I've never heard of this either. I wonder if the West wanted to downplay coverage of this? I looked in WSJ, ECONOMIST and couldn't find any mentions. 🤔 Sino-Persian alliance is healthy. My guess is that Central Asia and CCP relations aren't great, but useful. Is this a game changer? Maybe, but railways are always vulnerable.
Freight from Tehran now moves westward via a fully upgraded rail link through Türkiye. From there, it can access the EU via Bulgaria and Greece — though those segments still face capacity limits, customs bottlenecks, and the impact of sanctions.
As for passenger traffic, no regular services between Tehran and China are currently planned. The corridor is freight-first for now, with potential for future high-speed domestic and regional passenger lines within Iran and Türkiye.
Hmmm. Let's talk about "tonnage, time, and transit":
A railroad car can carry 2 std containers; a 200-car train, 400.
The average container ship can carry anywhere from 5,000 to 20,000 containers, with the newer VLCS and ULCS ships carrying up to 25,000.
Do the math: 20000/400=50. 1 ship = 50 trains.
A rail tank car can hold between 6,500 and 34,500 gallons of liquid, with some specialized cars holding even more. Typically, they hold between 10,000 and 30,000 gallons, but can go up to 34,500 gallons. Some larger "whale belly" cars can hold up to 63,000 gallons. 63,000 gallons of crude oil weighs 463,000 pounds, or 226 tons.
Large oil tankers, including VLCCs (Very Large Crude Carriers) and ULCCs (Ultra Large Crude Carriers), can carry up to 2 million barrels of oil, which is equivalent to 84 million gallons.
Do the math: 84,000,000/63,000=1333 cars or 6 whale-belly, 200-car trains.
These facts are at the heart of why there's a "maritime rule", and always will be.
Thank you for your detailed and well-reasoned comment — you're absolutely correct: no rail line will match the sheer tonnage of modern container ships or oil tankers. The numbers are clear — sea remains unmatched for bulk transport.
But the China–Iran rail corridor was never meant to replace maritime shipping. It was built to offer an alternative when maritime routes are contested, sanctioned, or closed — a hardened overland artery that moves high-value, time-sensitive freight beyond the reach of chokepoints and geopolitical leverage.
In an era where trade is increasingly weaponised, redundancy matters. So does speed. A 15-day rail route doesn’t compete on volume — but it wins on resilience, reliability, and resistance.
This isn’t about replacing the old system. It’s about building a new one beneath it — one that answers not only to commerce, but to sovereignty.
So it's a faster, but more expensive insurance policy? Under normal operations what are the volumes needed to make it profitable, and how does it compare to current trade volumes among the transit countries? What items would justify the cost premium to ship regularly? And aside from the transport cost differential, what's the transaction cost level for insurance and customs crossings (i.e. one-by-one jurisdiction, multi-jurisdiction coverage)?
There's a lot being written about corridors: North/Central/South OBOR corridor, IMEC, INSTC, etc but in the simple world of Chris unless there's a significant shortcut and you're actually delivering along the route - cheaper to keep the Suez open.
Bulk products certainly more economical to ship by sea, but for high-value manufactured products, transit time also matters a lot. This is especially true for products subject to obsolescence such as fashion products.
The import dependencies of the PRC are bulk in nature, not high-value and time-sensitive. In time of conflict, the "road" would be useless to fulfill their import needs. If cargoes are truly high-value and time-sensitive, they would go by air.
Is there a map of its route anywhere ? Thank you
There is dearth of accurate mapping, but Mercator's Institute for China Studies — 2019 map gives a good indication... https://www.railfreight.com/beltandroad/2019/11/04/from-china-to-iran-via-kyrgyzstan-is-faster-rail-link-real/. I have now updated the article with the map.
Thanks !
My first thought - love to see the route map.
Thank you for the feedback, I will update the article accordingly.
Very interesting, never heard of this project before, thanks!
I've never heard of this either. I wonder if the West wanted to downplay coverage of this? I looked in WSJ, ECONOMIST and couldn't find any mentions. 🤔 Sino-Persian alliance is healthy. My guess is that Central Asia and CCP relations aren't great, but useful. Is this a game changer? Maybe, but railways are always vulnerable.
So far so good, but how does freight move from Tehran towards EU? Is there an updated railway via Turkey?
And, will there be passenger traffic from Tehran to China?
Freight from Tehran now moves westward via a fully upgraded rail link through Türkiye. From there, it can access the EU via Bulgaria and Greece — though those segments still face capacity limits, customs bottlenecks, and the impact of sanctions.
As for passenger traffic, no regular services between Tehran and China are currently planned. The corridor is freight-first for now, with potential for future high-speed domestic and regional passenger lines within Iran and Türkiye.
The Silk Railroad
Hmmm. Let's talk about "tonnage, time, and transit":
A railroad car can carry 2 std containers; a 200-car train, 400.
The average container ship can carry anywhere from 5,000 to 20,000 containers, with the newer VLCS and ULCS ships carrying up to 25,000.
Do the math: 20000/400=50. 1 ship = 50 trains.
A rail tank car can hold between 6,500 and 34,500 gallons of liquid, with some specialized cars holding even more. Typically, they hold between 10,000 and 30,000 gallons, but can go up to 34,500 gallons. Some larger "whale belly" cars can hold up to 63,000 gallons. 63,000 gallons of crude oil weighs 463,000 pounds, or 226 tons.
Large oil tankers, including VLCCs (Very Large Crude Carriers) and ULCCs (Ultra Large Crude Carriers), can carry up to 2 million barrels of oil, which is equivalent to 84 million gallons.
Do the math: 84,000,000/63,000=1333 cars or 6 whale-belly, 200-car trains.
These facts are at the heart of why there's a "maritime rule", and always will be.
Thank you for your detailed and well-reasoned comment — you're absolutely correct: no rail line will match the sheer tonnage of modern container ships or oil tankers. The numbers are clear — sea remains unmatched for bulk transport.
But the China–Iran rail corridor was never meant to replace maritime shipping. It was built to offer an alternative when maritime routes are contested, sanctioned, or closed — a hardened overland artery that moves high-value, time-sensitive freight beyond the reach of chokepoints and geopolitical leverage.
In an era where trade is increasingly weaponised, redundancy matters. So does speed. A 15-day rail route doesn’t compete on volume — but it wins on resilience, reliability, and resistance.
This isn’t about replacing the old system. It’s about building a new one beneath it — one that answers not only to commerce, but to sovereignty.
So it's a faster, but more expensive insurance policy? Under normal operations what are the volumes needed to make it profitable, and how does it compare to current trade volumes among the transit countries? What items would justify the cost premium to ship regularly? And aside from the transport cost differential, what's the transaction cost level for insurance and customs crossings (i.e. one-by-one jurisdiction, multi-jurisdiction coverage)?
There's a lot being written about corridors: North/Central/South OBOR corridor, IMEC, INSTC, etc but in the simple world of Chris unless there's a significant shortcut and you're actually delivering along the route - cheaper to keep the Suez open.
Bulk products certainly more economical to ship by sea, but for high-value manufactured products, transit time also matters a lot. This is especially true for products subject to obsolescence such as fashion products.
The import dependencies of the PRC are bulk in nature, not high-value and time-sensitive. In time of conflict, the "road" would be useless to fulfill their import needs. If cargoes are truly high-value and time-sensitive, they would go by air.