China’s bullet train to Canada, a $2 trillion pipe dream on wheels

The National Post ^ | May 23, 2014 | Kelly McParland

[2ndDivisionVet]

I’m not an expert on the Chinese calendar, so it could be that April 1 comes in May in China, and everyone in Beijing is having a good chuckle at those gullible Canadians, who believe everything they read in the Chinese press. How else to explain reports, which have been circulating for some time, that China is discussing construction of a super-undersea railway-tunnel that would have high-speed trains barreling from China to the U.S., by way of Russia and Canada, faster than you can say “Mao’s your uncle”? As reported by Postmedia, where we believe everything we’re told, “the line would start in northeast China, run through Siberia, dive under the Bering Strait, daylight again in Alaska and continue into North America.

The rail journey from one end of the 13,000 kilometre route to the other would take less than two days at a speed of 350 km/h, according to Wang Mengshu, a railway expert at the Chinese Academy of Engineering who was quoted by China Daily. The distance from Russia to Alaska across the Bering Strait is around 80 kilometres, but the tunnel would be more than twice that length, at around 200 kilometres, the China Daily report states. That is about four-times the length of the Channel Tunnel, which connects England to France. . Fanciful as it may sound, the reports come from official Chinese media, so someone evidently thinks it’s true. But before you start lining up for tickets, there are some aspects of this report you should bear in mind....

[Mr. Jeeves]

The rail journey from one end of the 13,000 kilometre route to the other would take less than two days at a speed of 350 km/h...

I just completed a trip along the exact same route - from Los Angeles to Guangzhou. Passed very close to San Francisco, Anchorage, the Bering Strait, Magadan, Harbin, and Beijing. At 38,000 feet. In a bullet-shaped conveyance commonly known as an Airbus 380.

My ticket cost less than $1,000 USD.

What would be the business need for this boondoggle, again?

[Teacher317]

A conquest is impossible both technically and logistically, and it would serve no purpose - unless the new management wants to adopt 350 million dependents, and with them all the social problems that are already present in the US society.

The value of human lives is very low, even to the common Chinese. There wouldn't be anything close to 350 million Americans here for long if China did make a successful stab at conquest. China also doesn't do Welfare for their own 600 million poor people. Why would they care to do anything for a "dependent" (and very lazy, especially in their 16-hour workday eyes) 50 million here? China and Russia both have solid histories with eliminating tens of millions of their own people that are inconvenient to the leadership. Both have done it more than once. Ripping up a hundred million or so Americans would not bother them in the least.

[Teacher317]

and if anyone can pull it off ... the Chinese can

The Chinese also have a very well-earned reputation for poor quality control. That's a lot of tunnel that needs to be perfect, and earthquake-proof, and uniquely prepared for the pressures of the Pacific... with technologies that are unprecedented (the Chinese are much better at copying than innovating)...

[The Antiyuppie]

“Well, I’m guessing that the PLA took one look at the PLAN and demanded this.”

That’s what I was thinking. They have a lot of soldiers but no way to get them here.

But then, why even bother. Can’t they just foreclose on the place?

[Jeff Chandler]

This is a great idea, but it needs to be solar powered.

Or wind powered.

[roadcat]

#4 was a bit different

Actually, it was Big Four - Leland Stanford, Charles Crocker, Collis Huntington and Mark Hopkins. They all built huge mansions in San Francisco, for the most part destroyed in the 1906 Earthquake and Fire but parts rebuilt as hotels.

Your link about James Hill is a good one. So okay, some railroad tycoons are not robber barons! The Big Four were ruthless crooks. But they were largely responsible for the rapid growth in California after the Civil War.

[tumblindice]

Won’t the Pacific ocean slow down a `bullet train’?
And make it soggy? Has this been thought through?

[NormsRevenge]

Shanghai to LA in a blink? ... Someday.. Wow.

I’d sure hate to ride the prototype

Until I know what the splat factor is.

[GeronL]

Government officials were the real crooks, without them the barons wouldn’t be able to rip off the taxpayers.

[Greysard]

They have a lot of soldiers but no way to get them here. But then, why even bother. Can’t they just foreclose on the place?

I am sure they will foreclose; but not today. It will be at the time of their choosing. This will destroy the USD. The USA will follow within weeks, as old contracts expire and new contracts require payment in RMB (for example.)

[dalereed]

2 minus 0 ideas, trains and solar power!!!

[Nifster]

Two words... Jerry Brown

The Chinese want the Canadian oil and gas and they want to rid their country of population...... hence the bullet train concept

[DoughtyOne]

Still makes more sense than the Pullit (as in my finger) train in California...

Ramirez's latest political cartoon LARGE VERSION 05/23/2014: LINK  LINK to regular sized version of Ramirez's latest, and an archive of his political cartoons.
In this political cartoon, Ramirez presents, "China and Our Technology"

FOLKS, THOSE OF YOU WHO CAN, PLEASE CLICK HERE AND PENCIL IN YOUR DONATION TO HELP END THIS FREEPATHON.  THANK YOU!  We're over 79% now. Cool!
...this is a general all purpose message, and should not be seen as targeting any individual I am responding to...

[Age of Reason]

owever it won't be built simply because there is no purpose. Deliveries of Chinese goods to the USA are perfectly fine with cargo ships; it's not too expensive, and it requires no investments.

I don't think so.

Ships are slow and the Chinese realize that the cost of fuel for those ships is increasingly expensive.

I think the Chinese realize that unless they can reduce the cost of transporting their crap to America, we might find it cheaper to make the crap in our own country.

I see this tunnel as a threat to jobs returning to America.

[Blackyce]

What a weird article. How do you talk about a train from China to Canada, while glossing over the fact that most expensive parts of the line would have to go through the US and Russia? I actually used to think this was a great idea, high speed rail connecting North America with the East Asian markets, but I also used to think that Russia was going to stop being an evil oligarchy at some point.

[2ndDivisionVet]

Are they more or less evil than our oligarchy?

[Greysard]

Ships are slow and the Chinese realize that the cost of fuel for those ships is increasingly expensive.

Bulk goods do not care if they are delivered in one week or in two weeks. Water transport is cheaper than rail:

To move one ton of freight one mile by barge costs .97, by rail $2.53, and by semi-trailer truck $5.35.

There are other factors too. Ships require no railways; this means no one time investment and no maintenance fees. Ships can deliver to any port, whereas the railway of the proposed type will deliver from one terminal to another. One ship is not affected by an accident with another; but a railway (or a tunnel) would be blocked for weeks in case of a crash or a terrorist act. Ships can take the shortest route across the ocean; but trains have to go from Southern China all the way to the Arctic, cross there, then return back to SF or LA - across ten thousand miles of inhospitable tundra over permafrost, in the area of high seismic activity.

Cost of investments (such as the bank credit) will make this railway very expensive. As shippers will be preferring the ocean route, the railway will be starved of revenue, and this will further increase the price.

I think the Chinese realize that unless they can reduce the cost of transporting their crap to America, we might find it cheaper to make the crap in our own country.

I see no evidence of the theory that Chinese goods suffer from the high cost of transportation. This would create a price pedestal (a minimum price of an item) - but plenty of items are sold for peanuts. This means that their manufacturing and delivery are cheaper yet.

There is yet another consideration. For how long China is going to buy US debt and make products for the USA that are paid by that debt? If the USA is suddenly unable to pay, the ships can be easily rerouted to other destinations. But you cannot reroute the railway. China, of all countries, is the one that is most affected by this factor, and it would be very unwise to think that Chinese rulers do not look ten or twenty years into the future. The US debt stands at $17.5 trillion at this very moment. Who in his right mind would want to keep lending to a debtor who has no intention to ever repay? The US debt is a pyramid scheme, but other countries play along because pyramids are profitable all the way up to their collapse.

[Peter ODonnell]

If anyone in China has that much money to burn, they should apply it to the improvement of air quality in China.

If there’s any cash left over, use it to clean up all the junk in the oceans, a large portion of which originates from Asia.

Tunnels we don’t want or need, thanx.

[roadcat]

Government officials were the real crooks, without them the barons wouldn’t be able to rip off the taxpayers.

Duh! It's also stupid taxpayers. It's a given that government officials become rich way beyond what their salaries would give them; hence they're in it for the kickbacks under the table. But stupid taxpayers vote them in, thinking they're getting something in return. It's greed all around. Look at this stupid bullet train that Gov Moonbeam Brown wants built in California. Everyone knows it's a stupid idea. But somehow they're convincing enough idiots to buy in, because those idiots are conned into believing they'll get jobs or riches in return.

The Chinese government just might be able to get a train built to North America, because they've got more idiots than us.

[Blackyce]

“Are they more or less evil than our oligarchy?”

Would you rather live in the US or Russia?