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?

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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

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?

! 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.

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

[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.