More than 550 km of the 2000 km route distance is over permafrost, and construction over these sections involves long lengths of either elevated track on bridges (with piers extending below the permafrost), or else the building of high stone embankments (on which the track-bed rests) on top of the permafrost, with tunnels under the embankment to provide both cooling ventilation and enable migrating herds of large animals to travel without restriction.
It’s just a shame that the publicity for this incredible feat of engineering achievement includes enough anti-west (and particularly anti-American) propaganda to make even a 1950s Soviet leader blush. We must not forget of course that China’s claim to Tibet is a matter of some controversy in the eyes of much of the rest of the world. Nonetheless, regardless of whatever political motives might lie behind the building of this railway, Tibet is now connected to the rest of the world by a modern rail line.
China has announced plans to extend this railway from Lhasa through Nepal (at Kathmandu) to the border with India (where there will obviously be a break of gauge), including tunnelling under Mount Everest (such a tunnel would probably be at least 100 km long). Completion is stated as being in 2020, which is certainly an ambitious target.
(An interesting side note on the Qinghai-Tibet Railway: the trackwork for much of this line is built with what is now old-fashioned jointed rail. Perhaps welding rails into long lengths in the cold temperatures and thin atmosphere – the trains on this route are pressurised, just like an aircraft – was just not feasible. If so, then that was one technical challenge China could not overcome. Nonetheless, with five trains a day each way traversing this line, jointed rails must represent an unwelcome maintenance headache in checking that fishplate (splice) bolts used to join each rail section do not come loose, especially in such remote and inhospitable areas.)
History:
Like one or two other countries we have already come across, China’s choice of railway gauge was as much an accident of history as anything else, and China could have found itself (and perhaps nearly did find itself) with a different gauge than the one it currently now has for most of its railways – 1435 mm Standard gauge. China’s early history of railway building is a very complex story, involving two major international wars, an internal rebellion and a number of competing foreign interests. I’ll try to keep it as simple as possible! (But a lot of detail will of necessity have to be glossed over.)
The first railway in China came relatively late, in 1876. Known as the Woosung railway, this consisted of a short line (15 km) built (quite unofficially by all accounts) by British trading company Jardine, Matheson and Company, who at that time were exporting large quantities of everything from cotton to opium from China, and needed the railway as part of their export activities. Although the gauge of this line is not known for sure, it is believed that this railway was built to narrow gauge (very possibly 1000 mm). Certainly contemporary pictures of this railway show something much less than Standard gauge.
However, whatever gauge this line was built to became academic – in the following year, after protests from the ruling Qing Dynasty, the British government ordered operations to cease, while the Qing Dynasty itself, fearful of this new technology, and using the excuse that Jardine, Matheson had built the railway without permission, ordered the line to be dismantled.
Railway building in China however didn’t cease entirely after the first Woosung Railway was unceremoniously swept away. In 1881, China’s second railway was built, a 10 km line from Tangshan to Xugezhuang, in order to transport coal, with further extensions being completed by 1898. Although the Qing Dynasty put up a lot of opposition to this line, it was backed by the Viceroy of Zhili, Li Hongzhang. This line, foreign owned like the Woosung line, is believed to have been built to Standard gauge.
Between 1894 and 1895, China and Japan were at war with each other, this being the First Sino-Japanese War, wherein the Qing Dynasty was defeated by the Japanese. One of the outcomes of that defeat was that the Qing Dynasty was forced to grant concessions to anyone who wanted to build a railway in China, together with granting permissions to provide the first direct rail connections with Peking (today Beijing).
Jardine, Matheson and Company, it would appear, took immediate advantage of one of these concessions, and proceeded to undertake the rebuilding of the Woosung Railway. Some 22 years after their first abortive attempt, in 1898, they got into a joint venture with HSBC (or the Hong Kong and Shanghai Bank, as it was known then), and formed the British and Chinese Corporation (BCC).
BCC then reconstructed the long demolished Woosung Railway, but this time to 1435 mm Standard gauge, and no doubt using locomotives and rolling stock sourced from Britain. BCC didn’t stop there either. They continued to develop other railways in China, and by 1911, had built some 9000 km of Standard gauge railways, thus establishing – at least so it appeared – 1435 mm gauge as the default option for railway construction in China in the early years of the 20th century.
But BCC weren’t the only people building railways around this time. Other, mostly foreign, entities were also building railways, again using the concessions granted by the Qing Dynasty. In 1898, a conference had been held in London, at which British and German capitalists agreed to build a railway from Tianjin to Pokou (just outside Nanjing). Naturally, this line would be to Standard gauge, the same as the railways in the two countries’ capitalists’ respective homelands.
There were delays in getting everything in place, however, and it wasn’t until 1908 that construction actually started. Astonishingly, considering its previous fear and hatred of railways, the Qing Dynasty, now in its dying years, agreed to finance this railway. The line was eventually completed in 1912.
In 1905, construction of China’s first indigenous railway was initiated. Known as the Jingzang railway, it was an 833-km long line from Beijing to Baotou, in what was called Inner Mongolia, with the first section completed in 1908, although it would be 1923 before Baotou was finally connected. This line, it is believed, was also built to Standard gauge.
Not all new railways in China however were being built with rails 1435 mm apart. With the help of French interests, the Sino-Vietnamese Railway was built in the early 1900s, linking Kunming, in the south-east of China, with Hanoi, in neighbouring Vietnam. This line, some 855 km long (of which 466 km is within China), and traversing very mountainous territory, was built initially to 610 mm gauge, but then converted to 1000 mm gauge in 1910, at which it remains to this day – the longest line of such gauge in China. Other lines around this time were also built to metre-gauge. There are plans to convert the Kunming-Hanoi line to Standard gauge (although that will mean a break of gauge in Hanoi, the focal point of Vietnamese lines to the rest of the country). Today the line is freight only, the last passenger trains having run in 2010.
At one time, there were connections from this line through Burma to the Indian metre-gauge network. These were more or less destroyed in the Second Sino-Japanese War in the early 1940s. While the line was in operation, Japanese 2-8-0 locomotives (re-gauged to 1000 mm from 1067 mm) were to be seen in China assisting with the Japanese invasion.
A branch off this railway to Gejiu was built to 610 mm gauge – obviously there was no through running!
Germany also built some narrow gauge railways, but to its preferred 750 mm gauge. Most of these were private industrial railways, and few, if any, still operate.
But it was the China Eastern Railway (CER) that nearly set the cat among the pigeons in terms of China’s railway gauges, not to mention the cause of some major conflicts for China in the early years of the 20th century. China, in 1896, had leased, for 25 years, the Liaodong Peninsula to Russia. Russia had already built the Trans-Siberian Railway (TSR) as far as Chita, almost at the border on the north-western side of the Peninsula (see map below). Going round the Peninsula and staying entirely within Russia of course represented a much longer route for the TSR on its way to Vladivostok, which is on the opposite side of the Peninsula.
With the Liaodong Peninsula now at Russia’s disposal, the Trans-Siberian Railway took a short cut through the Peninsula on its way to Vladivostok, with the line officially opening in 1901, although it would be 1903 before passenger trains from St Petersburg reached that city. And naturally, notwithstanding the prevalence of Standard gauge in China up to this point, the CER was built to Russia’s 1524 mm gauge to permit unrestricted through running. Not only that, in 1902, a southerly branch, also to 1524 mm gauge, was built as far as what was known as Port Arthur (today, Lushunkou, in the municipality of Dalian), and well into 1435 mm gauge territory. It looked as if a new gauge war was about to erupt.
But any potential gauge war was quickly usurped by another real war. In February 1904, Japan was already very concerned over Imperial Russia’s military ambitions regarding the Peninsula (Russia needed Port Arthur as a year-round port for military purposes, as did Japan). In consequence, Japan decided to claim Port Arthur for its own exclusive use, and, in an alliance with China, resorted to the use of force by sending in its own troops to claim the entire Peninsula for itself.
Japan’s military aggression in the 18-month long Russo-Japanese War proved successful, and in September 1905 Russia lost its rights over the Peninsula – including the CER. Japan then proceeded to convert the line to Standard gauge, in line with all other railways in China (other than the French-built metre-gauge line to Vietnam). The southern branch of the CER to Port Arthur was renamed as the South Manchuria Railway.
Although a logical choice in most ways, it is interesting that Japan chose 1435 mm Standard gauge for the re-gauging of the CER, and not its own 1067 mm gauge. It must be remembered that Japan had already claimed Sakhalin Island (north of Japan and off the east coast of Russia) from Russia for itself, and built railways there to 1067 mm gauge (see Russian Federation in Part 4). One can only assume that the extensive existence of Standard gauge by that time in the rest of China was a more compelling reason.
The re-gauging of the CER meant that all the motive power and rolling stock used on this railway had to be re-gauged to 1435 mm. This included both 2-10-0 Baldwin steam locomotives from the USA (which originally had been made to Standard gauge and re-gauged for the CER!), as well as various 1524 mm gauge Russian locomotives, many of which, after re-gauging, were now transferred from the CER to other parts of China.
Later, after World War I, the CER, particularly the northern leg, became jointly administered by both China and Russia. Despite Russia’s influence, particularly in respect of the journey time advantage in routing trains from Russia through the Peninsula to Vladivostok, the gauge stayed at 1435 mm, and no more would Russian broad gauge rails be seen again in China.
But peace was still to evade China. In 1911, China underwent a revolution as the Qing Dynasty tried to nationalise all the privately-run railways. Revolutionaries caused a large uprising, and in 1912, the Republic of China was founded. New President Sun Yat-sen created ambitious plans for a massive expansion of China’s railways, especially towards the west of the country, which up until now had seen little railway development.
Railway development continued in the inter-war years, most of it to Standard gauge. Some narrow gauge railways were still being built, such as the Shansi railway, from Tatung to Puchow, which was built to 1000 mm gauge.
By World War II, China had over 27 000 km of railways (not all in service by all accounts). After this war was over (which incorporated the Second Sino-Japanese War), sabotage by both Soviet and Japanese military operations had reduced this to barely half. The Japanese at this time, having captured much of China’s railways, converted a number of metre-gauge lines to Standard gauge, including the Shansi railway mentioned above, as well as the Shickiackwang to Taiyuan railway – supposedly to make troop movements easier.
Four years after WWII had ended, China underwent another revolution, this time coming under communist rule. One of the outcomes was much new railway construction, as well as reconstruction of the country’s existing railways – almost all to Standard gauge.
Before leaving the history of China’s railways, we must not forget that of Hong Kong. In 1910, what was known as the British section of the Kowloon-Canton Railway, and today is known as the East Rail Line, was built – initially to narrow gauge (believed to be to 1067 mm). But before the line was opened, it was re-laid to 1435 mm Standard gauge! The old narrow gauge rails and sleepers (ties) were used to build a branch line (which subsequently closed).
Main-line railways:
Notwithstanding China’s current drive in making its railway system one of the most modern in the world, steam motive power ruled there for very many years long after it had disappeared just about everywhere else. The reasons were quite logical. China was still in the process of becoming industrialised, and steam locomotives, unlike diesel and electric engines, were simple to design, engineer and build – especially when you can copy existing American designs, which China did quite blatantly. One can assume that, with the USA abandoning steam at this time, its locomotive manufacturers were not particularly bothered about China ‘stealing’ their designs.
Steam locomotives worked well in China’s extreme climate (including -40 °C winters), and were also simple to maintain – labour-intensive, certainly, but then China had an abundance of low-skilled and relatively cheap labour, so that too suited the country’s demographics at the time. Finally, China also has enormous coal reserves, again favouring the use of steam traction. Little wonder then that steam on main-line railways was still to be seen as late as 2006, decades after it had disappeared from most other parts of the world. Steam still exists on minor branch lines and shunting yards.
But steam traction of course has its limitations. As trains became heavier, double heading became the order of the day, and of course no steam engine (or even any diesel engine) can even begin to approach the kinds of speeds that electric traction was already achieving. In recent times, China has embarked upon an ambitious program to greatly speed up its railways, both freight and passenger.
I’ve already mentioned some of China’s plans in creating a high-speed railway network, as well as significantly speeding up some of its ‘legacy’ lines. In terms of the passenger network, China aims to make the railway as ubiquitous as the airplane for longer distance travel. Over twenty high speed lines are either built, being built or being planned, eventually totalling over 22 000 km of route distance by 2020 (some reports suggest that this figure might be increased to 25 000 km). New lines planned include one linking Guangzhou with Hong Kong via Shenzhen – a distance of 142 km.
Of that total 22 000 km planned route distance, over 19 000 km are already completed, and 2000 km of that are now rated for speeds of 350 km/h or higher, while the balance is rated for speeds of between 200 km/h and above. Parts of the dedicated high speed lines incorporate ballast-less track technology, based on that in use in Germany, which promises better stability (and hence less likelihood of a derailment), along with less maintenance.
China already can boast of the highest speeds anywhere in the world in commercial service (i.e. higher than the 320 km/h currently to be seen in France and Spain, although that is set to be increased – see Part 2). As an example, the trains on the Beijing to Shanghai high speed line cover the 1400-km distance in under five hours (compared to the old timing on the ‘legacy’ line of 14 hours). The service from Guangzhou to Wuhan – acknowledged as the fastest train in the world in regular service – does the almost 1000 km between the two cities in under three hours, at an average speed of nearly 330 km/h, and reaching a genuine 392 km/h – at least that is what is displayed on the speedometer in this still shot from a video showing the driver’s cab view.
However, as noted in Part 1, there are questions as to the technical integrity of some of those lines in China after a major accident and some high speed derailments. Consequently, some of those very high speeds have been reduced until a full assessment has been made as to their full safety implications. Design s
peeds will likely be restored sometime later in the decade.
When it comes to freight, China of course needs to maintain, and even improve upon, its massive export drive, and railways are seen as a key part of that, especially in being able to avoid the physical transhipment of freight (or else bogie changing on freight cars) at border stations between incompatible railways. Both Europe and the USA are Standard gauge territories, and it is fortunate for China that they share this same gauge.
As noted in Part 4, there are countries that sit between China and Europe that are not currently to Standard gauge, but plan on either converting to Standard gauge, or at least building Standard gauge through links, that will enable a container originating in Shanghai to travel over 1435 mm gauge rails all the way to anywhere in Europe.
Further, China is promoting the idea of a 1435 mm gauge high speed link (350 km/h) all the way from Beijing to London, Frankfurt and other major European cities – shortening what is at present a 6 or 7 day journey on the Trans-Siberian Railway to 30 to 35 hours, while passing through as many as 17 countries (including 1520 mm gauge Russia) on its 8000-km journey.
While apparently Chinese citizens are not averse to making 30 hour rail journeys, most of the rest of the world’s population I’m sure would rather do the journey by air (at least in terms of simply getting from one place to the other, as opposed to making the journey an experience in itself), so whether this proposal makes economic sense is another question altogether. Certainly, from a technical aspect, it is all perfectly feasible, the gauge commonality being the key facilitator.
Central and East Asia Page 3
