Eurasian Connectivity: From Corridors to Connectivity Ecosystems

Sheika Lubna Fathima of the Middlesex University Dubai. She is an Information Officer at GAFG, where her work focuses on maritime connectivity, transport corridors and regional infrastructure, including research on ports and logistics networks.

As disruptions to global supply chains intensify, and the freedom of navigation increasingly calls for a more multipolar approach, rather than being dictated by any single centre of power, the question of land connectivity across the largest landmass on the globe is once again gaining attention.

The following lines offer some reflections on the less explored dimensions of Eurasian connectivity, viewed through the lens of the GAFG Connectivity Doctrine.

Introduction

For shippers moving goods between China and Iran, transit time can be an important factor in choosing a transport mode. Some rail services through Central Asia advertise transit times of around 14–18 days, while sea freight can take considerably longer. However, these figures depend on the origin, destination, route, border procedures and whether the estimate covers terminal-to-terminal or door-to-door delivery. The difference can be significant for time-sensitive cargo, but it should not be treated as a guaranteed one-month saving. Transit time is particularly important for cargo that requires expedited delivery, such as manufacturing components, perishable or semi-perishable goods, and shipments subject to strict contractual deadlines. For these goods, shippers may be willing to pay a higher freight rate in exchange for faster delivery and lower inventory costs.

An existing overland rail route connects China and Iran through Central Asia. One established route passes through Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan before entering Iran. As China–Iran trade develops, existing overland routes are attracting interest. At the same time, Central Asia’s railway network is continuing to expand. The China–Kyrgyzstan–Uzbekistan (CKU) railway is under construction. Once operational, it could provide a new rail connection from western China to eastern Uzbekistan. If linked to the existing Uzbek rail network and onward connections through Turkmenistan, it could create an alternative route for China–Iran freight. The viability of this route will depend on infrastructure connections, border procedures, gauge changes and commercial agreements among the countries involved.

This article examines the potential route from corridor, connectivity and socio-economic perspectives. It does not assume that traffic will automatically move from one route to another. Instead, it considers how the railway could complement existing Eurasian transport networks, what would make the potential route commercially viable, and what needs to be prepared before it begins operating.

The Significance of Transit Time
Sea freight from East Asia to the Persian Gulf can be cost-effective, particularly for large volumes of lower-value cargo. However, door-to-door delivery may involve several stages, including port handling, transshipment and inland transport, which can extend the overall transit time. Rail transport offers a different set of advantages: potentially shorter transit times, less reliance on maritime port handling, and direct access to inland rail terminals. However, rail services remain dependent on border procedures, network capacity, operational coordination and the availability of reliable schedules.

The value of faster transit varies by cargo type. Sea freight is likely to remain competitive for low-margin bulk cargo and large shipments where cost matters more than speed. For high-value or time-sensitive cargo, shorter transit times could reduce working-capital requirements and the risk of supply shortages. These are the types of cargo for which rail corridors are most likely to be competitive.

The Existing corridor: China – Kazakhstan – Uzbekistan – Turkmenistan – Iran

This corridor benefits from existing infrastructure and established operating experience. Container trains from China can travel through Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan before entering Iran, depending on the route used. Over time, cooperation between railway administrations, customs services and logistics providers has supported the development of this corridor and its role in China–Iran overland trade.

The existing corridor benefits from established operating experience, familiarity among shippers and the development of regular services. Several structural factors could affect the competitiveness of an alternative route. The route passes through several jurisdictions and involves different track gauges, requiring coordination among railway operators and border authorities. Capacity at key interchange points, departure frequency and the predictability of border and terminal dwell times all influence the transit time experienced by shippers.

A Potential New Route to Iran

If the CKU railway is connected to the existing Uzbek railway network, freight could travel by rail from China through Kyrgyzstan to Uzbekistan, then continue along existing rail infrastructure through Turkmenistan and into Iran. The route would pass through Uzbekistan, whose established railway network provides connections to regional and international markets.

The wider regional significance of the project was already recognised by the GAFG Board member Vladimir Norov, then Secretary-General of the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation. In a lecture delivered at the Indian Council of World Affairs in January 2020, he observed that the CKU railway “may become one of the promising additional routes connecting East Asia with the Middle East, Turkey and Europe, as well as an important link in the transport network within the framework of East-West and North-South” connectivity.

The new route would not necessarily replace the existing Kazakhstan corridor. Instead, it could provide an additional option, allowing shippers to choose between routes according to origin, destination, cost, transit time and service reliability. Railway administrations and operators may seek to improve their services to attract freight traffic. For consignments originating in western China, the CKU route may offer a geographical advantage. For other origins, the existing Kazakhstan route may remain more competitive, depending on the final destination, tariffs and service frequency.

The CKU railway should also be considered within the wider architecture of Eurasian rail connectivity. Existing networks, including the Trans-Siberian Railway, the growing China–Central Asia connections and other transcontinental routes, form part of an increasingly diversified transport landscape. As Alice Ferrari (2026) argues in her discussion of Eurasian corridors, individual routes are better understood as interconnected and potentially complementary elements of a wider network. From this perspective, the CKU railway could extend connectivity through Central Asia towards the Persian Gulf, adding another option without necessarily displacing existing routes.

This broader perspective is consistent with the GAFG Connectivity Doctrine: individual corridors should be understood not as isolated infrastructure projects, but as components of wider connectivity ecosystems. Their value depends on the quality of connections between transport infrastructure, logistics hubs, institutional arrangements and the markets they serve.

The potential regional implications of the CKU railway have also been examined by Nargiza Umarova (2024), who argues that the project could strengthen Central Asian transport connectivity, increase the region’s transit attractiveness as a transit and logistics hub, boosting the existing cargo flows. She also highlights the possibility of new international trade corridors and the importance of coordination among Central Asian countries to ensure mutual benefits. This reinforces the importance of viewing the CKU railway as part of a wider and interconnected transport network rather than as an isolated infrastructure project.

The gauge question

However, there is one technical consideration that should be mentioned separately: the track gauge. China and Iran use the standard gauge of 1,435 mm, while the main railway networks in Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan use the 1,520 mm gauge. The CKU project itself is planned with different gauge sections, meaning that gauge compatibility and the location of transshipment facilities will need to be considered along the route. Any China–Iran service using the CKU line would therefore need to account for gauge changes and the arrangements for transferring freight between railway systems.

Possible approaches include container transshipment at gauge-change terminals, bogie exchange where technically feasible, or specialised variable-gauge systems. Each option has different implications for infrastructure, cost, handling time and operational complexity. Container transshipment is an established solution, but its efficiency depends on terminal capacity, handling equipment, staffing and the coordination of train schedules. Bogie exchange is suitable for some wagon models. The availability and practical application of variable-gauge technology in the region would also need to be assessed.

The number, location and efficiency of gauge-change points will directly affect the corridor’s overall performance. Efficient transfer arrangements may help reduce delays and handling costs, even where the route is geographically longer. In this connection, the gauge configuration of the CKU railway route and its connections with the 1,520 mm gauge systems of Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan therefore becomes an important consideration. The location of transshipment points and the design of terminal facilities may be as important to corridor performance as the railway infrastructure itself.

Factors of competitiveness

The new corridor does not compete merely through geography. Several other factors will determine whether the route attracts sustained freight traffic.

Tariffs. Cargo owners assess the total cost of moving a container from its origin to its final destination. Through-tariff systems, which provide a single rate across several railway operators, can make the corridor easier for customers to use than a system requiring separate negotiations and payments with each national operator. Coordinated tariffs across the participating railway systems, together with competitive transit rates, could strengthen the route’s appeal.

Transit time and reliability. The predictability of delivery can be as important as speed. A corridor that consistently meets its scheduled transit time may be more attractive than a faster route with frequent delays.

Customs procedures: Requirements and documentation procedures vary across countries and can create delays at border crossings. Electronic pre-notification, recognition of compatible documentation, coordinated operating hours and joint or coordinated inspections—where feasible—could reduce border dwell times.

Container transshipment. Transshipment efficiency depends on terminal capacity, handling equipment and scheduling. Although terminal improvements may require less investment than constructing new railway lines, they can still have a substantial effect on the shipper’s experience.

Service frequency: Regular departures allow shippers to plan shipments and reduce the need to hold large inventories. However, increasing train frequency requires a sufficient cargo base. During the initial phase, operators may need to coordinate pilot services and build demand gradually.

This approach also reflects key themes of the GAFG Connectivity Doctrine, particularly connectivity, interoperability and complementarity. The value of a new railway connection lies not only in the infrastructure it creates, but also in how effectively it connects with existing transport networks, logistics facilities and regional markets. For the CKU railway, coordination between railway operators, border authorities and logistics providers will be essential to developing these connections.

What can be done today?

With the railway under construction, the pre-operational period provides an opportunity to prepare the wider corridor for commercial operations. Several measures could strengthen its operational and commercial viability from the beginning of operations. This requires looking beyond the railway itself and preparing the institutional, operational and commercial arrangements that enable infrastructure to function as part of an integrated connectivity ecosystem.

Coordinate across railway administrations: Working groups involving railway operators and relevant ministries could agree on technical standards, operating procedures and tariff arrangements before the corridor begins commercial operations.

Prepare transit nodes before operations begin: The location, capacity and equipment of transshipment facilities should be considered during the construction phase. Dry ports and logistics centres in Uzbekistan, particularly in the Fergana Valley and along major east–west and north–south routes, could help consolidate freight and improve connections between transport modes.

Improve the Uzbekistan–Turkmenistan–Iran connection: The performance of the entire corridor will depend on the capacity and efficiency of its individual sections. Assessing infrastructure conditions, capacity constraints and border-crossing procedures along the southern route could help prevent delays from undermining the time savings achieved elsewhere.

Introduce digital solutions and facilitate border procedures: Electronic data exchange, advance notification of train arrivals and harmonised border processes could reduce administrative delays. These measures can be prepared alongside railway construction rather than waiting until the line is operational.

Build commercial relationships: Shipping companies, railway operators, exporters and freight forwarders should be involved from the outset. Initial demand could be developed through pilot services, trial shipments and targeted engagement with potential customers.

Define a clear value proposition for shippers: The route should identify the markets and cargo types for which it offers a practical advantage, such as improved access from western China, reliable schedules or better connections within Central Asia.

Socio-economic perspective

The impacts of a transport corridor extend beyond trade volumes. In Kyrgyzstan, the railway could improve regional connectivity, support employment during construction and operation, and provide businesses with better access to markets. It may also improve transport options for communities that currently depend heavily on road transport. In Uzbekistan, increased freight volumes could create opportunities in logistics, warehousing and customs-related services. For Turkmenistan and Iran, an additional corridor could diversify cross-border transport and trade options.

Beyond direct employment, increased freight activity could support small and medium-sized enterprises involved in transport, storage, packaging, maintenance and other logistics services. Improved connections may also help regional producers access markets beyond their immediate surroundings. For landlocked countries such as Kyrgyzstan and Uzbekistan, additional international rail connections could broaden trade options and strengthen their roles as transit and logistics centres. Workforce training, local supplier development and environmental considerations—particularly in mountainous areas—should therefore be incorporated into planning.

Conclusion
Existing rail services between China and Iran demonstrate how overland transport can offer an alternative to sea freight when transit time is important. The CKU railway could add another option by improving rail access from China to Central Asia and potentially supporting a new route for freight moving onward to Iran through Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan.

The viability of this route will depend on practical factors such as tariffs, transit times, border procedures, handling arrangements, train frequency and gauge compatibility between the 1,435 mm and 1,520 mm networks. Its wider value will also depend on how effectively it complements existing Eurasian transport corridors and connects regional markets.

The key question is therefore not only when the railway will be completed, but how effectively the wider corridor will be prepared for commercial operations. Coordination among countries, railway operators and logistics providers on tariffs, border procedures, infrastructure connections and service schedules could help the route attract China–Iran freight traffic. Ultimately, the CKU railway’s value may lie not in replacing existing routes, but in contributing another interconnected and complementary option within the wider Eurasian transport network.

References:

• Messias, F. (2026) ‘The GAFG Connectivity Doctrine: From Corridors to Governance Ecosystems’, On Line Opinion, 20 July 2026. Available at: Read the article
• Norov, V. (2020) ‘The Future Trajectory of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) and India’s Role’, lecture delivered at the Indian Council of World Affairs (ICWA), New Delhi, 13 January 2020. Available at: Indian Council of World Affairs – full lecture
• Ferrari, A. (2026) ‘EurAsian (Networks of) Corridors’, Modern Diplomacy, 28 June. Available at: https://moderndiplomacy.eu/2026/06/28/eurasian-networks-of-corridors/
• Umarova, N. (2024) ‘How will the construction of the China-Kyrgyzstan-Uzbekistan railway affect the transport connectivity of Central Asia?’, CABAR.asia, 13 August.

Sheika Lubna Fathima of the Middlesex University Dubai. She is an Information Officer at GAFG, where her work focuses on maritime connectivity, transport corridors and regional infrastructure, including research on ports and logistics networks.