SalarHaqq
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Dec 29, 2019
- Messages
- 4,569
- Reaction score
- 2
- Country
- Location
again , complain to Islamic republic , why they were not the ones who broadcast the news first and control the media .
why they let Iran International and some other news agency break out the news in a twisted way , why I first heard the news here from another person who read about it on twitter several day after the incident instead of official channels ?
answer those and you take the first step to prevent the ones who want abuse the news for their agendas .
IRIB obviously didn't act optimally in this particular instance. No clue about the reason, no outsider has.
This said, who breaks the news isn't decisive. Had IRIB aired the correct version of events first, their voice would've been drowned by the enemy's gigantic propaganda apparatus anyway. Case in point, first hand material documenting the occurrence (CCTV footage, CT scans etc) is available for everyone to see, yet more than a handful continue to believe foreign propaganda and not simply because the fake news were published first.
Either way, considering how widespread the false narrative is, it remains every honest person's responsibility to set the record straight whenever they get a chance to do so. This disinformation will not be allowed to spread unchallenged.
the north south corridor while benefit Russia become on board at first designed for trade with Caucasus and central Asia and easier way for their access to India and China and east Asia market and that one also delayed because of not enough investment in the project and honestly i doubt many of those countries care at all about western unipolarism , I rather blame it on some politician lack of vision and some corruption
India and China are both key assets in the affirmation of multipolarism. Iran's North-South corridor is thus an important building block of the multipolar order.
The political failure of certain officials, yes, liberals who have a problem with Iran looking East rather than West for trade, business and investment, and have therefore neglected crucial projects like these. Not any more. Principlists are in charge of the administration now.
Trans Iranian railway in 1938
and Mohammad Reza was not King Reza so he abandoned everything when he was young and later he was interested in other things
Point stands.
why shiraz , say Ahvaz , say Tabriz to Mashhad there is no direct line , do we have people more religious than people of Azerbaijan in Iran ?can you honestly tell there is no demand for that route ?
Why put the question to me, you came up with Ahvaz to Shiraz:
From Tabriz to Mashhad, passengers change trains in Tehran. Not big deal. As a matter of fact even in western Europe, direct trains are sometimes unavailable between major cities and people need to get off and onto carriages somewhere along the way.
Moreover direct links can be programmed anytime because the infrastructure is there to allow it. It's a question of planning by railway companies and other entities, not a matter of ground infrastructure. Aspects like these put no dent in the Islamic Republic's admirable record in the development of Iran's national railway network, which as said has progressed at about twice the speed compared to the Pahlavi era. Expansion rate has been very satisfactory in international comparison too.
the exact person who already had to travel the same route by bus.
the bus go Tehran or Qom and from there go Mashhad , they don't cross the desert from Yazd to Mashhad
now if you prefer to travel 36-48 hour by bus instead of around 30-35 hours by train is something else
The rational solution to this would simply consist in a bus company offering a service on the direct road between the two cities. It will surely cost less than the u/c railway branch between Shiraz and Yazd.
By the way, bus companies are partially privatized, aren't they. So much for the efficiency of private entities over public ones in planning inter-city transport services.
At any rate, this has nothing to do with Iran's impressive performance in expanding the railway grid post-Revolution.
rolling stock for more than 24 hour route ? , and its not only capacity , its also about travel time
Add more trains on the route and there will be more seats available, it's not self-explanatory. When a certain threshold in passengers is reached and funds are available, start building the twin track as happened on the Tehran-Mashhad line. This is the correct road map for Iran's railway expansion, the priority is to connect every provincial capital and major city to the grid first, and then look to double tracks in addition to decreasing travel times. That way, social equity is better ensured as well.
Before twin tracks Iran needs more rolling stock. This goes not just for inter-city but also for urban rail (metros). Though yet again, the expansion of the network itself is a distinct matter.
Generally speaking railways are at a comparative disadvantage in Iran, which tends to limit the demand. Firstly, initial investment is made more expensive by the markedly mountainous topography with desertic landscapes prevailing in the remainder of the territory. Secondly, Iran's surface area is vast, population and economic centers far apart so travel times are bound to be elevated, unless they engage in all out HSR development, but to that effect one needs to have the economic resources of China (as a matter of fact, China's the only country with that type of an infrastructure). Thirdly, fuel being subsidized road travel becomes particularly attractive. Fourthly, the same applies to air travel: domestic flights in Iran are quite cheap and airfields abound, including in smaller and isolated cities, so flying will continue to be a preferred option for many travelers.
No matter how one looks at it, the Islamic Republic has excelled in developing national railways. That the program isn't completed as of yet is a no-brainer, but it doesn't diminish the greatness of the achievement in any shape or form.
Last edited: