For years now, companies that have been adept in the rail freight business have repeated the slogan “faster than ocean and cheaper than air”. But does this mantra still hold true? Since 2020, the various routes veining across the Eurasian landmass have seen both highs and lows, along with challenges and opportunities. These pendulum swings have long interested the logistics industry as a whole, even when attention is divided among geopolitical tensions, market volatility, trade wars, and the risks they present.

So, this article serves as a reminder and a recentering of the dialogue on how the Eurasian rail continues to chug along, evolving from an eye-catching product to a sustainable and stable option, especially amid growing uncertainties. Finally, we also look at what still hinders its development and what the future holds for this alternative transport model, which is becoming a mainstream option.

The Geography: Routes, Terminals and Points of Interest

Three primary routes follow latitudinal corridors and are commonly used and the most lucrative options. These routes also carry the highest volume. Two routes perform best through this region. The first is the Northern Eurasian Corridor, and the second is the Central Eurasian Corridor, also known as the New Eurasian Landbridge, or the Southern Corridor. The third route, which has also seen considerable fanfare, is the Trans-Caspian route, which is sometimes also referred to as the New Eurasian Landbridge or the Middle Corridor or the Southern route. However, for our purposes, we will refer to it as the Trans-Caspian route, especially to differentiate it from the Central Eurasian Corridor, whose predominant route is through Kazakhstan. 

(Eurasian Transport Network. Source: Eurasian Development Bank)

First, the Northern Eurasian Corridor spans over 12,000 km, originating from inland hubs such as Chongqing, Chengdu, and Xi’an, among others, then moving toward Russia by crossing Mongolia at Erenhot. The trains pass through Ulaanbaatar, then through Russian cities such as Omsk, Yekaterinburg, and Moscow, ultimately crossing Minsk and arriving at hubs like Małaszewicze or Terespol. On the other hand, the Central Eurasian Corridor runs from Urumqi in China into Kazakhstan for much of the transit before rejoining the line in Russia. The Trans-Caspian route is predominantly intermodal, developed in response to the geopolitical instabilities in Russia, but it requires crossing the Caspian Sea via ferries and feeders. The Trans-Caspian route is also relatively smaller than the other two, spanning approximately 4,000 kms. 

Operational Performance: What is the Current Status of these Routes?

The performance of these three routes has largely been shaped by major geopolitical events, maritime shipping disruptions, and, most importantly, investments in rail infrastructure. The oldest of the three, the Northern route, despite bearing the brunt of the impacts after the Russia-Ukraine war, remains the volume leader. The Trans-Caspian route, though it offered a “Russia-free” alternative and proved viable during the Red Sea crisis in 2024, has seen volumes decline as maritime trade returned to its usual levels since last year.

Overall, volumes are now normalizing, as the drastic peaks and valleys of the last 5 years have generally stabilized. When comparing the three routes by volumes transported, each has reached this stabilization for different reasons. The Northern route, which moves the most volume, is experiencing a 15% year-on-year decline as forwarders return to ocean freight, along with a decline in coal transport between Russia and China. By contrast, the Central Eurasian Corridor remains a leader in containerized freight, with the first half of 2026 seeing a 9% year-on-year increase. This also reflects growing trade between Kazakhstan and China, and their improving infrastructure to handle those volumes. Finally, the Trans-Caspian route is getting most of the spotlight, with a significant surge early this year; however, volumes still remain incomparable to the other two routes.

Infrastructure Barriers & Bottlenecks

Gauge breaks remain the biggest impediment to Eurasian rail routes. China uses standard gauge, which switches to wide gauge through Russia and Kazakhstan, then switches back to standard gauge when entering Europe. These processes are time-consuming and can add about 24 to 36 hours to the journey (a conservative estimate). In the Trans-Caspian route, the major bottleneck occurs at the Caspian port crossing and can reach up to 10 days. The primary reason for this is the lack of infrastructure.

The other bottleneck, which also occurs at the borders, is the “paper barrier” of customs processes. Digitalization to harmonize processes across the multiple jurisdictions the train passes through is critical to faster, smoother functioning of the Eurasian routes and remains a key concern, requiring coordination of state authorities across the region. At the same time, regional conflicts have also created barriers; for example, unrest in Kazakhstan in 2022 caused delays. Despite these challenges, the region has still sustained cargo transport over the Landbridge and, individually, member states continue to develop infrastructure, mobility, and safety.

Investment & Future Connectivity

All three routes have seen significant capital investment that is currently powering massive infrastructure projects. Several key projects are underway in the northern route, including the modernization of the BAM and sections of the Trans-Siberian line. Similarly, along the Central corridor through Kazakhstan, a second main track is under construction, covering 836 kilometers and tripling capacity. A third development is the Bakhty-Ayagoz rail line, which would open another border crossing from China and add further volumes. Finally, the Trans-Caspian route is attracting growing interest from regional member states, who are working on a roadmap to increase the route’s capacity by expanding the Baku International Sea Port and constructing the Sarzha terminal at Kuryk Port in Kazakhstan.

Alongside these developments, China-CEEC Customs Information Center reports that China-Europe Express has unveiled a “fourth set” of scheduled timetables that include seven more routes, bringing the total up to 17 scheduled routes connecting nine Chinese hubs to six European destinations. Container traffic along the network is also projected to increase, especially as high-value goods such as electronics, EVs, and fashion shift from sea and air to rail. As of July 2026, the Eurasian Development Bank cites about 402 projects that are planned or ongoing and would either directly or indirectly transform the railway sector and contribute to economic growth in the region.

As these routes continue to stabilize each year, it is becoming clearer that their growing operational resilience, coupled with their sustainability and cost profile, makes rail freight a lucrative option, especially for time-sensitive or high-value cargo. Despite the barrier, the data, the interest, and the vast number of developments show that Eurasian rail routes are a primary and equally competitive option. So, even if the fanfare has faded, the operational reality shows that the mantra “faster than sea, cheaper than air” still rings true.