Source: adapted from United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific.
(Detailed PDF Map)
- Multinational cooperation. There are seven countries involved in rail land segment that are politically, economically and culturally very different. Unlike the North American landbridge where rail segments are entirely contained within an individual nation (US, Canada or Mexico) and owned by large rail companies, the multitude of actors require a level of multinational cooperation. In 2006, the Trans-Asian Railway Network Agreement was signed by most of the countries the Eurasian landbridge is going through. This agreement tries to coordinate rail investments, customs procedures and the setting of long distance rail corridors. However, a transport chain is as reliable as its weakest link. Kazakhstan, parts of Siberia (semi autonomous administrative divisions) and even some parts of western China present some political risks. It is thus essential to ensure cargo security along the entire transport chain as well as the continuity of rail operations.
- Break of gauge. The rail system operates on two gauges, standard (1.435 m; China and most of Western Europe) and broad (1.520 m; Russia and some Scandinavian countries), which imposes at technical challenge. It requires reloading or an adaptation of the equipment to gauge change. Moving cargo between China and Germany would involve two gauge changes. The first involves a switch from the Chinese standard gauge to the Russian broad gauge. The second involves a switch from the Russian broad gauge to the European standard gauge. At each gauge change, containers are transloaded from one train to the other. Although containerization enables an efficient transfer of cargo, this still involves additional costs and delays.
- Economics. Long distance rail services are facing several economic challenges undermining their commercial potential. This is particularly the case for the Eurasian landbridge. First, there are no doublestack services on the Eurasian landbridge, which significantly reduce the economic efficiency of rail. This is further exacerbated by the use of shorter trains. Second, the usual optimal distance for rail freight services is around 3,000 km (in North America it can easily go to 5,000-6,000 km for doublestack services) while the Eurasian landbridge involve 3 or 4 times that distance. It is thus very difficult to make these services profitable because of the higher transport costs involved for such distances. The third challenge concerns transit time. While reaching European locations such as Germany from China takes about 15 days, going further inside Europe can take up to 21 days, which is close to the same time it takes for a maritime service to reach Europe from China. Servicing European locations in about 2 weeks has some commercial advantages for many goods, particularly those of high value, but once this threshold is exceeded, maritime services start to make more sense since they are much cheaper compared to the marginal additional time they imply. Fourth, we must look at the cargo itself. It can be difficult to find backhaul opportunities that would make the whole service more profitable. Since the Asia-Europe trade is highly imbalanced, the Eurasian landbridge is facing a challenge similar to maritime transportation, such as the repositioning of empty containers and equipment. It is also worth considering the during winter times, the Eurasian landbrige is going through regions experiencing very low temperatures. This is not suitable for certain cargo types and would require temperature control equipment.