Does Africa need full high speed rail now? Can it get away with designating the corridors, designing the geometry, and then designing cheaper rail? I feel like going straight to high speed, especially if it is mainly for freight connectivity, isn't worth it.
Why not? Africa's goal isn't to be a continent that constantly lags behind Europe/North America. They want to leapfrog Western countries just like China did and that's challenging to achieve without proper infrastructure investment.
Yeah, and it makes sense to do it with certain technologies.
My concern is that focusing only on high speed rail when there isn't any decent connectivity could mean dumping money into a short section that requires a lot of viaducts and tunnels when it may be cheaper to just get some sort of connection built and cover back later after you've built up more of the system and the demand is there to justify the more expensive option.
Still keep the signaling, electrification, and rail precision of high speed rail, but maybe accept that there will be a small section that isn't high speed in order to save in bridge and tunnel costs.
On the other hand, the bridging and tunneling expertise developed by these projects would enable more extensive public works across other domains as well, so it's not "wasted money".
Also, what people miss is that Africa today lacks education across the stack. It isn't the case that African countries have a well-educated labour pool but simply no expertise in HSR (like the US, which will spend on the order of $100 billion trying to connect San Francisco and Los Angeles with HSR), but that many African countries simply lack the well-educated labour pool in the first place. Building out these large projects is simultaneously a means of economic stimulus and a means of targeted education in core engineering disciplines.
This kind of work is essential to before there can be any hope of replacing more skilled workers with African ones. That's also why you see a lot of foreign workers on these projects: the expertise and experience simply isn't there domestically to ensure that the project can complete on-time and under-budget.
That assumes that these projects will use African labor, which may not be the case. Chinese infrastructure projects abroad are typically Chinese funded, Chinese designed, and Chinese built. Some local unskilled labor may be used, but Chinese construction companies are likely going to keep the key technical parts in-house.
This also brings a question of economic stimulus. A project can only really be an economic stimulus to a region if the project uses local labor and materials. I really doubt Chinese construction firms are going to use local rebar for production; a big reason that China is motivated to build out Africa's High Speed Rail is that the demand for these projects has dropped in China. The apparatus to make high speed rail in China is still there while there is no longer any demand for the internal market.
Again, I think you're misunderstanding. "Unskilled labour" by the Western definition is already considered decently skilled. This was a problem that China ran into as they industrialized and it's a problem that African countries will also run into: there simply isn't enough well-trained, experienced skilled labour. People are aware of this.
You can't train a nuclear physicist if you can't train an electrical engineer, and you can't train an electrical engineer if you can't train a construction worker. This doesn't solve the problem of nuclear physicist or electrical engineer, but it should at least solve the problem of construction worker.
I know some people are aware of it, but not everyone.
Also, China is in the habit of not even training the construction worker. Chinese SOE's have a lot of projects being built outside of China that don't use local labor except for the most basic tasks. This is different from a lot of Western companies that will generally tap more into the local labor pool.
This isn't a value judgement one way or another, but a statement of differences between the two.
Oh for sure, Western projects do tap more of the local labour pool. They're also more likely to be overbudget and behind schedule (California HSR and most transit/rail projects in the US, etc). To some degree, that's just a difference in management technique and there's definitely an advantage to training more workers at the cost of time and money.
On the other hand, those "basic" tasks only seem basic because we have had a proper Western education... And that's not something we should be taking for granted.
I don't see why Africa would invest in outdated technology when they can have high speed rail. There's literally zero rationale to do that.
Because high speed rail requires costly viaducts that can make the project cost several times the price of a lower speed line.
I think the benefits of going high speed rail now would outweigh the negatives of upgrading at a later point.
It depends on the cost/benefit ratio.
Looking at Nairobi to Mombasa as an example, it looks like Nairobi to Kyumvi and Makindu to Mombasa could be designed and built as high speed rail as the terrain looks relatively flat.
However, there is a set of hills between Kyumvi and Makindu that will make the geometry of the rail a lot trickier. The cost of viaducts and tunneling through those hills could be significantly more costly than the rest of the project combined. For the expensive part of the rail, it may be better to build that part at a lower design speed that can get upgraded later.
China built a great high speed rail system, but a lot of people in China still use the traditional rail system due to ticket cost, and the population in China is wealthier than the average African. You also have the African rail system being designed to operate with freight, which is something that the Chinese high speed rail network wasn't really designed to handle as much of.
The economics don't seem to favor high speed rail now, so it may be better to design the system so that it doesn't preclude high speed rail in the future.
I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that the actual economists in Africa have done the math here.
The summary isn't detailed to go through how the system gets implemented. I also noted in another comment that it is would be wise to design the geometry of some segments to high speed rail standards if the cost increase due to tighter geometry requirements are negligible.
A continental high speed rail network is a great goal, but there are ways to implement the system that can yield faster benefits to Africans than just building the whole system to high speed standards at once.
Again, I have no idea why you're assuming these countries haven't done due diligence before embarking on a megaproject like this. A really weird premise to start from to be honest.
I'm assuming the same due diligence my country puts into these kinds of projects. Hell, there are large parts of the Internet that critique projects like this in general, no matter who builds it.
If I'm willing to critique developed countries in infrastructure projects, why shouldn't do the same for developing countries?
Hell, it isn't like they have to listen to me.
If you wanted to make a serious critique then you should spend the time to actually learn about the project and criticize specifics instead of just making stuff up based on what your country does.
Why so defensive?
And my critique is based on the experience of Chinese High Speed Rail, which I noted in other comment. All you did was ask me by what right I can critique them, and I responded that I will critique any of these types of plans, including plans in my country.
It's a troll move. Make you do hours of work, you post, they do a new low-effort post and expect you to dance all over again.
Because if you won't, you're clearly avoiding the topic.
Flip the script and ask them to post, but sometimes you learn there's another angle than you've been told. Sometimes.
Why are you saying I'm being defensive when I'm simply pointing out that what you're saying is unsubstantiated, and it's not really possible to have a meaningful discussion without knowing the actual details of the plan. If there's something specific you want to criticize then that would be an interesting discussion, but simply claiming high speed rail is a bad idea because reasons is just noise.
This post doesn't have that detail. I'm only critiquing the project based on the information at hand which you provided. If there is noise, it is because the resolution of the plan as detailed is allow you are going to only get noise as part of the discussion. I don't know if the planning has been gotten to my discussion points yet.
You had also said several times asking if I thought the African economists did their jobs competently. It sounds like an appeal to authority to not talk about what is known. I'm looking at this project as being planned by experts and I haven't said anything to suggest otherwise. However, people can still critique experts.
I know the post doesn't have the details, hence it doesn't really much make sense to make extrapolations you're making based on the content of it. The post just says that Africa is building high speed rail, which I think is an interesting development. Whether there are going to be problems or not remains to be seen but to me this is clearly a positive development.
It is a positive development, and it is good that they are looking at it from the continental point of view to ensure compatability between countries. Europe really dropped the ball on compatability.
Nor does it support yours in meaningful ways?
We inhabit many similar fora, we share many interests, but I keep running into you alienating people with uneven logic.
Being called a tankie doesn't help you. Or other causes.
African countries are currently negotiating loan agreements with countries such as China while avoiding Western interests as well as the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and World Bank.
China has a history of offering aggressive upfront costs on loans in exchange for a lot of influence in the region. So I'm guessing China gave the AU a sweetheart deal in exchange for cutting out competitors and potentially allowing China a lot of lenience in future investments (e.g. sweatshops and unsafe mines).
So here's what I see the strategy as:
give the AU a very expensive loan with an initial deferment; the leadership of the AU is happy because they can show the public that they're doing something
some years down the line, the AU realizes it can't actually pay the debt, and arranges further deals with China that increases China's influence in the area
repeat 2 until Africa has been bled dry just as much as with European colonial powers
I don't see this as a real long-term solution. Instead of trying to connect every African country, they should pick favorites at first, with a contract with member countries to eventually expand to everyone. As in, connect the most prosperous areas that will absolutely use the rail network, and expand once that cash flows, and do so without massive loans from countries with an economic interest in exploiting the area.
I just don't see China's interests aligning with the EU. This just seems likely to have heavy corruption where the AU gets short term benefits for a long term sellout of the AU to China.
The initial set of plans looks like a very high level program design, which is appropriate for this stage of planning. It is also going to be up to the constituent member nations to get this built, which is consistent with a continental system that is being planned.
This is a good beginning to a long term solution, but the costs may outweigh the benefits in the short and medium terms.
I hope that the first segments chosen are those that add the most value immediately, then expansions radiate from there so that the incomplete segments are still valuable in their smaller parts. Since they are defining technology now, the different parts should integrate easily into one large system.
My concern with picking China is that Chinese engineers are likely going to go with the expensive option no matter what; they've done it in China a lot and I don't see them changing.
Does Africa need full high speed rail now? Can it get away with designating the corridors, designing the geometry, and then designing cheaper rail? I feel like going straight to high speed, especially if it is mainly for freight connectivity, isn't worth it.
Why not? Africa's goal isn't to be a continent that constantly lags behind Europe/North America. They want to leapfrog Western countries just like China did and that's challenging to achieve without proper infrastructure investment.
Yeah, and it makes sense to do it with certain technologies.
My concern is that focusing only on high speed rail when there isn't any decent connectivity could mean dumping money into a short section that requires a lot of viaducts and tunnels when it may be cheaper to just get some sort of connection built and cover back later after you've built up more of the system and the demand is there to justify the more expensive option.
Still keep the signaling, electrification, and rail precision of high speed rail, but maybe accept that there will be a small section that isn't high speed in order to save in bridge and tunnel costs.
On the other hand, the bridging and tunneling expertise developed by these projects would enable more extensive public works across other domains as well, so it's not "wasted money".
Also, what people miss is that Africa today lacks education across the stack. It isn't the case that African countries have a well-educated labour pool but simply no expertise in HSR (like the US, which will spend on the order of $100 billion trying to connect San Francisco and Los Angeles with HSR), but that many African countries simply lack the well-educated labour pool in the first place. Building out these large projects is simultaneously a means of economic stimulus and a means of targeted education in core engineering disciplines.
This kind of work is essential to before there can be any hope of replacing more skilled workers with African ones. That's also why you see a lot of foreign workers on these projects: the expertise and experience simply isn't there domestically to ensure that the project can complete on-time and under-budget.
That assumes that these projects will use African labor, which may not be the case. Chinese infrastructure projects abroad are typically Chinese funded, Chinese designed, and Chinese built. Some local unskilled labor may be used, but Chinese construction companies are likely going to keep the key technical parts in-house.
This also brings a question of economic stimulus. A project can only really be an economic stimulus to a region if the project uses local labor and materials. I really doubt Chinese construction firms are going to use local rebar for production; a big reason that China is motivated to build out Africa's High Speed Rail is that the demand for these projects has dropped in China. The apparatus to make high speed rail in China is still there while there is no longer any demand for the internal market.
Again, I think you're misunderstanding. "Unskilled labour" by the Western definition is already considered decently skilled. This was a problem that China ran into as they industrialized and it's a problem that African countries will also run into: there simply isn't enough well-trained, experienced skilled labour. People are aware of this.
You can't train a nuclear physicist if you can't train an electrical engineer, and you can't train an electrical engineer if you can't train a construction worker. This doesn't solve the problem of nuclear physicist or electrical engineer, but it should at least solve the problem of construction worker.
I know some people are aware of it, but not everyone.
Also, China is in the habit of not even training the construction worker. Chinese SOE's have a lot of projects being built outside of China that don't use local labor except for the most basic tasks. This is different from a lot of Western companies that will generally tap more into the local labor pool.
This isn't a value judgement one way or another, but a statement of differences between the two.
Oh for sure, Western projects do tap more of the local labour pool. They're also more likely to be overbudget and behind schedule (California HSR and most transit/rail projects in the US, etc). To some degree, that's just a difference in management technique and there's definitely an advantage to training more workers at the cost of time and money.
On the other hand, those "basic" tasks only seem basic because we have had a proper Western education... And that's not something we should be taking for granted.
I don't see why Africa would invest in outdated technology when they can have high speed rail. There's literally zero rationale to do that.
Because high speed rail requires costly viaducts that can make the project cost several times the price of a lower speed line.
I think the benefits of going high speed rail now would outweigh the negatives of upgrading at a later point.
It depends on the cost/benefit ratio.
Looking at Nairobi to Mombasa as an example, it looks like Nairobi to Kyumvi and Makindu to Mombasa could be designed and built as high speed rail as the terrain looks relatively flat.
However, there is a set of hills between Kyumvi and Makindu that will make the geometry of the rail a lot trickier. The cost of viaducts and tunneling through those hills could be significantly more costly than the rest of the project combined. For the expensive part of the rail, it may be better to build that part at a lower design speed that can get upgraded later.
China built a great high speed rail system, but a lot of people in China still use the traditional rail system due to ticket cost, and the population in China is wealthier than the average African. You also have the African rail system being designed to operate with freight, which is something that the Chinese high speed rail network wasn't really designed to handle as much of.
The economics don't seem to favor high speed rail now, so it may be better to design the system so that it doesn't preclude high speed rail in the future.
I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that the actual economists in Africa have done the math here.
The summary isn't detailed to go through how the system gets implemented. I also noted in another comment that it is would be wise to design the geometry of some segments to high speed rail standards if the cost increase due to tighter geometry requirements are negligible.
A continental high speed rail network is a great goal, but there are ways to implement the system that can yield faster benefits to Africans than just building the whole system to high speed standards at once.
Again, I have no idea why you're assuming these countries haven't done due diligence before embarking on a megaproject like this. A really weird premise to start from to be honest.
I'm assuming the same due diligence my country puts into these kinds of projects. Hell, there are large parts of the Internet that critique projects like this in general, no matter who builds it.
If I'm willing to critique developed countries in infrastructure projects, why shouldn't do the same for developing countries?
Hell, it isn't like they have to listen to me.
If you wanted to make a serious critique then you should spend the time to actually learn about the project and criticize specifics instead of just making stuff up based on what your country does.
Why so defensive?
And my critique is based on the experience of Chinese High Speed Rail, which I noted in other comment. All you did was ask me by what right I can critique them, and I responded that I will critique any of these types of plans, including plans in my country.
It's a troll move. Make you do hours of work, you post, they do a new low-effort post and expect you to dance all over again.
Because if you won't, you're clearly avoiding the topic.
Flip the script and ask them to post, but sometimes you learn there's another angle than you've been told. Sometimes.
Why are you saying I'm being defensive when I'm simply pointing out that what you're saying is unsubstantiated, and it's not really possible to have a meaningful discussion without knowing the actual details of the plan. If there's something specific you want to criticize then that would be an interesting discussion, but simply claiming high speed rail is a bad idea because reasons is just noise.
This post doesn't have that detail. I'm only critiquing the project based on the information at hand which you provided. If there is noise, it is because the resolution of the plan as detailed is allow you are going to only get noise as part of the discussion. I don't know if the planning has been gotten to my discussion points yet.
You had also said several times asking if I thought the African economists did their jobs competently. It sounds like an appeal to authority to not talk about what is known. I'm looking at this project as being planned by experts and I haven't said anything to suggest otherwise. However, people can still critique experts.
I know the post doesn't have the details, hence it doesn't really much make sense to make extrapolations you're making based on the content of it. The post just says that Africa is building high speed rail, which I think is an interesting development. Whether there are going to be problems or not remains to be seen but to me this is clearly a positive development.
It is a positive development, and it is good that they are looking at it from the continental point of view to ensure compatability between countries. Europe really dropped the ball on compatability.
Nor does it support yours in meaningful ways?
We inhabit many similar fora, we share many interests, but I keep running into you alienating people with uneven logic.
Being called a tankie doesn't help you. Or other causes.
My main concern here is this:
China has a history of offering aggressive upfront costs on loans in exchange for a lot of influence in the region. So I'm guessing China gave the AU a sweetheart deal in exchange for cutting out competitors and potentially allowing China a lot of lenience in future investments (e.g. sweatshops and unsafe mines).
So here's what I see the strategy as:
I don't see this as a real long-term solution. Instead of trying to connect every African country, they should pick favorites at first, with a contract with member countries to eventually expand to everyone. As in, connect the most prosperous areas that will absolutely use the rail network, and expand once that cash flows, and do so without massive loans from countries with an economic interest in exploiting the area.
I just don't see China's interests aligning with the EU. This just seems likely to have heavy corruption where the AU gets short term benefits for a long term sellout of the AU to China.
The initial set of plans looks like a very high level program design, which is appropriate for this stage of planning. It is also going to be up to the constituent member nations to get this built, which is consistent with a continental system that is being planned.
This is a good beginning to a long term solution, but the costs may outweigh the benefits in the short and medium terms.
I hope that the first segments chosen are those that add the most value immediately, then expansions radiate from there so that the incomplete segments are still valuable in their smaller parts. Since they are defining technology now, the different parts should integrate easily into one large system.
My concern with picking China is that Chinese engineers are likely going to go with the expensive option no matter what; they've done it in China a lot and I don't see them changing.