponding ratio in the world. And it has a fair bit of money in absolute measures, mostly from trade of abundant natural resources such as oil and gas.

My Wish Is . . .

[NicknamesAreStupid]

. . . that all of us live to see this. We will celebrate /. being 100, too.

Re:Isn't there...

[Teancum]

Surprisingly, eastern Siberia and even as far south as Japan are all on the "North American Plate", so in terms of a tectonic plate being of concern, it is not an issue going across or under the Bering Straight.

The map of the various major continental plates can be found here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Plates_tect2_en.svg

It is a legitimate concern, but North America actually ends at Tokyo, not Nome.

Russian Railroads vs. California

[billstewart]

California's high-speed rail project didn't involve any radical engineering like building a tunnel under the Bering Straits or building railroads across frozen parts of Alaska, just a simple system upgrade from San Francisco to Los Angeles and San Diego along existing rights of way, and the price has already gone from the $30B low-ball price sold to the voters ($10B in bonds and $20B in magic money falling from the sky) to somewhere around $40-50B.

There are other differences - it's possible that this is being proposed for the purposes of actually building a railroad and shipping goods on it rather than for spending money and paying off every rich community along the way, by I'm skeptical about claims that you can build a tunnel under the Bering Straits for less than you can build a surface railroad from LA to Bakersfield, or that Russian corruption is any less than the polite Californian version.

Re:Russian Railroads vs. California

[CajunArson]

California --> There's your problem right there.

Re:Russian Railroads vs. California

[NemoinSpace]

Suddenly container ships look dirt cheap.

Container ships are dirt cheap compared to rail, about 3x more efficient. Compounded by the fact , like you say, where rail exists.
Cool idea and all, but i'm not seeing it.

Re:Russian Railroads vs. California

[Nethead]

Hell, you don't even have a freaking road to your state capitol! And people wonder how Alaska Air makes a profit.

Re:Russian Railroads vs. California

[splashd]

You know why? Because it's freakin' Siberia and Alaska!
If I wanted something that cost too much, went way fast, and left me stranded in the middle of nowhere, I'd get a lap dance

Re:Russian Railroads vs. California

[A nonymous Coward]

Ahh yes, that fanciful high speed rail project .... they first predicted it would break even, operationally, with 90M passengers a year. That's 250K passengers a day. If the average train carries 1000 passengers, that's 250 trains. That's ten an hour, six minutes apart. And that all presupposes that those 90M passengers are evenly distributed throughout the day and week and year. It also assumes there's some reason for people to take 3 hours to travel between the two cities instead of the one hour for airlines, and the high speed train won't be high speed if it makes more than a couple of stops, so both modes of travel need taxis, further worsening the time comparison.

They also plan to run it up the SF peninsula, 50 miles of heavily urbanized cities. Tunnel is too expensive. Grade level would require elevating all cross streets. Above ground is the only affordable plan. Can you imagine the racket from a 300 kph train crossing 50 miles of urban area? There are a lot of wealthy people around there -- I doubt they're thrilled with the idea. I am sure getting it into LA is more so.

Then there's the question of where it goes after SF. Sacramento (150 km away)? Across the bridges and thru more urbanized areas?

What a boondoggle. I have no idea how California voters fell for such an obvious sea story, but they sure did. But it looks like it is dead from a funding point of view, finally, and also there have been some realistic cost analyses showing up, finally. Even the project itself admitted they would only get 1/3 of the passengers they claimed, which puts a big hole in their operational break even.

So let's see some financials for this Bering Sea tunnel. I'd like to see realistic construction costs and oeprational costs, and especially revenue. I doubt there's any more realism to this than Greek mythology, but uncovering the truth might be as interesting.

Re:Russian Railroads vs. California

[tftp]

Container ships are dirt cheap compared to rail, about 3x more efficient.

Seems like Wikipedia doesn't agree with you. In the USA railroad burns 341 BTU/(ton*mile) whereas a ship burns 510 BTU/(ton*mile).

But there are other advantages of railroads. First, railroads are largely weather-independent, but ships aren't. Northern seas also tend to freeze, but the cold air doesn't affect the railroad much.

Second, a railroad can be powered by electric energy - from a hydro plant or from a nuclear plant or from any number of renewable sources. This means it's future-proof. Most ships burn dinosaurs, and the supply of those is limited (not even counting the CO(2) release into the atmosphere.)

Third, a railroad is a low-tech project. Very few things can break, and when they sometimes do it's easy to repair. On the other hand, if a container ship loses power in the ocean, it's bad news.

Fourth, a railroad is a cheap thing to use. Sure, you need to spend some coin on laying the tracks. But once it's done your trains are cheap and the crew of each train is just a couple of guys, compared to tens of sailors that are required to maintain the ship. And don't even compare a train - which is a simple welding job, mostly - to the capital expense of a container ship.

Fifth, a train can move much faster than a ship. Water is viscous, as any swimmer will tell. Wheels have very little rolling resistance, so a relatively small engine can pull a very long and heavy train.

Sixth, trains are packet-switched networks. You can load a railcar at your factory and it will be routed to the destination. Your content on the car will not be disturbed. Ships require packing in sea containers, which is not convenient or even possible for many types of loads, thus requiring special ships to carry liquids, gases, ores, fruits etc. In a train all you need is a special car; the train doesn't care what your car is doing, as long as it can be hitched. A ship requires loading and unloading which ain't free.

I'm sure there are many other advantages and disadvantages, but your "3x cheaper" argument doesn't fly, unless you can cite something at least as reliable as Wikipedia.

Re:Russian Railroads vs. California

[hackertourist]

a ship burns 510 BTU/(ton*mile).

That's for domestic shipping.
For the Emma Maersk, I get 4.5 BTU/ton mile (130 kBTU per gallon, 1660 gal/h to propel 156 ktons of freight at 30 mph)

Sixth, trains are packet-switched networks. You can load a railcar at your factory and it will be routed to the destination. Your content on the car will not be disturbed. Ships require packing in sea containers, which is not convenient or even possible for many types of loads, thus requiring special ships to carry liquids, gases, ores, fruits etc. In a train all you need is a special car; the train doesn't care what your car is doing, as long as it can be hitched. A ship requires loading and unloading which ain't free.

Your argument is flawed. The worldwide container network is packet-switched as much as trains are, and is more flexible because it uses rail, road and water links.
Containers that carry liquids, gases, or refrigerated goods all exist. When you're talking about huge volumes, you need either special ships (oil tanker, gas tanker, bulk carrier) or special rail cars.
Both ships and rail cars require loading/unloading.

Re:Russian Railroads vs. California

[drinkypoo]

railroads are largely weather-independent, but ships aren't.

That's true where you have flat land to work with. Getting the goods TO the tunnel might be an issue. The benefit of rail really becomes the ability to spend the money once, developing the rail bed, and then having that to work with as a resource thereafter. But where the route is steep (which for freight might only be a few points) you get into traction problems in icy conditions. That does, of course, beat having to follow a nuclear powered ice breaker around.

a railroad is a low-tech project. Very few things can break, and when they sometimes do it's easy to repair. On the other hand, if a container ship loses power in the ocean, it's bad news.

Both have opportunity for failure. Container ships could be more robust but it would interfere with their efficiency; making diesels larger improves that and ganging them would impede it. They can, of course, be towed. It seems like container ship engines are serviced a bit more aggressively than locomotives to account for this disparity.

a train can move much faster than a ship. Water is viscous, as any swimmer will tell. Wheels have very little rolling resistance, so a relatively small engine can pull a very long and heavy train.

The combination of greater speed and greater efficiency is what really recommends them. Since it is now possible to use them to move freight transoceanically in more cases, we should do so.

Ships require packing in sea containers, which is not convenient or even possible for many types of loads, thus requiring special ships to carry liquids, gases, ores, fruits etc. In a train all you need is a special car; the train doesn't care what your car is doing, as long as it can be hitched.

You have to plan for derailment for hazardous materials, so for the loads which require the most preparation, you are completely wrong.

A ship requires loading and unloading which ain't free.

I don't recall seeing trains load and unload themselves. They typically carry ISO containers today, which are loaded and by a mechanism appropriate to the scale of the job... at ports :) I've never seen them unloaded from the trains, but I know that it happens, since containers unload from the ends. Since the railways have different gauges it makes sense for the tunnel to use one or the other and containers will still have to be exchanged. It's not likely for whole nations to be converted, after all.

Re:Russian Railroads vs. California

[FishTankX]

That should be 45 BTU/Tonmile instead of 4.5

WOLVERINES!

[TiggertheMad]

The real reason why the Russians want to build this is to funnel troops and supplies through it, so they can RED DAWN our asses. And this time Charlie Sheen and Patrick Swayze are in no shape to save us...

Cool!

[93 Escort Wagon]

This should make it easier to get all all those Russian mail-order brides into the US at a significantly lower cost!

Take that, Philippines!