|
|
【原文标题】China Promotes Its Transcontinental Ambitions with Massive Rail Plan
【中文标题】中国用庞大的铁路计划推行其跨越大洲的雄心
【来源地址】http://www.thetransportpolitic.c ... -massive-rail-plan/
【刊载媒体】the Transport Politic
【译者】rhapsody
【声明】本文供Anti-CNN/ACCN使用，未经译者或AC同意，谢绝转载；谢谢合作。
【前言】
翻译此文的念头在于看了站内的一个转帖：http://bbs.m4.cn/thread-231545-1-1.html
此帖的一些内容来自TreeHugger：http://www.treehugger.com/files/ ... l-across-europe.php
P.S. 本人之前翻过该网站上一篇关于高铁的文章：http://bbs.m4.cn/thread-214866-1-1.html
【图片·致谢】
点击下图可放大。非常感谢AC团队-销蚀耗时一个多钟头帮忙编辑制作了这幅图片
【译文】
» China intends to extend its high-speed rail system towards south Asia and Europe with the goal of two-day journey times between London and Beijing.
中国有意将其高铁系统延伸到南亚和欧洲，目标是伦敦和北京之间仅需两天行程。
If China weren’t already halfway through the construction of the world’s largest high-speed rail network, it would be difficult to take this proposal seriously. But the most populated country on earth has shown no deficit of skill recently in undertaking massive public works projects, and its ambitions — and willingness to finance them — show no sign of slowing.
如果中国不是已经处于建设世界最大高铁网络的途中，人们是难以认真面对这一计划的。但近来这个世界最多人口的国家展现了其在建设大型公共设施工程上的驾轻就熟，以及在其在投资建设上的雄心壮志，而毫无放慢步伐的迹象。
So the news that China is planning a series of transcontinental high-speed rail lines designed to connect London to Beijing in just two days that broke yesterday in the South China Morning Post should be taken at face value. The proposal, which is mapped out above according to preliminary information about proposed alignments, would likely be the largest infrastructure project — ever. Taking the growing Chinese rail network as the starting point, new 200 mph lines would extend south towards Singapore, north and west into Siberia, and west through India, Kazakhstan, and Turkey, with the eventual goal of linking into the growing European fast train system.
因而，对于昨天《南华早报》上刊登的中国正计划修建连接伦敦到北京的一系列洲际高铁线路的消息，应不假思索地予以接受。这一计划，如上面地图（根据计划路线的初步信息绘制）所示，将可能成为史上最大的基建工程。以中国正在成长的铁路网络为起点，时速200英里（约合321.87公里）的新线路将向南延伸到新加坡，向北（和向西）延伸到西伯利亚，向西延伸到印度、哈萨克斯坦和土耳其，最终目标是连接到成长中的欧洲快速铁路系统。
Exact routes are not yet determined, but the general goal of the plan is to increase the region’s mobility through fast rail networks and to join together the mostly disconnected Asian and European systems.
确切的线路还未确定下来，但计划的大体目标是通过快速铁路网络增加区域的机动性，以及将绝大部分不连通的欧亚铁路系统连结起来。
Government officials in China plan to use this project to expand the country’s base of natural resources. Negotiations are already underway with 17 countries, premised on the idea that China would spend its own money building the rail links in exchange for resources it currently lacks. According to Wang Mengshu, a consultant working on the project, “We would actually prefer the other countries to pay in natural resources rather than make their own capital investment.”
中国的政府官员谋求利用这一计划拓展该国的自然资源基础。（该国）与17个国家的谈判已在进行当中，前提条件是中国出资修建铁路，以从别国换取其现时缺乏的资源。用该计划的顾问王梦恕的话来说，“我们（中国）实际上更倾向其他国家用自然资源而不是其资本投资来进行支付。”
China has already agreed to finance a rail link into Myanmar in exchange for the rights to that country’s lithium reserves. Russia and China have announced plans to build a new trans-Siberian link. Iran, Pakistan, and India are each negotiating with China to build domestic rail lines that would link into the overall transcontinental system.
中国已经同意为连接缅甸的铁路提供资金，以换取（获得）该国锂矿储备的权利。俄罗斯和中国已经宣布修建新的跨西伯利亚线路的计划。伊朗、巴基斯坦和印度都在就修建本国线路连接到洲际铁路系统的事宜，和中国方面进行谈判。
It’s a sort of neo-imperialism desired by the countries to be colonized. Will they regret the selling off of their natural resources in exchange for better transportation offerings? Is this reasonable foreign investment on the part of China, or is it an attempt to take control of the economies of poor countries?
这是一种新帝国主义，亦是一些渴望被殖民化的国家所期待的。它们是否会后悔卖掉其自然资源以换得更好的交通条件？这是中国方面合理的对外投资，还是企图控制贫穷国家经济的举动？
The strategy can’t be more clear: China wants to establish itself as the center of Asian trade, the hub of the world’s largest market. By developing the economies of Cental Asian and Eastern European countries that have missed out on the enormous growth currently being experienced by China, the region will experience increasing trade and development, a result that will in turn aid in expanding the Chinese economy. It would allow China to solidify its position as the dominant player in the Asian economy, with the goal of eliminating any hopes of increasing American or European influence there.
这种战略简直不能再明显了：中国想树立自己在亚洲（也是世界最大市场）贸易的中心枢纽地位。中亚和东欧国家已经错过了中国正经历的庞大增长的机会，发展这些国家的经济将促进这一区域的贸易和发展，而反过来这又会帮助中国经济增长。这将使中国可以巩固自身在亚洲经济的统治地位，而目的就在于排除美国和欧洲在亚洲增加影响的任何企图。
Though China’s economy continues to grow at an unbelievable pace, its slow-growth demographics resulting from the one-child policy mean that it must focus its efforts abroad if it wants to continue expansion into the future.
尽管中国经济继续以难以置信的速度增长，然而其计划生育政策造成的人口低增长态势意味着，该国如果想在未来取得发展，就必须将其精力集中到国外。
Despite China’s history of following through with its big rail plans, building a 17-country network is quite different than upgrading just its own lines. Some major problems, like track gauge differences and differing visa requirements, stand in the way of ever completing the project. If they get their way, however, Chinese officials want to complete the project in ten years. It’s an outrageous — and exciting — objective.
尽管中国有着完全执行大型铁路计划的历史，但建设17国的铁路网络和升级其自身线路相比还是大有不同。像（铁路）轨道规格的差异、签证要求的差别等一些主要问题，都是其完成计划的障碍。不过，如果他们找到解决办法的话，中国官员想在十年内完成计划。这是一个不同寻常——也是激动人心的目标。
-------------------------------------下为原文网站上的读者评论（另一部分在2楼）-------------------------------------
Stirner
March 9th, 2010 at 09:23 · Reply
Wouldn’t these lines make much more sense as double stack freight rail corridors? That would seem to support the flow of goods and natural resources much better. Full electrification of the freight lines could come as a second phase, if oil scarcity makes that necessary.
这些线路修成双层集装箱的货运铁路通道不是要合理得多吗？那种铁道看起来对于输送货物和自然资源的作用要大得多。全电气化的货运线路可以作为第二阶段（目标），如果石油的缺乏使之成为必须的话。
HSR passenger rail seems nonsensical across central asia. As a strategy to expand Chinese influence and exclusive access to natural resources, I must admit there is a certain cleverness to it.
高铁客运列车横跨中亚看起来是荒谬的。作为中国扩大影响力以及独家获取自然资源的战略，我必须承认这个策略相当聪明。
Bob L.
March 9th, 2010 at 12:23 · Reply
Almost all of China’s rail is electrified with a minimum of double tracks now on its main lines.
几乎所有中国铁路都是电气化的，其主要线路上现在甚少有双层集装箱列车轨道。
The U.S. of A. is doing everything it can to kill rail and good highway construction to move goods.
美国用尽一切办法扼杀用于货运的铁路以及优良高速公路的建设。
“This needs to be plastered all across the US media, but I’m sure that it’s not.”
“这需要在全部美国媒体上宣传，但我肯定这不会得到宣传。”
We don’t want to hear this, we only want to hear our iPods and play video games as the rest of the world is passing us buy as we slip behind the third world counties of today in commerce and everything else.
我们不想听到这些话，我们只想听自己的iPod，玩电视游戏，此时世界其他地方赶上我们，而我们在商业和其他所有事情上都滑落到第三世界国家之后。
poncho
March 10th, 2010 at 22:33
why would we as a society spend money on job-producing, economy-improving infrastructure that could otherwise be spent on personal “tchotchkes”?
我们这个社会怎么会把钱投在创造岗位、改善经济的基建上，而不是花在私人的“小饰品”上？
DBX
March 9th, 2010 at 10:35 · Reply
And why aren’t we proposing similar connections with Latin America?
为何我们不计划一个连接拉丁美洲的类似铁路网？
Oh yes, we’re broke, devoid of any greater vision than our next tax deduction, and China already took out options on their natural resources too.
哦对，我们一个子也没有，眼里除了下一次减税以外看不进任何东西，而中国对于其自然资源也已经拿出了方案。
It’s now only a matter of time before we’re a distant second fiddle, and this is just one more indication of it.
我们退居次要位置现在只是时间问题了，而这只是又一个征兆。
The Chinese will find a way of building simply what they need and no more (i.e. just double-stack in the outback), and extracting maximum payment for it.
中国人会找到办法修建他们所需要的东西而非其他东西（即内地的双层集装箱车），并为建设拿出最大限度的投入。
Andy K
March 9th, 2010 at 10:47 · Reply
I remember going to a megaprojects talk given by a guy from Bechtel about 10 years ago talking about something like this. He was saying how the South Korean HSR project would link to Europe eventually. This was pre-China HSR.
我记得大概10年前去过一个大型工程的演讲，一个来自柏克德（工程公司）的家伙讲了类似的东西。他讲的是韩国的高铁计划将如何最终连接到欧洲。这是中国高铁（计划）的雏形。
NCarlson
March 9th, 2010 at 11:02 · Reply
I’m somewhat surprised they aren’t talking about something in the Bering Strait as well…
让我颇为惊讶的是他们没有谈及在白令海峡也修建线路……
I also have to agree that some clarification is in order; an electrified, high quality network focussed on freight and carrying high speed trains makes a lot of sense, passenger HSR on all these lines though?
我同样认同一些澄清的说法；一个专注于货运、可以搭载高速列车的电气化高质量网络要合理得多，但在这些线路上的运行是客运高铁列车？
AlexB
March 9th, 2010 at 11:25 · Reply
Wow. They really are planning to take over Asia.
哦~ 他们真的打算接管亚洲了。
Interesting how these routes completely avoid Afghanistan. I’d think the line from Delhi to Lahore would go to Islamabad and Kabul on it’s way to Tehran and on to London.
有趣的是这些线路（采取了）完全绕开阿富汗的方式。我以为德里到拉合尔那条线路会通到伊斯兰堡和喀布尔，然后到德黑兰再到伦敦。
I would hope these lines would be primarily used for freight instead of just passengers. Being able to transport cargo in two days from Beijing to London on an electric train would revolutionize both the cost and environmental impact of freight transportation. I find it highly doubtful that passengers would ever ride this more than 1000 miles absolute maximum.
我希望这些线路会主要用于货运而不只是客运。货物在两天内就可以从北京远送到伦敦，对于货运的成本和环境效应都是革命性的。我高度怀疑乘客会坐1000英里（约合1609公里）极大值以上的行程。
A Bering Strait tunnel combined with a S Korea-Japan tunnel could eventually do the same for moving freight from Asia to N America. The key would be building all the nuclear power plants and wind farms to power all these trains.
（建设）一条白令海峡隧道结合一条韩国-日本隧道，最终就能使亚洲运送到北美的货物同样两天就能到达。关键在于修建足以供电给所有这些列车的核电站和风电场。
Andy K
March 9th, 2010 at 12:20 · Reply
Ships are much cheaper for freight than rail.
就货运而言，轮船比铁路便宜多了。
Max Wyss
March 9th, 2010 at 16:37
… as long as time is no issues and there were no pirates…
……只要不考虑时间，并且没有海盗的话……
John W
March 9th, 2010 at 20:32 · Reply
“I find it highly doubtful that passengers would ever ride this more than 1000 miles absolute maximum.”
“我高度怀疑乘客会坐1000英里（约合1609公里）极大值以上的行程。”
Actually, that could be an ideal distance for sleeper trains. Beijing-Hong Kong is roughly 1225 miles, which at 150mph average works out at just over 8 hours. NYC-Miami and NYC-St Louis (via Chicago) are in the same ballpark, while for, say, Atlanta-NYC you’d need to slow things down to an average of 110mph to ensure a full night’s sleep. Around 1500 miles and you’d have time for a nice dinner and a nightcap on board before being gently rocked to sleep.
实际上，这对于卧铺列车来说可能是理想的距离。北京到香港的线路（全程）大概是1225英里（约合1971公里），以平均时速150英里（约合241公里）运行的话只是略多于8小时。纽约到迈阿密以及纽约到圣路易斯（途经芝加哥）的线路大概是同样的距离，不过，比如亚特兰大到纽约的线路就需要把时速降到平均110英里（约合177公里）以确保整夜的睡眠。1500英里左右的话你就有时间可以享受晚餐并在列车的摇晃中入睡之前喝一杯。
Even if it was priced the same as the equivalent flight, the trip costs would still work out cheaper: you could have a full weekend in New York and only have to pay for one night’s hotel bill.
即使（列车的）价格和同样行程的飞机一样，旅途的费用依然会便宜些：你可以在纽约呆上一整个周末，而只需付一晚的旅馆费用。
It might also be popular for business travellers – instead of getting up at 5am to get to the airport, and then on arrival fret about how long the taxi is taking in rush hour traffic, you’d roll off the train in Manhattan refreshed and with time for breakfast before that morning meeting.
列车也同样可能得到商务出行者的欢迎——你可以精神抖擞地在曼哈顿下车，在早上开会前还有时间吃早餐，而不是早上5点就得起床赶去机场，之后到达目的地还要为出租车会在交通拥挤时段用去多长时间而发愁。
(I’m not suggesting that a 1000 mile line with no intermediate stops would be at all cost effective, but if you’re building it to connect a line of major cities anyway, you may as well take full advantage of it).
（我不是说一条中途不靠站的1000英里线路会是完全划算的，但如果你是修建主要城市间的线路的话，你就该充分地利用它）
Mason Hicks
March 9th, 2010 at 11:54 · Reply
This needs to be plastered all across the US media, but I’m sure that it’s not. China is seeing to value of creating transit cooridors and is thereby sticking their flag in the sand to stake their claim to vital resources that will be needed to replace oil. They are therby cutting us out of the very resources that we will need to move forward. This is pure brilliance on their part. Allthewhile the folks at home in the US are still trying to come to grips with the value of spending capital on our domestic transit infrastructure. This is huge news. I hop that we’re awake.
这需要在全部美国媒体上宣传，但我肯定这不会得到宣传。中国正着眼于建设运输通道，并以此插上他们的旗帜对代替石油所需的关键资源提出要求。因而他们是在把我们阻隔在我们发展所需用到的那些资源资源之外。从他们方面来说这绝对是聪明之举。与此同时美国本土的人们还在努力理解把资本投到国内交通基建上的价值。这是个大新闻。我希望我们能清醒过来。
greg
March 9th, 2010 at 13:25 · Reply
I admire the ambition, but this idea of building a transcontinental high-speed rail from Asia to Europe is nonsensical, to say the least. There would be long stretches of sparsely-populated areas along this proposed line or numerous poor, developing countries that it would pass through. Is this economically viable?
我欣赏（他们的）雄心，但毫不夸张地说，这个修建亚欧洲际高速铁路的想法是荒谬的。这个计划线路将有长程线路穿过人口稀少的地区，途经很多贫穷的发展中国家。这在经济上是可行的吗？
It would make more sense to build a conventional railway that can both transport freight and passengers. Even that is not possible in fifty years – we’re talking about-how many countries involved?- crossing 17 countries!
更合理的做法是修建一条既能载物又能载人的常规铁路。即便如此，50年内也是不可能的——我们在谈的是，这牵涉到多少个国家来着？——整整17个！
John W
March 9th, 2010 at 14:51 · Reply
Most of these routes already exist as conventional rail already – the Trans-Siberian since World War I. It’s just that it takes about 9 days to travel London–Beijing. I think you can do it needing only to change trains three times (in Paris, Berlin and Moscow, for instance). I’ve always wanted to travel the Trans-Siberian (6-7 days depending on routing – The Man in Seat 61 has a good write-up of the options).
这些线路里边大多已经存在常规铁路了——跨西伯利亚铁路，第一次世界大战以来就有了。不过乘该铁路从伦敦到北京需要9天。我想你中间只需换三次车就能完成这趟旅程（比如，在巴黎、伦敦和莫斯科换车）。我就总想坐下跨西伯利亚铁路（行程6至7天，取决于路线的选择——《61号座的人》里边就有对这些选择的一个很好的描述）。
The shortest route, the Trans-Mongolian would drop from 6 days to 32 hours if the average speed of the journey was kept to 150mph for the 4800-mile route. Can you imagine – get on board in Moscow at bedtime, spend the next day watching the taiga and steppes whizzing past and wander around Tiananmen Square the following morning. It would definitely lack the ‘romance’ and camaraderie of the existing journey though.
最短的路线，跨蒙古线的行程会从6天减少到32小时，如果平均时速保持在150英里（约合241公里），跑完全程4800英里的话。你能否想象：睡觉时分在莫斯科上车，隔天观看沿途掠过的泰加林（亚寒带针叶林的一种）和大草原，再下一天早上就去逛天安门。虽然这肯定是缺乏现时旅行的“浪漫”和情谊。
So there’s definitely potential for demand well in excess of 1000 miles – backpackers and adventurers currently willing to do the trip much more slowly (unless they’d be put off by the modernity!), and presumably the current clientele of Russians and Chinese if prices stay low relative to airfares.
因而对于1000英里以上（线路）的需求肯定是有潜力的——背包客和探险者现在愿意以慢得多的步调来旅行（除非现代设施让他们觉得反感！），可能还有现时俄国人和中国人的顾客，只要价格保持比航空费用低的话。
Dom
March 9th, 2010 at 20:05
Until you travel the Trans-Siberian for real, you can take the virtual tour :
http://www.google.ru/intl/ru/landing/transsib/en.html
在你真的去坐跨西伯利亚铁路之前，你可以试试虚拟的旅行：（网址）
James A
March 10th, 2010 at 03:18
Actually, you can do London – Beijing with just two transfers: in Paris to the weekly Paris – Moscow sleeper and in Moscow to the Transsiberian. Likewise it’s possible to get to Pyongnyang with just two transfers, provided you have the appropriate paperwork!
实际上，你从伦敦到北京可以只换两次车：在巴黎坐每周一班的巴黎到莫斯科卧铺车，然后在莫斯科搭乘跨西伯利亚铁路。同样地，到平壤也可以只换两次车，只要你有合适的证件的话！
Russell Warshay
March 9th, 2010 at 13:56 · Reply
Who will maintain these corridors?
谁会来维修保养这些铁路？
dejv
March 9th, 2010 at 14:04 · Reply
Yonah, the Kashmir Railway isn’t connected to the rest of IR network and the Bam-Zahedan gap has already been closed.
Yonah（文章作者），克什米尔铁路并没有接入到其他的洲际铁路网络中，还有巴姆到萨赫丹的线路（伊朗境内）已经关闭了。
Stirner, double-stack is AFAIK impossible on ex-Soviet network, due to lower loading gauge (albeit higher than standard-gauge Europe) and extensive electrification that was on Transsib completed quite recenty (in 2002).
Stirner（回帖者），双层集装箱车据我所知是不可能运行在前苏联的（铁路）网络上的，受制于相对较低的装载规格（虽然比欧洲的标准规格要高）以及大规模电气化设施的缘故，跨西伯利亚铁路的大规模电气化是挺近的时候才完成的（2002年）
NCarlson, I wouldn’t expect serious Bering Straight crossing proposal from Russia or China until there’s fixed link connecting Alaska to Canadian and US network.
NCarlson（回帖者），等阿拉斯加有了固定的线路连到加拿大和美国的（铁路）网络以后，我才会期待俄罗斯或中国提出的穿越白令海峡计划。
Andrew Lynch
March 9th, 2010 at 17:08 · Reply
Seems China has just taken a page from Daniel Burnham’s book: “Make no little plans. They have no magic to stir men’s blood and probably will not themselves be realized.”
看来中国采纳了丹尼尔·伯恩罕（美国著名建筑设计师和城市规划人）书中的一句话：“不要制定小计划。小计划没有能让人血脉贲张的魔力，其自身亦无法实现。”
Beijing to London in 2 days? Sounds like the setting for the next generation of ‘Murder on the Orient Express’.
两天内从北京到伦敦？听起来像是次世代的“东方快车谋杀案”的（剧情）设定。
Alon Levy
March 9th, 2010 at 20:05 · Reply
The break of gauge issue at the borders with India and Russia would be a big problem. So would coordination with other nations’ plans. For example, Russia is planning to upgrade speeds on the Trans-Siberian; a transcontinental HSR network would probably not detour through Astana and Ulan Bator.
（中国）在印度和俄罗斯边境上的轨距差异可能成为一个大问题。（中国）与其他国家规划的协调也是一个大问题。例如，俄罗斯正计划提升跨西伯利亚铁路的速度；洲际高铁网络将可能不会绕道通过阿斯塔纳（哈萨克斯坦）和乌兰巴托（蒙古）。
Russia may not support double-stacked freight, but India does. In fact it supports it better than North America: its broad gauge gives its trains more stability, allowing them to run double-stacked containers on ordinary flatcars instead of special well cars.
俄罗斯可能不支持双层集装箱货运车，但印度支持。事实上印度支持的程度比北美还高：其宽距轨给了列车更大的稳定性，这使得双层集装箱可以装载在敞车上，而不用装在特制的凹底平车上。
Whatever this is, it’s not going to be economic development. China’s intentions are probably the same as Britain’s intentions when it built an Indian rail network: development oriented toward colonialism. China is already developing colonial relations with some countries in Africa, Latin America, and Central Asia.
不管这事怎样，都不会带来经济发展。中国的意图可能和英国当年修建印度铁路网络的意图一样：意在向殖民主义发展。中国已经在非洲、拉美和中亚的一些国家中发展了殖民关系。
James D
March 10th, 2010 at 15:46 · Reply
I think this is why they’re trying to push standard gauge on countries in central Asia. Once they can reach Mashhad, then it’s only the completion of the Bosphorus tunnel and somehow getting around Lake Van that stops a Chinese train from running to Europe.
我想这就是他们试图在中亚推行标准轨的原因。一旦他们修到马什哈德（伊朗），中国火车通向欧洲的问题就只有博斯普鲁斯隧道的完工以及通过某种途径绕开湖了。
dejv
March 10th, 2010 at 18:29
Even then route through Russia will remain shorter and way less hilly – the only mountains between Dostyk and Germany is low Ural range, while all the way from Mashad to Germany goes through rugged Alpides. There are also two broad gauge lines piercing the standard gauge territory in in Slovakia and in Poland, should any of them be extended to any terminal close enough to Germany, the niche for link via Iran would be very small.
就算到了那时候，虽然穿过俄罗斯的路线维持较短，且较少山地路段——只在多斯特科与德国之间有一段乌拉尔矮山，但马什哈德通向德国的全程都是在地势起伏的阿尔卑斯造山带穿行。如果其中任何一条被延伸到任何一个足够靠近德国的站点的话，途经伊朗线路的可行性会非常低。
However, this is kind of Big Game. Russia will do everything to keep it’s landbridge monopoly while China certainly won’t like it and Iran would like to get its share from this bussiness. Kazach Raiways announced their plans for standard gauge link six years ago, no fresh news about that link surfaced since then.
但是，这像是场大博弈。俄罗斯会竭尽所能维持其大陆桥的垄断地位，而中国当然不会喜欢这种做法，伊朗则想从这桩生意中获得自己的份额。哈萨克铁路在6年前宣布了他们的标准轨线路计划，但从那以后就没有关于此线路的新消息浮出水面。
Even if the all-standard gauge rail link is put together, there’s one devilish detail: incompatible couplers. China uses AAR coupler, ex-Soviet countries, some Iranian trains and some heavy-duty european lines use SA-3 and the rest of European standard-gauge network buffers and chain.
就算统一轨道标准的铁道线路连到一起，还有一个险恶的环节：车钩不匹配。中国用的是AAR标准的车钩；前苏联国家，伊朗一些列车和欧洲一些重负荷线路用的是SA-3标准（车钩）；其他欧洲标准轨（铁路）网络用的是减震器和固定链。
Nathanael
March 13th, 2010 at 15:41
Europe is overdue for a coupler change (buffers and chain is INSANE in this day and age). I suspect something will cause a big change there, and China will either switch to SA-3 or Europe to AAR, or someone will devise a tricky multisystem SA-3/AAR coupler.
欧洲早该把车钩换了（减震器和固定链时至今日是愚不可及的）。我觉得，或是中国换成SA-3标准，或是欧洲换成AAR标准，又或是有人发明出一种复杂的兼容SA-3和AAR标准的车钩。
The push for the standard gauge link is big. Once the route around Lake Van is done, the major gap is from Iran to China. Pakistan actually proposed standard gauge conversion. Either Pakistan or India could do three-rail dual-gauge, standard and Indian; Russia can’t because its gauge is too close to standard gauge. Alternatively the Central Asian route could be taken, and of course that requires gauge conversion in Uzbekistan and Kazakhstan. Uzbekistan is also in poor political shape at the moment. Afghanistan has to be completely avoided, of course.
要求标准轨线路的呼声很大。一旦环凡湖线路完成，主要缺陷就是伊朗到中国这段。巴基斯坦事实上提出过转变成标准轨。巴基斯坦或是印度可采用三轨双距，标准轨及印度轨；俄罗斯则不行，因为其轨距太接近于标准轨了。另一个选择是走中亚线路，那样的话当然就需要兹别克斯坦和哈萨克斯坦改变轨距。乌兹别克斯坦现在的政治状况也很差。而阿富汗当然是要完全避免路过的。
dejv
March 13th, 2010 at 19:41
Buffers and chain might be insane but it’s not bad enough to make operators want it replaced. You know, locomotives and cars are ready for central coupler since early 1970’s (timeline; scharfenberg coupled to hook via adapter), it’s possible just to come, unscrew hook & chain and screw new coupler in place. It didn’t happen in those 40 years. Probably because of huge costs and benefits limited by maximum train length of 750 m. Switch of either Russia and China is even less likely.
减震器和固定链或许是愚不可及，但还没坏到让操作员想换掉它们的地步。你知道，自上世纪70年代早期以来，火车头和车厢用上中央车钩，就可以拧开钩子和链条，然后拧到新车钩上。40年来（这套设施）就没有换过。可能是由于高昂的成本，还有火车最大长度750米（的规定）限制了利润。俄罗斯或者中国换车钩的可能性甚至更小。
I just can’t see bussiness case for standard gauge link. The direct link involves at least 2000-3000 km of new track just to go through mountainous, possibly unfriendly energy-scarce (it doesn’t have refineries for its oil), equally mountainous Turkey with Marmaray tunnel that’s very likely to be congested by passengers train, again mountainous Bulgaria to get to Hungary, first country where the containers could be transferred to trucks or other trains to reach their destination. Russian route doesn’t look that bad then, the half day you lose by transfering to broad gauge can be more that made up by shorter and straigter route, possibly allowing 120 km/h right away through all broad gauge territory except Ural range, Belarus and LHS.
我看不到标准轨线路的商业案例。直接的线路牵涉到（修建）2000到3000公里新轨道，需要经过：多山的、环境可能相当恶劣的能源贫乏地段；同样多山的土耳其，包括很可能被客运列车堵得水泄不通的马尔马拉隧道；依旧是多山的保加利亚；匈牙利，第一个能用卡车或其他列车转运集装箱到目的地的国家。俄罗斯的线路看起来没那么差，换到宽轨上花去的半天时间可以通过更短和更直的线路来弥补，或许可以用120公里的时速穿越所有的宽轨地区，除了乌拉尔山段、白俄罗斯段和波兰（宽轨）段。 |
评分
-
1
查看全部评分
-
|
狗仔卡
发表于 2010-3-20 00:37
提升卡
变色卡
抢沙发
千斤顶
显身卡
发表于 2010-3-20 00:56
楼主
