National mobility concept · pre-feasibility
Build evidence
before lines
The revised 2052 concept separates railway infrastructure, passenger services and access objectives. Existing and restorable rail comes first; new mountain rail is no longer assumed simply because a region needs better transport.
Independent pre-feasibility concept. This is not an approved Government of Armenia programme, an operator commitment or an international agreement.
Key change. The earlier R1–R7 full-build idea is retired. The public concept now has four core rail corridors, official regional interfaces and conditional access studies.
Evidence and arithmetic audit
Clear about certainty
Facts separated
Observed data, planning targets, assumptions and decision gates use different labels
Totals reconciled
Earlier $18.95–29.30bn sum is archived; the revised programme needs fresh pricing
Alternatives retained
Gate S compares regional reopening, coach, feeder and road investment; no new domestic mountain rail is a valid outcome
Unknowns left open
Annual demand, revenue, subsidy, fleet and power are not invented before modelling
Direct trains ≠ direct tracks
A passenger should not have to change trains simply because the infrastructure corridor ID changes. Where capacity, rolling stock and operating rules allow, one train can continue across several corridors. A buildable railway still has to compete on door-to-door time and whole-life cost.
Infrastructure
Where tracks can realistically exist
Service
Where one train can continue
Time
Whether the journey is competitive
Gate
Whether construction is justified
Map system
Two questions,
three views
The two network maps are interactive. Use the controls and legends, then select a corridor or service. The third view tests terrain constraints without drawing a supposed railway alignment.
Tourism demand point · not a station
01 · Infrastructure & engineering status
Open full map ↗The schematic separates the core network, restoration, official interfaces, studies and the no-build comparator. Open the full relief map for detailed geography
Solid: existing / core patterns · dashed: conditional services · schematic, not a timetable. Drag to move; use + / − to zoom. Select a line for conditions.
02 · Passenger services · illustrative
Open full map ↗One-seat service patterns, with conditional services clearly separated from existing / core services
03 · Topographic feasibility
Terrain before alignment
A terrain screening layer, not a railway alignment. Broad zones show where relief is likely to drive gradients, curves, tunnels, viaducts, winter operations and emergency-access requirements.
Moderate constraintHigh constraintVery high / tunnel-intensiveTourism demand points · not stations
Why endpoint height is not enough
Similar endpoint elevations do not make a corridor level. The railway must cross every ridge and valley between them; the controlling gradient and tunnel requirement are set by the intervening terrain.
Screening only · replace with official DEM, surveyed profiles, geology and seismic investigations before route selection
03 · Topographic feasibility
Relief-based screening of the crossings that need profiles, geology and tunnel evidence before any route can be selected
Select a point to see its place name, station type, lines, status and programme phase
Rail serves strong corridors; guaranteed buses and road investment complete lower-demand access
All new corridors require official GIS, alternatives, fieldwork, environmental review and design
Gyumri–Akhurik design procurement has been announced. The domestic case still excludes assumed new border traffic and external funding
Programme reset
2027–2052 without automatic construction
Dates describe decision windows and deliverables. A study corridor does not become a built railway simply because the calendar reaches 2052.
Evidence first
Official GIS/DEM, asset and safety audit, demand model, preliminary profiles and engineering / hazard screening; Gate 0 and Gate S evidenceFix the backbone
Justified R1–R4 renewal, stations and measured service improvements; R3 restoration only after engineering and demand validationOpen interfaces conditionally
Gyumri–Kars, Yeraskh–Nakhchivan and Nrnadzor–Agarak depend on design, agreements, border operations and funding; C1 needs revalidationBuild only passed gates
Access studies may become rail, coach, feeder or road improvements, or be deferred; no fixed Kapan or Meghri railway completion yearExplore the project
A short home page,
detailed project sections
The project is organised by the decisions a government, funder, operator and community would actually need to make.
Gyumri–Kars
Reported design procurement, engineering interfaces and evidence required before international operation
Explore Gyumri–Kars →Network & regions
Relief map, R1–R4 and an access passport for every marz plus Yerevan
Open network →Service & demand
Timetable tests, fleet logic, demand cases, freight evidence, fares and energy
Open service plan →Options & costs
Four pricing buckets, revised scope, South Armenia Access Gate and fiscal tests
Compare options →Master plan & delivery
Integrated master plan, 2027–31 work, surveys, climate, safeguards and six gates
Open delivery plan →Evidence & full plan
Evidence labels, audit, priority sources and the complete 15-chapter report
Read full plan →The first deliverable
One integrated transport master plan
Before selecting a railway route, Armenia should compare rail, roads, buses, aviation, freight and no-build options through one demand model, one GIS, common standards and one fiscal envelope. The plan decides which problem each mode should solve and in what order.
Do next, not someday
The 2027–2031 decision window
Programme authority, data room, asset and safety audit
National demand model, official GIS and alternatives longlist
Field surveys, reference case, consultation and Gate 0
Funded reference designs, procurement and service specification
Early renewal works, measured benefits and updated decisions