What's new

China-Pakistan railway ‘worth it’ at estimated US$58 billion: study

Following river valleys and building many tunnels, the Chinese have used this approach in similar terrain in Tibet.
KKH is the only river valley route to China the other is the Wakhan corridor which is in Afghanistan.
 
.
58 billion dollars is too expensive.

$58 billion can manufacture 70 type 055 destroyers or 14 aircraft carriers.
This is essentially helping china not Pak. What we need are industries chunning electronics, agriculture products, textile and minerals.
What we are doing is build building and building. from Chinese investment to huge property tycoons. No productivity, more imports. That's like a dying man on IV.
 
.
Not just Middle East but Africa too. Tunnels linking UAE Khasab to Iran Bandar Abbas and Yemen to Djibouti. This would be the trans Afro-Asia economic corridor, the silk route extended to be called the diamond route. Should be called the Khansaheeb grand economic corridor , lol.
Bridges can also be built with today's technology at the shortest distance points. Bridges would be easy to destroy and easy to repair. Tunnels would be difficult to destroy and difficult to repair.
 
.
@beijingwalker

  • Belt and Road Initiative’s most expensive transport infrastructure project ‘has potential’ to reshape trade and geopolitics

It certainly has the potential to reshape Pakistan (i.e. finish it off economically)

Regards
 
.
@beijingwalker

  • Belt and Road Initiative’s most expensive transport infrastructure project ‘has potential’ to reshape trade and geopolitics

It certainly has the potential to reshape Pakistan (i.e. finish it off economically)

Regards
Jealous Indian. India should join in the economic renaissance. Dawn of the rise of Asia for the next century.
 
.
KKH is the only river valley route to China the other is the Wakhan corridor which is in Afghanistan.
You’re probably right, the KKH is the only route that goes through only Pakistan and China, without unnecessary over tunneling.

This is essentially helping china not Pak. What we need are industries chunning electronics, agriculture products, textile and minerals.
What we are doing is build building and building. from Chinese investment to huge property tycoons. No productivity, more imports. That's like a dying man on IV.
This time around, I hope they start with all these industrial projects, and spend some of the profits from them to rebuild ML-1, extend to Gwadar and Reko-Diq as well as through Afghanistan to Central Asia. Once all those are in place and good ROI is coming in on the SEZs and agricultural modernization, then the direct train route is built.

Otherwise, China could build the direct route but would have to operate it until Pakistan could afford to buy it and transfer it. This need not take decades, it’s all about how fast the SEZs and agricultural modernization takes.

If it’s done fast, the money could come in, in only a few years., as envisioned under CPEC phase 2. Hopefully, the powers that be take this as an opportunity to change the country to orient it towards economic development and don’t compromise regional connectivity in hopes of balancing east and west. The next 5 years will be crucial because BRI is a project envisioned by President Xi, and a future leader may not support the same vision. Pakistan should not let this opportunity pass by without trying to utilize it.

Now has to be the time to look back out the old plans, before the ouster of the PTI government, and how CPEC phase 2 was envisioned to go.

The following is from right before he ouster.

 
Last edited:
.
Pakistan does indeed need to find a way to make each leg of the venture sustainable with decades long commitments for their use as well as building SEZs along the route to build the industries that will help pay back the investment.

Ultimately, it’s mostly a revamping of Pakistan’s rail network, and yes China benefits, but Pakistan can benefit in the long run if this is part of a comprehensive economic plan. China doesn’t want to give Pakistan a free project, so it’s another chance for the powers that be to be reminded of the benefits of a shift to regional geoeconomics the way PTI government had envision when in office.

Yes,I agree there will be benefits ..but the costs
Just like buying a expensive adult $5k suit for a 10 yrs old kid, for using when he grows to the size of the suit

the best approach is first grow up and then buy that suit !

Every country has a different situation ..US has no big rail network and still it had not made any difference for its growth,cos they have built a highway network connect every part of the country

Pakistan should first reap the benefits of CPEC project that has already been completed.. attract more manufacturing
/industries that will drive the growth,that will make use of infra to move goods..which will automatically gives thrust for more investments in infra /rail/ports etc ..

if the loans and depreciation is 10% per annum ,to break even the $50 b investment, there should be $5b returns every year + revenue to service the loan
 
.
India’s large population in UP and Bihar; along the GT road and one of their dedicated freight corridors could easily be linked to a new route to Central Asia through a rebuilt rail network.

India needs the growth and jobs for its large population, ASAP, before its demographic dividend drys up in 20 years. As the cheapest and most direct route, both nations will see it in their mutual interest to get back to trade, and regional connectivity.

For fear of getting off topic;

Resolving the Kashmir disputed in a manner that creates a small independent Kashmiri state removes any impediments to regional integration and fast economic growth. An independent Kashmir could act as another Himalayan bordering nation that still has to be on friendly terms with India, akin to Nepal.

The fast economic growth in the region, with these disputes resolved, could allow Pakistan to catch up in terms of regional GDP per capita (allowing funding of social programs), and allow India to rival China in terms of economic size.

View attachment 926657
Source:


project-map-of-dedicated-freight-corridor-corporation-of-v0-6pi9j9mb8bja1.jpg

Brilliant!
Land borders remain of paramount importance in geopolitics. It will be ages before people and good would be 'teleported' like in the Star Trek shows!
 
.
If a rail link between Pakistan and China is built it can literally transform the country.

Correct me if I am wrong: Isn't the land border between Pakistan and China prone to natural calamities due to the extreme high altitude in a region prone to massive landslides and earthquakes? I do think there is immense military value in having a land connection between Pakistan and China but the trade links seem so far exaggerated. Railway? You can't even count on truck crossings due to the geography. Same with some Pakistanis' grandiose ideas about the Wakhan Corridor of Afghanistan to link to the Central Asian countries: The region is too forbidden.
I bet, due to global warming, even the Arctic Ocean is more suitable for the large movements of people and goods!
 
.
Yes,I agree there will be benefits ..but the costs
Just like buying a expensive adult $5k suit for a 10 yrs old kid, for using when he grows to the size of the suit

the best approach is first grow up and then buy that suit !

Every country has a different situation ..US has no big rail network and still it had not made any difference for its growth,cos they have built a highway network connect every part of the country

Pakistan should first reap the benefits of CPEC project that has already been completed.. attract more manufacturing
/industries that will drive the growth,that will make use of infra to move goods..which will automatically gives thrust for more investments in infra /rail/ports etc ..

if the loans and depreciation is 10% per annum ,to break even the $50 b investment, there should be $5b returns every year + revenue to service the loan
I don’t disagree. I agree that Pakistan needs to tap the benefits of the projects already completed to grow to make future investments more viable.

If in the mean time China want to build this link (as their insurance option in case of a blockade) it would only be sustainable for Pakistan at the moment on a BOT basis.

Correct me if I am wrong: Isn't the land border between Pakistan and China prone to natural calamities due to the extreme high altitude in a region prone to massive landslides and earthquakes? I do think there is immense military value in having a land connection between Pakistan and China but the trade links seem so far exaggerated. Railway? You can't even count on truck crossings due to the geography. Same with some Pakistanis' grandiose ideas about the Wakhan Corridor of Afghanistan to link to the Central Asian countries: The region is too forbidden.
I bet, due to global warming, even the Arctic Ocean is more suitable for the large movements of people and goods!
I assume a lot of the route will be via Tunnels, a kin to the railways being built between Lhasa and Chengdu. The Chinese have the experience and the money to finance it, Pakistan just needs the economy to support it.


Furthermore, China has considered extending the Tibetan railways to go along the Nepalese border. Should this rail corridor be extend to parallel the entire Indian border, including through Aksai Chin, would add considerable capacity for civilian and military logistics (as is accounted for with the Chengdu-Lhasa high speed line). The potential for extracting more minerals along the length of Tibet would also become more possible.


A rail corridor through Pakistan would make such a corridor more viable to transport good as quickly as possible to the rest of China.


8861748570553578787.jpg

Source:
 
Last edited:
.
I don’t disagree. I agree that Pakistan needs to trap the benefits of the projects already completed to grow to make future investments more viable.

If in the mean time China want to build this link (as their insurance option in case of a blockade) it would only be sustainable for Pakistan at the moment on a BOT basis.


I assume a lot of the route will be via Tunnels, a kin to the railways being built between Lhasa and Chengdu. The Chinese have the experience and the money to finance it, Pakistan just needs the economy to support it.


Furthermore, China has considered extending the Tibetan railways to go along the Nepalese border. Should this rail corridor be extend to parallel the entire Indian border, including through Aksai Chin, would add considerable capacity for civilian and military logistics (as is accounted for with the Chengdu-Lhasa high speed line). The potential for extracting more minerals along the length of Tibet would also become more possible.


A rail corridor through Pakistan would make such a corridor more viable to transport good as quickly as possible to the rest of China.


8861748570553578787.jpg

Source:

Perhaps related to you what you are saying this guy, who is an American, but living in China for a while. He is getting a good traction about China's geopolitical role.

 
.

China-Pakistan railway ‘worth it’ at estimated US$58 billion: study

  • Belt and Road Initiative’s most expensive transport infrastructure project ‘has potential’ to reshape trade and geopolitics
  • The rail link is part of a broader plan to revive ancient Silk Road connections and reduce reliance on Western-dominated routes


Stephen Chen in Beijing
Published: 3:01pm, 27 Apr, 2023

79822c3ba4b4422fb88ba68ba6cd15a7.jpg


The China-Pakistan railway – China’s largest Belt and Road Initiative transport project – will cost an estimated 400 billion yuan (US$57.7 billion), but should proceed because of its strategic significance, a government-commissioned feasibility study has found.

The proposed railway, connecting Pakistan’s port of Gwadar to Kashgar in China’s Xinjiang Uygur autonomous region, was assessed by scientists from the state-owned China Railway First Survey and Design Institute Group Co Ltd.

The team, led by the institute’s deputy director of capital operations Zhang Ling, said the project was the belt and road plan’s most expensive transport infrastructure.

Despite the cost, the project had the potential to reshape trade and geopolitics across the Eurasian continent and should be supported, the team said in a report published by the Chinese-language journal Railway Transport and Economy in April.

“The government and financial institutions [in China] should provide strong support, increase coordination and collaboration among relevant domestic departments, strive for the injection of support funds and provide strong policy support and guarantees for the construction of this project,” they said.

The institute is one of the largest of its kind in China and has been involved in many major railway projects at home and internationally, including Indonesia’s Jakarta-Bandung high-speed rail line.

The 3,000km (1,860-mile) railway will link China’s western regions with the Arabian Sea, bypassing the Strait of Malacca and reducing dependence on the South China Sea.

Connections with other transport networks – including in Iran and Turkey – would also provide a more direct route to Europe for Chinese goods, while Pakistan is forecast to get a much-needed boost from the improved infrastructure and easier trade with China.

The scheme is a key component of Beijing’s broader belt and road plan to promote economic cooperation and connectivity among the countries along the ancient Silk Road trade routes.

Previous studies by Chinese government researchers have suggested the infrastructure initiative could have significant geopolitical implications, helping to shift the balance of power away from traditional Western-dominated trade routes.

As well as encouraging a more multipolar world order, the belt and road plan could also help to promote economic development and stability in countries along the route by creating jobs, boosting infrastructure investment and increasing trade, the studies said.

Most belt and road transport infrastructure construction projects had received a significant proportion of funding from the host countries, and the scale of investment was much smaller, Zhang and his colleagues noted.

For example, total investment in Kenya’s Mombasa-Nairobi standard gauge railway was US$3.8 billion, with China providing 5 per cent of the funding and Kenya paying for the rest.

The project connects the port city to the Kenyan capital and is part of a larger plan to link East African countries by rail. Similarly, China contributed 30 per cent of the US$4 billion funding for the Addis Ababa-Djibouti rail line in Ethiopia.

China covered 75 per cent of the Jakarta-Bandung high-speed railway’s costs of US$5.9 billion, with Indonesian state-owned enterprises providing the remainder.
But Pakistan is unable to make a similar contribution. Its GDP last year was US$370 billion – just six times the estimated cost of the project.

“Due to energy shortages, poor investment environment and fiscal deficits, Pakistan’s economic growth rate has come under pressure,” the team said.

“In terms of railway investment and construction, Pakistan is unable to provide sufficient financial and material support and mainly relies on Chinese enterprises for investment and construction.”

One reason for the hefty cost is the mountainous and geologically complex terrain along the route. There could be technical challenges to overcome in the construction and operation of the railway, the researchers said.

The project also required supporting infrastructure – such as ports and logistics facilities – that might not be immediately available in Pakistan, they said.

The study said Pakistan’s labour policies could be unpredictable, which could potentially affect the railway’s construction and operating costs.

The team also noted that Pakistan had experienced security challenges in recent years, including in its western region where the railway will pass through. Balochistan province, for instance, has been plagued by separatist violence for decades.

This could potentially disrupt construction and operation of the railway and pose a risk to Chinese workers and investments, the researchers said.

The study also pointed out the railway’s potential impact on neighbouring countries, such as India. With each country having its own priorities and interests, there could be disagreements or delays in decision-making related to the project, it said.

Zhang’s team suggested that a build and transfer (BT) model would provide the best investment and financing strategy for the project.

They considered BT against build-operate-transfer, public-private partnerships, and the engineering, procurement, construction mode that are becoming more popular in belt and road projects.

In the BT model, a contractor would be responsible for designing, building and financing the railway, with payment on completion and ownership transferred to the government or other commissioning entity.

The researchers said BT would allow the risks associated with the railway’s construction and operation to be allocated more effectively between China and Pakistan, potentially reducing the financial risks for both parties.

By ensuring that ownership of the railway was transferred to Pakistan, BT could also help to build trust between China and Pakistan by showing China’s commitment to supporting Pakistan’s long-term economic development, they said.

China and Pakistan have been talking for years about the railway, a crucial part of the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) that was launched in 2015 and aims to connect Gwadar port to Xinjiang through a network of roads, railways and pipelines.

The researchers said the China-Pakistan relationship was complex, with both countries having different priorities and interests.

Negotiating agreements related to financing, labour policies, and other issues would require careful consideration of each country’s priorities and interests, they said.

In conclusion, Zhang and his team said their recommendation could help to move negotiations forward.



This railway makes little sense for Pakistan - given poor trade ties with China with Pakistan making nothing that China wants or needs. The whole purpose of this rail link is to reduce China's dependency on the Malacca Straights and to offer China a trade and oil corridor that is more risk free by closer links with the middile east and as such China should pay for it itself.

Pakistan should not be tasked with solving China's strategic geopolitical issues at Pakistans cost !!!!!

Of course - common sense is a limited commodity these days - esp with the Generals at GHQ wanting Dollars for DHA'istan building programmes.

CPEC has not delivered much for Pakistan relative to the cost and impact of foreign exchange reserves - this new proposal from China needs to be treated with caution
 
.
Perhaps related to you what you are saying this guy, who is an American, but living in China for a while. He is getting a good traction about China's geopolitical role.

I’ve seen his video a few days ago, but thanks for being it up in this thread. He basically summed a lot of the incentives for both nations.

One point he raised was the importance President Xi puts on food security, and all the more reason Pakistan needs agricultural modernization; the large market looking for suppliers. Mining is another area both nations can partner in, but one area he doesn’t bring up is how Pakistan can address the demographic problems China is having that don’t involve immigration, which CPEC was to address; in a similar manner to Japan’s strategy over the last 30 years of moving manufacturing to lower labor cost countries for its companies.

Ultimately the effort and speed of reforms depends on the governing parties in Pakistan.

If this mega project is to primarily benefit China, for their strategic needs, and have limited use for Pakistan, especially initially, while risking diplomatic relations with neighbors and some power nations, then China should pick up the tab and build this project on a BOT basis. Chinese companies already run the motorway between Multan and Sukkur on a BOT basis.

Pakistan may jot be able to invest the capital for this project it can invest the “Sweat Equity” to defend it and protect it diplomatically, not a small feat and something who’s importance should not be underestimated. Keeping the supply lines open, especially during wartime has always been historically pivotal to the outcome of many wars.

The Railroad organization recommending this project should ask for this project should be built on a BOT basis, and give the example of narrow passes, precipitous heights and 10th chapter 3rd section on terrain and supply lines by Sun Tzu as their justification.

If China wants Pakistan to be able to take out a loan or pay for infrastructure projects they need to help get CPEC phase 2 (industrialization and agricultural modernization) up and running ASAP.
 
Last edited:
.
I don’t disagree. I agree that Pakistan needs to trap the benefits of the projects already completed to grow to make future investments more viable.

If in the mean time China want to build this link (as their insurance option in case of a blockade) it would only be sustainable for Pakistan at the moment on a BOT basis.


I assume a lot of the route will be via Tunnels, a kin to the railways being built between Lhasa and Chengdu. The Chinese have the experience and the money to finance it, Pakistan just needs the economy to support it.

BOT is the best way to go

The problem is the Chines Loan money will not hit SBP reserves.. nor Pakistan pays back to the projects nor has any supervision or accountability ,apart from provideing chowkidar duties to protect Chinese and their assets

Most BRI projects are done by Chinese Companies, bringing material,men and machinery from China and China gets waiver of import duties and taxes. China pays the contractors in Yuan in China and in chines banks. But the costs are billed to Pakistan ..as loan .The Chinese live in their camps with protection .They barely make any impact on local economy as most of them don't spend in Pakistan

In ideal world, big construction projects will have have impact on local economy as most of the material and manpower is sourced locally ,which boost allied construction industry ,logistics/transportation and employment

The railroad /link is more of geopolitical use and economic sense to china than Pakistan !
 
. .
Back
Top Bottom