trans-asian railway route requirements ......trans-asian railway in the indochina and asean...

ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMISSION FOR ASIA AND THE PACIFIC

TRANS-ASIAN RAILWAY ROUTE REQUIREMENTS: DEVELOPMENT OF THE TRANS-ASIAN RAILWAY

IN THE INDO-CHINA AND ASEAN SUBREGION

UNITED NATIONS

ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMISSION FOR ASIA AND THE PACIFIC

TRANS-ASIAN RAILWAY ROUTE REQUIREMENTS: DEVELOPMENT OF THE TRANS-ASIAN RAILWAY

IN THE INDO-CHINA AND ASEAN SUBREGION

VOLUME 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

UNITED NATIONS New York, 1996

ST/ESCAP/1679

This publication w as prepared for ESCAP by Peter J. Hodgkinson, consultant.

The opinions, figures and estimates set forth in this report were supplied by the respective railway administrations. They are the responsibility of the author and should not necessarily be considered as reflecting the views or carrying the endorsement of the United Nations.

The designations employed and the presentation of the material do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of the Secretariat of the United Nations concerning the legal status of any country, territory, city or area or of its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries.

Mention of firm names and commercial products does not imply the endorsement of the UnitedNations.

This publication has been issued without formal editing.

CONTENTS

Page

1 INTRODUCTION 1

2. BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES OF THE S TU D Y ................................... 12.1 History and Scope of the Trans-Asian Railway Projects ................... 12.2 Overall objectives of this and other TAR stud ies................................ 22.3 The relationship of the TAR corridor under study to other TAR

co rrido rs .................................................................................................... 3

3. IDENTIFICATION OF TAR LINKS ..................................................... 43.1 Criteria for the nomination of links in the TAR ..................... 43.2 Outline of the Nominated TAR Network in the Subregion . . 5

4. MARKET ENVIRONMENT OF THE TAR IN THE SUBREGION 84.1 The Potential Market for the TAR ................................... 84.2 Service and Tariff Requirements ..................................... 12

5. SPECIFICATION OF MINIMUM TECHNICAL STANDARDS AND REQUIREMENTS ................................................................................. 145.1 Outline Gauge .................. 145.2 Axle L o a d s ......................... 145.3 Desirable Running Speeds 155.4 Other Standards .............. 15

6. CURRENT TECHNICAL AND OPERATIONAL STATUS OF THE TAR NETWORK ........................................................................................................... 156.1 Outline G auges........................................................................................ 156.2 Axle L o a d s ............................................................................................... 166.3 Desirable Operating Speeds ................................................................. 17

7. DEVELOPMENT NEEDS FOR THE TAR NETWORK IN THE SUBREGION................................................................................................................................ 17

7.1 Network Upgrading to Handle High Profile Containers ..................... 177.2 Network Upgrading to Increase Axle Load Limits .............................. 197.3 Network Upgrading to Increase S p e ed s .............................................. 197.4 Network Upgrading to Expand Line Capacity ..................................... 207.5 Capital Costs of a Programme to Construct Missing Links in the

TAR ........................................................................................................... 237.6 Requirements of Specialized Container Rollingstock ....................... 257.7 Locomotive Requirements...................................................................... 267.8 Consolidated Cost of TAR Network Development.............................. 26

8. FACILITATION MEASURES FOR CROSS BORDER TRANSPORT ON THETAR NETWORK ................................................................................................. 298.1 International and Bilateral Transit and Customs Agreements ......... 298.2 Railway Joint Operating Agreements ................................................. 30

9. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 31

Trans-Asian Railway in the Indochina and ASEAN subregion. Volume 1. Executive Summary

1. INTRODUCTION

This report presents the findings of a study for developing and making operational the Trans-Asian Railway (TAR) in the countries of the ASEAN area and in what might broadly be identified as the “Greater Mekong Area”. For the purposes of the study, the ASEAN countries include Indonesia, Malaysia, Singapore1, Thailand (south of Bangkok), while the Greater Mekong Area includes Cambodia, southern China (Yunnan Province), Myanmar, the Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Thailand (north and east of Bangkok), and Viet Nam2.

Collectively, these countries constitute a subregion in which railways of one metre (1,000 mm) track gauge predominate.

The study of the Trans-Asian Railway in the Indo-China and ASEAN Subregion was undertaken in two phases. The first phase, for which data collection and survey missions were completed during 1994, covered the above-mentioned ASEAN countries, but in the case of Thailand covered only the nominated TAR link from Padang Besar (on the border with Malaysia) to Bangkok. The second phase, for which data collection and survey missions were completed during 1995, covered the above-mentioned countries of the Greater Mekong Area, including the area of Thailand north and east of Bangkok, which would ultimately provide a connection between the TAR networks in the two parts of the subregion.

The findings of the first and second phases of the study are presented in Volumes 2 and 3, respectively, of this study report, while this Executive Summary brings together the findings of both phases.

Funding for the study was generously provided by the Government of Japan.

2. BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY

2.1 History and Scope of the Trans-Asian Railway Projects

The Trans-Asian Railway Projects have a history extending over some 35 years. Initially, the TAR was proposed by ECAFE, the forerunner of ESCAP, as a railway route network providing a link between Singapore and Istanbul, Turkey, via the most direct route, a southerly alignment taking in Bangladesh, India, the Islamic Republic of Iran, Malaysia, Myanmar, Pakistan and Thailand, over a distance of 14,000 km. Subsequently, Indonesia was added to the proposal, since the islands of Java and Sumatra would be connected to the Malayan Railway at Singapore and Penang by means of short sea shipping services.

Since the Malayan Railway, or KTM, operates the railway line passing through the territory of Singapore, study inputs covering the TAR in Singapore were provided by KTM.

2This country classification is used notwithstanding the admission of Viet Nam as a full member of the

Association of Southeast Asian Countries (ASEAN) on 28 July 1995.

1


The initial proposal, and others which followed it, were frustrated to a large extent by the lack of a uniform railway gauge in the selected corridor (there are three different track gauge standards: 1,000 mm; 1,676 mm; and 1,435 mm, in this corridor), and by the presence of gaps or “missing links” in the route, amounting to about 2,000 km. The adverse political climate at the time also had a dampening effect on intra and inter-regional trade, thereby eroding the justification for a border crossing railway network in the region.

A guiding principle adopted at the outset was that the development of a Trans-Asian Railway network was to utilize, wherever possible, the existing railway infrastructure and facilities in the corridor, requiring the construction of only the “missing links” in the network. The project was also to be oriented, wherever practical, to securing common technical standards and operational compatibility between participating railway systems.

Limited progress was made during the late 1970s and early 1980s towards the development of a Trans-Asian Railway, but it was not until 1992 that the project gained real momentum. In that year, the ESCAP Commission, at its 48th session in Beijing, endorsed the integrated project on Asian Land Transport Infrastructure Development (or ALTID). This project comprises sub-projects on the Asian Highway, the Trans-Asian Railway and Land Transport Facilitation measures. The 48th Commission Session provided a new direction for the TAR projects when it recognized (in resolution 48/11) that institutional measures to facilitate the uninterrupted flow of freight and passengers across national borders are as important as the development of physical infrastructure to increased trade between neighbouring countries.

The Trans-Asian Railway projects endorsed by the Commission as part of the ALTID Action Plan for 1994-95 include: (I) the Feasibility Study on Connecting the Railway Networks o f China, Kazakhstan, Mongolia, the Russian Federation and the Korean Peninsula (effectively a study of a northern TAR corridor); and (ii) the study of the Trans- Asian Railway in the Indo-China and ASEAN Subregion.

The first-mentioned study, which was jointly funded by the governments of France and the Republic of Korea, was completed in early 1995 and the study report was adopted at a policy level meeting conducted in Bangkok in October 1995. The second study has been funded by the Government of Japan and is the subject of this report.

During 1995, also, ESCAP undertook as part of its regular budget work programme a preliminary study of route requirements for a TAR Southern Corridor, with participation by the railway organizations of Bangladesh, India, the Islamic Republic of Iran, Pakistan and Sri Lanka.

2.2 Overall objectives of this and other TAR studies

The objectives for the Trans-Asian Railway studies in general are as follows:

(i) To identify the routes, or links, comprising the Trans-Asian Railway;

2

Trans-Asian Railway in the Indochina and ASEAN subregion. Volume I. Executive Summary

(ii) To recommend a set of practical technical and operational standards for application on these identified routes, in order to ensure the provision of compatible services by individual participating railways;

To evaluate the present technical and operational status of the TAR network, in relation to these standards;

(iv) To identify and evaluate the development needs for the TAR network in the participating countries, especially in relation to compliance with recommended standards;

(v) To review, and recommend improvement of, the institutional arrangements and agreements governing the flow of railway traffic across national borders; and

To assess the specific requirements for increased transport of all types of containers throughout the TAR corridor under study.

It is also a specific requirement of the TAR studies that recommended technical and operational standards be specified in relation to three key parameters:

(i) The required minimum outline (structure and vehicle) gauges;

(ii) The maximum authorized axle load;

(iii) Schedule speeds which are competitive with other transport modes.

A fundamental operating requirement for the Trans-Asian network is that it must be capable of transporting all types of ISO and non-ISO containers commonly used for international transport. The TAR studies will therefore have a major focus on the requirements for, and obstacles to, international transport of containers by rail.

2.3 The relationship of the TAR corridor under study to other TAR corridors

The Trans-Asian Railway in the Indo-China and ASEAN Subregion is a special case in that its constituent railway systems mostly conform to narrow (1,000 mm or 1,067 mm) track gauge standards, with their emphasis on light track structures, light axle loads, slow speeds and small vehicle profiles.

Their unique technical and operational status gives rise to special problems - mostly related to their limited capacity - which are not generally encountered in other TAR corridors. They are, for example, to be contrasted with the TAR Northern Corridor, which has a predominance of 1,520 mm route (1,435 mm in China), with its attendant heavy track structures, heavy axle loads, generally higher speeds, and large vehicle profiles. By comparison with narrow gauge railways, the railways of wider gauge in the Northern Corridor suffer fewer capacity problems as a sole consequence of their design standard.

3

Trans-Asian Railway in the Indochina and ASEAN subregion, Volume I. Executive Summary

Necessarily, therefore, the TAR network in the Indo-China and ASEAN Subregion has to be evaluated as an independent network. However, it is connected to the TAR Northern Corridor via southern China, which is linked to the Vietnamese railway system via a dual gauge (1,000 mm/1,435 mm) track extending into the territory of Viet Nam as far as Hanoi. Ultimately, when the remaining gaps in the network have been eliminated, traffic originating in Singapore or Indonesia would have the possibility of joining the main Chinese north-south trunk line (which runs from Shenzhen to Erenhot on the border with Mongolia), or the main Chinese east-west trunk line (which runs from the port of Lianyungang on the coast of China to Drujba on the border with Kazakhstan). Both of these routes were nominated by China as links in the TAR Northern Corridor. Whether there is justification on commercial grounds for international traffic along these routes linking the two corridors is, of course, a separate issue - but an issue which is nevertheless addressed in this report.

A connection between the TAR network in the Indo-China and ASEAN Subregion and the TAR Southern Corridor is more problematical. While there would be fewer breaks-of-gauge than in the case of the link with the Northern Corridor (four gauge transfer points between Indo-China and Western Europe via the Northern Corridor, as compared with only three via the Southern Corridor), completion of the connection with the Southern Corridor would involve the construction of missing links totalling 1,400 km, as compared with only 288 km for the construction of missing links in the connection with the Northern Corridor.3

3. IDENTIFICATION OF TAR LINKS

3.1 Criteria for the nomination of links in the TAR

The participating countries of the subregion were requested to nominate lines in their railway systems as links in the Trans-Asian Railway.

The nominated links were required to satisfy one or more of the following primary purpose criteria, as set out in E/ESCAP/864, “Selected Issues in Fields of Activity of the Commission and its Regional Institutions... New Developments in Land Transport in Asia”

(i) Capital to capital links (for international transport);

(ii) Connections to main industrial and agricultural centres (links to important origin and destination points);

3 These distances comprise:

(a) TAR Indochina and ASEAN - TAR Southern Corridor : Thailand to Myanmar, 374 km; Myanmar-lndia, 500 km; Zahedan-Kerman (Islamic Republic of Iran), 545 km; Total: 1,419 km.

(b) TAR Indochina and ASEAN - TAR Northern Corridor : Poipet-Sisophon (Cambodia), 48 km; Cambodia - Viet Nam, 240 km; Total: 288 km.

4


Connections to major sea and river ports (integration of land and sea transport networks);

Connections to major container terminals and depots (integration of rail and road networks).

In a practical sense, it was necessary to interpret these guidelines in such a way that the dominant criterion which nominated TAR links would have to satisfy was that they should form part of a prim ary route network linking the participating countries of the subregion, utilizing wherever possible existing railway infrastructure.

3.2 Outline of the Nominated TAR Network in the Subregion

The TAR route network nominated in accordance with the above-mentioned selection criteria is illustrated by the map in Figure 1. The route distances and other characteristics of the links comprising this network are shown in Tables 1 and 2.

Table 1: Trans-Asian Railway in the ASEAN CountriesCharacteristics of Nominated Links

Country TAR Link Designation

From/To TrackGauge(mm)

RouteLength

(km)

Status

Indonesia 1.1 Banyawangi-Merak (Java) 1,067 1,180 Operational

I.2 T. Priok-Gedebage (Java) 1,067 193 Operational

1.3 Belawan-Rantauprapat (N.Sumatra) 1,067 289 Operational

1.4 Panjang-Kertapati-Lubuklinggau(S.Sumatra)

1,067 633 Operational

Singapore/Malaysia

M.1 Singapore-Butterworth 1,000 785 Operational

M2 Bukit Mertajam-Padang Besar 1,000 146 Operational

M.3 Kuala Lumpur-Port Kelang 1,000 24 Operational

M .4 Johor Bahru-Tanjung Pelepas 1,000 30 New Link

Thailand T.1 Padang Besar-Bangkok 1,000 990 Operational

Total Route Length for ASEAN Countries (km): 4,270

5

Trans-Asian Railway in th e Indochina and ASEAN Subregion, Volume I. Executive Summary

Figure 1: Trans-Asian Railway in the Indo-China and ASEAN Subregion

MYANMARHAIPHONG

THAILAND

DanangPakse•o

CAMBODIA

SIHANOUKVILLE

PENANG

SINGAPORE

L e g e n d

TAR LINK1,000/1,067 mm GAUGE

TAR L IN K - D U A L (1 .0 0 0 / 1,4 3 5 m m G A U G E ) N on T A R M a ine L ineN EW T A R L IN K (P L A N N E D )

INDONESIA

GAUGE OF INDONESIAN RAILWAY IS 1.067 mm

The b o u n d a r i e s a n d n a m e s s h o w n a n d the designations used on this m ap d o not imply official endorsement or acceptance by the United Nations.

CHINA

Trans-Asian Railway in the Indochina and ASEAN subregion, Volume 1. Executive Summary

Table 2: Trans-Asian Railway in the Countries of the Greater Mekong Area,Characteristics of Nominated Links

Country TAR Link Designation

From/To TrackGauge(mm)

RouteLength

(km)

Status

Thailand T.2 Bangkok-Nong Khai (Lao People's Democratic Republic Border)

1,000 654 Operational

T.3 Bangkok-Aranyaprathet (Border with Cambodia)

1.000 265 Operational

T.4 Bangkok-Nakhon SawanNakhon Sawan-Mae Sod (Border withMyanmar)

1,0001,000

246284

Operational Missing Link

T.5 Bangkok-Ubon RatchathaniUbon Ratchathani-Chong Mek (Border withLao People's Democratic Republic)

1,000Dual 1,000/1,435??

57590

Operational New Link

T.6 Bangkok-Denchai Denchai-Chiang Rai Chiang Rai-Mae Sai

1,0001,000

Dual 1,000/1,435??

53427060

Operational New Link New Link

Cambodia C.1 Poipet-Sisophon Sisophon-Phnom Penh

1,0001,000

48337

Missing Link Operational

C.2 Phnom Penh-Sihanoukville Port 1,000 264 Operational

c .3 Phnom Penh-Loc Ninh (Viet Nam) 1,000 305 Missing Link

C.4 Phnom Penh-Svay Rieng (Viet Nam Bdr). 1,000 135 Missing Link

Viet Nam Cambodian Border-Ho Chi Minh City 1,000 105/145 Missing Link

V.1 Ho Chi Minh City-Hanoi 1,000 1,726 Operational

V.2 Hanoi-Dong Dang (Border with China) Dual 1,000/1,435 162 Operational

V.3 Hanoi-Haiphong Port 1,000 102 Operational

V. 4 Yen Vien-Lao Cai (Border with China) 1,000 285 Operational

China (Yunnan Prov.)

Y.1 Xiangyun-Jinghong Jinghong-Shangyong Jinghong-Daluo (Myanmar)

1.4351.4351.435

62794

141

New Link New Link New Link

Y.2 Kunming-DaliDali-Kachang/Houqiao (Myanmar)

1.4351.435

380330

New Link New Link

Y.3 Kunming-Hekou (Border with Viet Nam) 1,000 468 Operational

Lao PDR Vientiane-Nong Khai (Thailand) Dual 1,000/1,435?? 30 New Link

Vientiane-Boten (Border with China) 1,435 ?? 510 New Link

Pakse-Chong Mek (Thailand) Dual 1,000/1,435?? 30 New Link

Myanmar B.1 Yangon-MyitkyinaMyitkyina-Kachang/Houqiao (Border with China)

1,0001,000

1,163100

Operational New Link

B.2 Yangon-ThatonThaton-Myawaddy (via Myaingalay)

1,0001,000

215166

Operational Missing Link

B.3 Daluo (Border with China)-Tachilek (Border with Thailand)

1,000 or 1,435 ?? 195 New Link

Total Route Length for Countries of Greater Mekong Area (km): 10,050*

* Net of the length of common route

7


The TAR network for the entire subregion, with the inclusion of missing and new links, would have an overall route length of 14,320 kilometres, of which 10,050 kilometres would be in the Greater Mekong Area. Links in current operation account for 10,695 kilometres (75 per cent o f the total). All but 30 km of the nominated TAR links in the ASEAN area (accounting for 4,270 route kilometres) are in current operation.

Lines of metre (1,000 mm) track gauge would account for 9,436 km out of the subregional route total of 14,320 km (66 per cent), while lines of 1,067 mm, 1,435 mm and mixed 1,000/1,435 mm gauge would account for 2,295; 2,277; and 312 km respectively.

Missing links (or gaps between existing railway networks) account for about 740 route km, while new links (such as those planned for construction through the territory of the Lao People’s Democratic Republic) account for 2,887 route km, for a total of 3,627 km. Except for 30 km in Malaysia, all of the missing and new links are in the Greater Mekong Area. Elimination o f these gaps in the network would require the construction of approximately 1,140 km of new lines o f 1,000 mm gauge and o f approximately 2,430' km of lines o f 1,435 mm and dual 1,000/1,435 mm gauge.

Currently, the only break-of-gauge points in the nominated TAR network are located within Viet Nam (Hanoi) and Yunnan Province of China (Wangjiaying, near Kunming). While there are currently no break-of-gauge points at borders, it is likely that the proposed construction of a new link from Dali (Yunnan Province of China) to Kachang or Houqiao (Myanmar) will result in a break-of-gauge at the China/Myanmar border. Similarly, there is a strong possibility that the new links proposed for construction through the territory of the Lao PDR will be constructed in standard gauge, resulting in a requirement for inter-gauge transfer facilities to be provided at the border with Thailand.

4. MARKET ENVIRONMENT OF THE TAR IN THE SUBREGION

The potential market for the TAR in the international transportation of containers was assessed in Volumes 2 and 3, as were the competitive service standards needed to be satisfied in order for the TAR to secure a major share of this potential market.

4.1 The Potential Market for the TAR

Unlike the TAR Northern Corridor, it may be inappropriate to view the TAR in the Indo-China and ASEAN Subregion as an inter-regional transport link. It is unlikely, for example, that it could compete with mainline shipping services in the movement of containers between the subregion and Europe, since the distances and rail transit times involved would exceed those of the shipping services. This disadvantage, coupled with the other factors, such as the large number of border crossings required and the large number railway operators involved in the provision of a through rail service, would also suggest that rail would be unable to compete on the basis of tariffs with the established shipping services

Includes 380 km of route already under construction on Link Y.2, between Kunming and Dali

8

Trans-Asian Railway in the Indochina and ASEAN subregion, Volume 1. Executive Summary

Instead, a more realistic possibility for the TAR in the subregion would be that it could have a complementary rather than a competitive role, vis-a-vis mainline shipping services, by providing a cost effective service for the feedering of containers between major origins or destinations for container trade in the subregion, and the mainline or feeder shipping ports.

Opportunities of this nature were identified both in the ASEAN Area considered in the first phase of the study and in the “Greater Mekong Area” considered in the second.

(i) TAR Container Transport Opportunities in the ASEAN Area

In the ASEAN Area, the Trans-Asian Railway could potentially offer a distance and transit time advantage for the movement of container traffic between Bangkok and the Malaysian ports of Kelang and Penang, and in the longer term between these ports and origins or destinations in Indo-China. Such traffic would also include container trade between the Indonesian port of Belawan (located in North Sumatra) and the ports of Bangkok and Laem Chabang in Thailand. The latter trade is currently transhipped through the Port of Singapore, but could in future be transhipped through Penang Port, with considerable savings in terms of transit time and transport cost. It is unlikely that the TAR would be able to capture a significant share of the Southeast Asia-Europe container trade, a substantial proportion of which is currently feedered through Singapore. This is because the railhead in Singapore is located at some distance from the port and even with the commitment of major investment sums for re-development could not compete either in terms of time or cost with the efficient transhipment services provided within the boundaries of the Port of Singapore, or with the efficient and cost effective container feeder shipping services to Thailand, Indonesia (east of Sumatra) and the countries of Indo-China.

Comparative distances and transit times for feeder shipping and rail on selected Intra-Asean container routes are given in Table 3.

9

Trans-Asian Railway in the Indochina and ASEAN subregion. Volume 1, Executive Summary

Table 3: Comparative Distances and Transit Times, Feeder Shipping vs. Rail,Intra-ASEAN Container Trades

From/To Sea Distance and Transit T ime/1 Potential Rail Distance and Transit Time /2

Dist.(km)

VoyageTime(hrs)

Dwell Time in Transhipment Port (hrs)

DwellTime inDetin-ationPort(hrs)

Transit Time in Hrs (Days)

D is t(km)

RunningTime(hrs)

TerminalDwellTime(hrs)

Total Transit T ime In Hrs(Days)

Kelang/Bangkok 1,923 69.4 7.0 168.0244.4(10.2)

1,531 51.3 24 0 75.3(2.1)

Bangkok/Kelang 1,923 69.4 7.0 120.0196.4(8.1) 1,531 51.3 24.0

75.3(2.1)

Penang/Bangkok 2,230 80.5 7.0 168.0255.5(10.6)

1,124 36.7 24.060.7(2.5)

Bangkok/Penang 2,230 80.5 7.0 96.0183.5(7.6) 1,124 36.7 24.0

60.7(2.5)

T.Priok/Bangkok 2,510 90.5 7.0 168.0 265.5 (1 1 .1)

2,860 97.6 31.0 128.6

(5.4)

Bangkok/T.Priok 2,510 90.5 7.0 120.0 217.5(9.1) 2.860 97.6 127.0 224.6(9.4)

Belawan/Bangkok 2,229 80.4 7.0 168.0 255.4(10.6)

1,351 44.9 48.092.9(3.9)

Bangkok/Belawan 2,229 80.4 7.0 120.0 207.4(8 .6)

1,351 44.9 144.0 188.9(7.9)

Notes: /1 This is the existing feeder shipping case. All containers are assumed to be transhipped in Singapore.

12 This is the future rail landbridging case. Thailand-Malaysia-Thailand trade would be wholly serviced by rail. TanjungPriok-Bangkok-Tanjung Priok trade would be transferred to/from rail in Singapore, while Belawan-Bangkok-Belawan trade would be transferred to/from rail at Penang (Butterworth).

Sources: Shipping Lines; Railway Operating Schedules (Train Running Graphs)

Based on data supplied by the relevant port authorities, container traffic moving between the ports of Kelang and Penang, and Bangkok, as well as that moving between the Port of Belawan and Bangkok currently amounts to approximately 21,000 TEU per annum. On the assumption that this trade would grow at the average rate of increase projected in the ESCAP document “Prospects for Container Shipping and Port Development (ASEAN Subregion)”, 1992, (ie. 11 per cent per annum for the period 1996-2000), container volumes available in this trade could reach: 44,000 TEU by 2000; 78,000 TEU by 2005;132.000 TEU by 2010; and 226,000 TEU by 2015. On the further assumption that rail could satisfy the transit time and tariff requirements of container shippers in these trades, services on the TAR network could potentially capture the following shares of these TEU volumes:35.000 TEU by 2000; 63,000 TEU by 2005; 106,000 TEU by 2010; and 181,000 TEU by 2015. If containers were moved in 30 wagon (60 TEU) block train formations on the TAR,

10


these volumes would translate to: one daily pair of trains by 2000; 2 daily pairs of trains by 2005; 3 daily pairs of trains by 2010; and 5 daily pairs of trains by 2015.

(ii) TAR Container Transport Opportunities in the Greater Mekong Area

In this area, container transport opportunities for rail could be expected to arise from the following sources:

■ The potential for feeder movement of containers by rail between the Port of Laem Chabang (Thailand) and Vientiane (Lao People’s Democratic Republic) - following the extension of TAR Link T.2 from its current terminus at Nong Khai, across the Mekong River, via the Mittapharb (Friendship) Bridge, toVientiane;

■ Containerization of freight traffic, especially bagged cement, currently moving in breakbulk form, and mostly by road, between Bangkok and Phnom Penh (requiring restoration of a missing 48 km stretch of track between Poipet and Sisophon, on TAR Link C.1);

■ On TAR Link C.2, feeder transportation of maritime containers between the Port of Sihanoukville and Phnom Penh;

■ On TAR Link V.3, feeder transportation of maritime containers between the Port of Haiphong and Hanoi;

■ On TAR Links Y.3 and V.4, the possible feeder transportation of maritime containers between Kunming (Yunnan Province of China) and the Port of Haiphong (Viet Nam)4;

■ Container traffic which could be generated by the construction of new rail links (Y.1 and Y.2) between the landlocked Yunnan Province of China and seaports in Thailand and/or Myanmar; and

■ On TAR Link B.1, the feeder transportation of maritime containers between the port of Yangon and a proposed container distribution centre in Mandalay.

Estimates of the potential container transportation volumes available from these sources were made in Volume 3, but are summarized in Table 4, below.

11 The probability of this traffic being secured for the TAR cannot be highly rated, given the imminent completion of a new electrified double track line of 898 km, linking Kunming with Nanning and the Port of Fangchen in Guangxi Province.

11


Table 4: Summary of Potential Container Transport Volume by TAR Link

Origin/Destination TARLink(s)

Potential Volume (TEU) in:

2000 2005 2010 2015

Yangon/Mandalay/Yangon B1 6,000 9,000 13,000 19,000

Thailand/Phnom Penh/Thailand T3, C1 13,000 23,000 31,000 42,000

Sihanoukville/PhnomPenh/Sihanoukville

C2 20,000 35,000 47,000 63,000

Haiphong/Hanoi/Haiphong V3, V2 59,000 86,000 127,000 188,000

Kunming/Haiphong/Kunming* Y3, V4 19,000 28,000 41,000 60,000

Vientiane/Laem Chabang/Vientiane T2**, T3 5,000 8,000 12,000 18,000

TOTAL FOR TAR IN Greater Mekong Area 122,000 189,000 271,000 390,000

* There is a strong possibility that this trade will in future be directed to a port in China. **Including future extension to Vientiane.

Sources of base data: Port and Customs Authorities

The above estimates might have been significantly higher were it not for the tendency of most countries of the area to direct their container traffic through their own port system, even if there was a risk that such a policy would impose additional cost on container shippers or consignees. Such a policy could, as indicated earlier, deny to the TAR traffic sourced in Yunnan Province of China, and in addition is likely to prevent the movement of maritime containers for the Cambodia-Europe trade via transhipment ports in Thailand or Malaysia.

These estimates, if realized, would mean a substantial increase from the level of traffic currently carried on certain of these lines. For example, assuming operation of container block trains each conveying 60 TEU, the additional number of trains generated on TAR Link V.3 (between Haiphong and Hanoi) would be two pairs per day in 2000, rising to 5 pairs per day by 2015. This would compare with a current traffic level of only 6 train pairs per day.

4.2 Service and Tariff Requirements

In the ASEAN Area, realization of the above-mentioned container traffic volumes will depend critically on the ability of the participating railway organizations to deliver competitive transit times - at least in line with those identified in Table 3 - and to offer a competitive through tariff, covering comprehensive service for the handling, transportation and delivery of containers, between an origin in Malaysia and a destination in Thailand, or vice versa. To a large extent, the ability to deliver competitive transit times will depend on border crossing delay (for whatever reason) being kept to a minimum. For this reason, there will need to be close cooperation between the relevant railway organizations (Malayan

12


Railways, or KTM and the State Railway of Thailand) and the customs authorities of the two countries. It should be noted that while there has been recent experience of movement of empty containers by rail in the corridor, thus far few, if any, loaded containers have crossed the border on railway wagons, suggesting a need by the customs authorities of both countries to adopt procedures allowing containers to pass with a minimal inspection of seals and documentation at the border (followed by a more detailed inspection if necessary at destination).

While KTM and the SRT have the benefit of a Joint Working Agreement which, amongst other things, specifies the tariff setting procedures to apply to international traffic, no through transit tariff for containers is currently in force in the TAR corridor. The current all-up charge made by feeder shipping operators for the handling and linehaul transportation of a 20 ft ISO container between Kelang and Bangkok is about US$ 480. Rail would at least have to match this rate to secure the traffic, at the same time providing the shipper with a saving in transit time of about 7 days (see Table 3). Based on the unit rate typically charged for the long distance rail haulage of containers in Malaysia, it should be possible for an all inclusive international rate to be established at about US$ 325 for the handling and linehaul rail transport of a 20 ft container from Kelang to Bangkok, which would be competitive with the shipping rate. If this rate had to be increased to cover the purchase of additional rollingstock and locomotives, there would be an ample margin between the charges of each mode to permit such an upward adjustment of the rail rate.

It is apparent that the ability of rail to secure container business in the TAR corridor is constrained by the fact that, unlike their shipping competitors, the railway organizations do not offer a comprehensive freight forwarding service to container shippers. It would be highly desirable for KTM and the SRT to consider establishing their own freight forwarding organization, either as a partnership between themselves, or as a joint venture with the private sector.

In the case of the TAR in the Greater Mekong Area, the rail transportation of containers is very much in its infancy. Within this area, only the SRT (and possibly the Chinese Railways) has had adequate experience of container haulage, and as a consequence has the necessary equipment, marketing organization and commercial skills to be able to effectively serve the needs of container shippers and consignees.

Container transportation by rail is commencing in Cambodia and in Viet Nam. What little information has been available for this study suggests that in neither country does the railway system offer a commercial container tariff. Instead, they have applied their traditional commodity based tariff structures to container traffic - even if this has resulted in tariff rates which are not competitive with those of alternative transport modes.

In this area, the railway organizations are also handicapped in their efforts to secure container transport business by the inadequacy of their infrastructure and of their locomotive and rollingstock fleets. In particular, Cambodia currently has an estimated deficiency of at least 30 specialized container flat wagons in its fleet, while Viet Nam has no specialized container carrying wagons in its fleet, and has recently had to embark on an accelerated programme of converting its standard flat wagons for the conveyance of containers.

13

5. SPECIFICATION OF MINIMUM TECHNICAL STANDARDS AND REQUIREMENTS

Trans-Asian Railway in the Indochina and ASEAN subregion, Volume 1, Executive Summary

One of the principal objectives of the study is to specify a set of minimum technical and operational standards to apply to the future development and operation of the TAR network in the subregion. It was a particular requirement of the study mandate that these standards be focussed on developing the TAR network for international container services, with three key technical/operational parameters in mind - outline gauge (or structure and vehicle gauge) dimensions; maximum permissible axle loads, and allowable operating speeds, which would permit services on the TAR links in the corridor to be competitive with other transport modes. Additionally, other standards, adherence to which would enhance the operational compatibility and efficiency of participating railways, were

to be specified.

5.1 Outline Gauge

Outline gauge dimensions were in fact defined by the dimensions of the highest and widest container load to be carried on the TAR network. This is the so-called “super high cube” 9 ft 6 ins non-ISO container with an above rail height (when loaded on a conventional container flat wagon of 1,010 mm height) of 3,906 mm, a width of 2,591 mm and a length of at least 13,716 mm (45 ft). To allow for the dynamics of vehicle motion and to provide a sufficient margin for safety, it is necessary that a minimum clearance of 300 mm be provided vertically and of 300-400 mm laterally between structures, such as tunnels and portal bridges, and the outside dimensions of moving loads of super high cube containers. Effectively, this would mean that the minimum clear height available within structures would have to be 4,200 mm and the minimum clear width 3,191-3,391 mm (ie. Super high cube container width plus 600-800 mm).

5.2 Axle Loads

The standard for the maximum permissible axle load, which is the maximum load permitted to bear vertically on track through rail vehicle axles, was determined by the greater of the typified maximum axle load imposed by modern diesel electric locomotives designed for metre gauge operations and the maximum axle load imposed by bogie container wagons designed to carry up to a single 45 ft container.

The maximum gross weight of 2, 900 HP diesel electric locomotives recently purchased by the SRT was assumed to be a typical case. This weight is 90 tonnes, spread over 6 axles, giving a maximum axle load of 15 tonnes. The maximum payload of a 45 ft container flat wagon is approximately 36 tonnes (calculated as 80 per cent of the maximum allowable gross weight of a 20 ft ISO container, multiplied by 2) and the wagon tare weight about 14 tonnes, giving a maximum gross load of 50 tonnes. Spread over 4 axles, this would be equivalent to an axle load of only 12.5 tonnes.

Clearly, the standard for the maximum permissible axle load needs to be established as 15 tonnes for metre gauge track.

14


Desirable Running Speeds

Since the maximum running speeds established for different types of trains (and sometimes for different types of rail vehicles) are one of the constraints on schedule speed (which is the result of dividing the distance between origin and destination by the elapsed transit time), it is important that maximum running speeds be established for container trains at a level consistent with the realization of a competitive schedule speed. Another important effect of maximum running speeds is the impact which they can have on line capacity - in general, the higher the maximum speed, the higher the schedule speed, the shorter the running time between sections, the greater (in consequence) will be the train throughput capacity of single line sections.

While it was acknowledged that there might be operational advantages in having the ability to schedule container trains at passenger train speeds (80-120 km/hour), it was considered that this would not be realistic in the short to medium term given the substantial works necessary to upgrade tracks and structures to these standards. Consequently, it was decided that a maximum running speed for container trains of 70 km /hour would be consistent with the achievement of a competitive transit speed within the range of 40- 50 km/hour.

Other Standards

There would be obvious advantages in ensuring compatibility between the equipment and the operating practices of neighbouring railway organizations engaged in border crossing traffic. Accordingly, it was considered that there should be uniformity in the type and height of coupler systems in use, as well as in the hauling capacity, coupler heights and type,and braking systems of locomotives. In addition, since operational efficiency would be enhanced by having a uniform train length for container trains, it was considered that a standard length for siding and crossing tracks of 500 metres (sufficient for a block train consisting of a single locomotive and 30 bogie container flat wagons) should be adopted.

6. CURRENT TECHNICAL AND OPERATIONAL STATUS OF THE TAR NETWORK

The current condition and capability of the TAR links nominated by participating countries was reviewed in relation to the recommended standards described above, in order to establish the extent of the physical works and associated costs required to achieve conformity with these standards.

6.1 Outline Gauges

In the ASEAN Area, the dimensions of structures on all of the nominated TAR links are sufficient to permit the conveyance of ISO standard containers of 8 ft (2.44 m) or 8 ft 6ins (2.59 m) height. The same is unfortunately not true for high cube (9 ft or 2.74 m high) or super high cube (9 ft 6 ins or 2.9 m high) containers, for which there are numerous restrictions throughout the TAR network in the ASEAN Area. Where restrictions on the conveyance of such containers are due mainly to the presence of bridges of the “through trussed” type, these restrictions can be removed at a comparatively small cost (depending

15


upon the number of bridges involved) by removing the top lateral bracings and strengthening the bottom and side members of such bridges. However, if the restrictions are caused by tunnel clearances, the solutions can be considerably more expensive. It was not possible to determine the full extent of restrictions imposed by bridges, since in most instances this would require detailed site surveys which were clearly beyond the scope of this study. However, all restrictions imposed by tunnels could be, and were, identified.

Of the TAR links nominated within Indonesia, Links 1.1, 1.2 and 1.4 have tunnels which would prevent conveyance of both high cube and super high cube containers. In the case of Malaysia, four tunnels on TAR Link M.1 prevent passage of super high cube containers, even if they are mounted on low profile flat wagons with an 850 mm floor height, but they offer sufficient clearance for containers of 9 ft height if carried on such wagons. The height restrictions imposed by the recent electrification of parts of Links M.1 and M.3 in Malaysia will also need to be taken into account in deciding what measures must be taken to permit transport of high cube containers. In Thailand, despite the recent expansion of the outline gauge on Link T.1, some 6 bridges of the through trussed type still restrict the passage of super high cube containers between Padang Besar and Bangkok.

In the Greater Mekong Area, the passage of super high cube containers is obstructed by bridge restrictions at four locations on Link T.3 in Thailand, and at numerous locations on both of Links C.1 and C.2 in Cambodia. In the case of Viet Nam, there is insufficient clearance (120 mm only) between the structure gauge applying to bridges and the top surfaces of super high cube containers mounted on standard height flat wagons, for safe operation. However, the tunnel sections of the Viet Nam Railways exceed the dimensions of the structure gauge and allow a clearance of 480 mm for the passage of super high cube containers. The structure gauge of the Myanma Railways is the most restrictive of all railway systems in this area. It has an above rail height of only 3,155 mm at the sides and 3,770 mm above the track centre, rendering it incapable of accomodating containers o f all heights, if they are mounted on standard height flat wagons. To overcome this problem, the Myanma Railways has recently purchased “well” type wagons of Chinese manufacture, with a floor height of only 632 mm. These wagons can carry containers with a height of up to 8 ft 6 ins without infringing the structure gauge.

It is understood that outline gauge restrictions are likely to apply on the metre gauge Link Y.3 in Yunnan Province of China, but no details were provided.

6.2 Axle Loads

In the ASEAN Area, an axle load limit of at least 15 tonnes already applies throughout most of the nominated TAR network, the only exceptions being: on 115 km of Link 1.3 (Northern Sumatra), where an 11 tonne axle load currently applies and on 146 km of Link 1.1 (Java) where a 13 tonne axle load currently applies.

In the Greater Mekong Area, only the TAR Links nominated in Thailand satisfy the 15 tonne axle load requirement. In Cambodia, neglected maintenance throughout the war period has resulted in the imposition of axle load limits well below their design levels. The limits currently enforced are 10 tonnes on Link C.1 and 15 tonnes on C.2. In Viet Nam, an axle load of 14 tonnes applies on all TAR links. The axle load limit applying on Link Y.3 in

16


Yunnan Province of China is understood to be 18 tonnes - comfortably above the standard recommended for the TAR network. In Myanmar, however, an axle load of only 12.5 tonnes applies throughout the existing lengths of both Links B.1 and B.2.

6.3 Desirable Operating Speeds

In the ASEAN Area, the maximum speeds applying to freight train operations are generally low in: Indonesia, where speed limits in the range of 45-60 km/hour apply on all links, except 713 km of Link 1.1 and all of Link 1.2 (both on the island of Java), where maximum freight train speeds of 75 km/hour apply; and Malaysia, where a maximum freight train speed of 56 km/hour applies throughout the system. In the case of Thailand, a 70 km/hour maximum speed generally applies to freight train operations throughout the system.

In the Greater Mekong Area, the poor condition of both existing TAR Links in Cambodia has necessitated the imposition of maximum speed restrictions in the range of 35-40 km/hour on all train categories. In Viet Nam, generally low maximum freight train speeds are applied throughout all nominated TAR links: On Link V.1, the restriction is in the range of 50-60 km/hour; on Link V.2 it is 30-40 km/hour; and on Link V.3, it is 40 km/hour. In Myanmar, a maximum freight train speed of 32-48 km/hour is applied throughout Link B.1, but on Link B.2, the limit is only 32 km/hour.

7. DEVELOPMENT NEEDS FOR THE TAR NETWORK IN THE SUBREGION

An assessment was made in Volumes 2 and 3 of a physical development programme for the TAR network in the subregion. This programme was assessed in relation to:

■ the requirement to upgrade existing TAR links to the recommended standards outlined in Section 5, above;

■ a requirement to eliminate gaps in the network by constructing new and missing links; and

■ a requirement to provide sufficient line, locomotive and rollingstock capacity to satisfy the forecasted demand for the international transportation of containers on the TAR network.

This programme was then costed, in order to establish the likely order of magnitude of the investment required.

7.1 Network Upgrading to Handle High Profile Containers

In the ASEAN Area, the required upgrading to permit the conveyance of super high cube containers would involve, at minimum, expansion of the clearances available in: three tunnels in Indonesia (two on Link 1.1 and one on Link 1.1), for a total length of 1,752 metres: 4 tunnels on Link M.1 in Malaysia, for a total length of 800 metres; and 6 bridges on Link T.1 in Thailand. These are only partial estimates of the work required, since as explained

17


earlier it was not possible to identify the full extent of the bridges which currently pose obstacles to the conveyance of high profile containers.

For the removal of these outline gauge restrictions, two alternatives are available - either the structure gauge is expanded by, for example lowering the level of track through

tunnels, or. “well” type wagons with a dropped centre section and a floor height in this centre section of as little as 500 mm above the rail, can be introduced into service.

Both alternatives were costed in Volume 2. In the case of tunnel gauge expansion, unit costs of US$ 150 per cubic metre for excavation and US$ 400,000 per kilometre for trackwork were used.5 In the case of “well” type wagon acquisition, an estimated purchase cost of US$ 100,000 per wagon was used, and the number of wagons required was calculated on the assumption that super high cube containers would represent only 0.5 per cent of container volume at the beginning of the 20 year forecast period (1996), rising progressively to 3.0 per cent of container volume by the end of this period (2015). The resulting estimates of the capital cost associated with each option showed that tunnel gauge expansion (bridge gauge expansion in the case of Thailand) was likely to be a cheaper alternative than specialized wagon acquisition. However, for the reason given earlier, the full extent of gauge expansion costs could not be determined in the case of Indonesia and Malaysia, and the wagon alternative would have the advantage that wagon purchases could be scheduled in line with traffic growth (unlike the gauge expansion alternative, the costs of which would be borne at the beginning of the forecast period).

The comparative costs were: for Indonesia, US$ 2.4 million for tunnel gauge expansion and US$ 6.0 million for specialized wagon acquisition; for Malaysia, US$ 1.8 million for tunnel gauge expansion and US$ 2.8 million for specialized wagon acquisition (total cost shared equally with Thailand ); and for Thailand, US$ 0.3 million for bridge gauge expansion and US$ 2.8 million for specialized wagon acquisition.

In the case of the Greater Mekong Area, outline gauge enlargement would be required on one link in Thailand (four bridges on Link T.3), both existing links in Cambodia, all existing links in Viet Nam, and both existing links in Myanmar.

Owing to the predominance of through trussed bridges in Cambodia and Viet Nam, it was considered that the acquisition of low profile wagons would provide a more cost effective solution, than bridge modification, to the problem of outline gauge restrictions in both countries. The same assumptions were used in calculating the costs of wagon acquisition as were used in the case of the ASEAN area. These costs were calculated at US$ 0.5 million for Cambodia and US$ 0.7 million for Viet Nam.

In the case of Myanmar, the purchase of low profile wagons would not present a satisfactory solution to the problem of outline gauge restrictions, since super high cube containers would still infringe the structure gauge even if mounted on “well” type wagons with a floor height in their centre sections of only 500 mm above the rail. The poor condition

5 These costs are derived from actual costs of tunnel construction on the recently completed Klong Sip Kao-Kaeng Khoi Junction new line construction project in Thailand.

18


of many bridges on the existing links in Myanmar would suggest that their replacement with prestressed concrete bridges could now be justified. At the same time, the new bridge sections could offer an expanded structure gauge and eliminate obstacles to the conveyance of super high cube containers. Based on an average cost (from SRT sources) of US$ 11,000 per metre length for prestressed concrete bridges and a need to replace a total of 5,701 metres for both existing TAR links, the total cost of bridge replacement was estimated at US$ 62.6 million.

7.2 Network Upgrading to Increase Axle Load Limits

In the ASEAN Area, only a total of 209 km of the nominated TAR network in Indonesia would require upgrading to 15 tonne axle load standards, specifically for container haulage. This would be achieved by bridge strengthening and re-laying of track in UIC 54 rail with pre-stressed concrete sleepers, at an estimated cost of US$ 340,000 per kilometre. The total capital cost of this work would be US$ 71.1 million.

In the Greater Mekong Area, upgrading to increased axle load standards would be required in Cambodia, Viet Nam and Myanmar. In Cambodia on TAR Link C.1, approximately 2,538 metres of bridge replacement at a cost of US$ 27.9 million and 270 km of track renewal at a cost of US$ 59.4 million would be required to restore the line to its design axle load of 15 tonnes. Achievement of a 15 tonne axle load throughout Link C.2 would require upgrading work costing an estimated US$ 8 million.

In Viet Nam, all proposed TAR links are theoretically capable of accepting only 14 tonne axle loads. Of these links, Link V.1 is not expected to be important for the transportation of containers and may not require strengthening for an increaed axle load in the short term. The remaining three links V.2, V.3 and V.4, with a total route length of 549 km, and particularly the 102 km Link V.3 (which is expected to become an important container carrying artery), will require upgrading to accept 15 tonne axle loads at estimated costs of US$ 60 million, US$ 25 million and US$ 38 million, respectively.

In Yunnan Province of China, the 468 km Kunming-Hekou metre gauge line (identified as TAR Link Y.3) is understood to be capable of accepting 18 tonne axle loads, and would therefore not require upgrading for the purpose of increasing its axle load limit.

In Myanmar, the two existing TAR links (B.1 and B.2), with current axle loads of only12.5 tonnes, would require re-laying in rail with a minimum weight of 40 kg/metre, in order to satisfy a requirement for 15 tonne axle loads. For a total track length of 1,802 km, at a unit cost of US$ 220,000 per kilometre, the cost of this upgrading work would be US$ 396.4 million.

7.3 Network Upgrading to Increase Speeds

The maximum speed requirement for container carrying trains is recommended in this study as 70 km/hour. Of the narrow gauge railways of the subregion, only those of Thailand and (in part) Indonesia currently satisfy this requirement.

19

Trans-Asian Railway in the Indochina and ASEAN Subregion. Volume 1. Executive Summary

While it has not been possible to determine whether incremental upgrading of track and bridges would be required in Malaysia to allow an increase in maximum freight train speeds from 56 km/hour to 70 km/hour, it can be safely concluded that the recommended upgrading of the other participating railway systems for increased axle loads will also satisfy the requirement for increased speeds. Therefore, in general, it is not envisaged that there would be a need for additional investment solely for the purpose of achieving increased speeds, unless of course it were decided to increase maximum speeds significantly beyond the recommended 70 km/hour freight train speed.

7.4 Network Upgrading to Expand Line Capacity

The capacity of the existing links in the TAR network to handle the forecast additional container traffic outlined in Section 4 depends, amongst other things, on the daily train throughput, or line, capacity of these links.6 This, in turn depends on the interaction of many other factors, the principal ones being: schedule speeds; line topography (gradient and curvature); the number and spacing of crossing tracks or loops on single line sections; the conditions of track, structures, locomotives and rollingstock; and the type of signalling/safeworking system in operation.7 Clearly, the need to expand line capacity will arise from the forecasted total level of traffic, on each section of each link. Consequently, the costs and benefits of line capacity expansion must be shared by all traffic segments using the line(s) under study. While container traffic would be one of the main beneficiaries of increased line capacity, it could not be expected to bear the total cost involved in line capacity expansion.

The physical capacity and costs of required line capacity expansion on the nominated TAR links in current operation were determined with the assistance of the line capacity planning element of the ESCAP Railway Capital Project Appraisal Model. For each link, the model was run under alternative traffic growth rate assumptions of 4 per cent and 8 per cent per annum for a 20 year forecast period (1996-2015). Maximum speeds for freight trains were assumed at 70 km/hour, and the schedule speeds relating to this maximum speed were calculated in the same ratio as that applying between current schedule and maximum speeds. The capital cost of providing additional trackage for train crossing purposes was calculated at the unit rate of US$ 1.35 million per track kilometre. For those links which are not currently equipped with relay interlockings and colour light signals, it was assumed that the installation of signalling systems of this type would be required at least by the end of the forecast period, at an estimated unit cost of US$ 150,000 per kilometre.

6 Daily train throughput is the maximum number of trains per day which can pass through a given line section.

7In practice, line capacity is also influenced by axle loads (affecting the carrying capacity of freight

wagons) and the hauling capacity of locomotives (affecting the length of trains), but these factors are presumed to be fixed for each Link at the levels specified in the standards recommended for the TAR.

20


For the ASEAN Area, line capacity limitations are severe on some sections of Link1.1 in Indonesia and of Link T.1 in Thailand. Accordingly, it was determined that additional trackage for train crossing purposes would be required, as shown in Table 5.

Table 5: Line Capacity Expansion Requirements, ASEAN Area, Twenty Year Forecast Period, 1996-2015

Country TAR Link Type of Line Capacity

Expansion Required

Additional Trackage (Km) Required with Assumed Traffic GrowthRate

of:

4 per cent p.a. 8 per cent p.a.

Indonesia 1.1 Track Doubling 135.0 712.0

Crossing Loop Addition 16.3 12.1

1.2 Track Doubling 76.9 76.9

Crossing Loop Addition - -

1.3 Crossing Loop Addition 0.9 4.9

1.4 Crossing Loop Addition 6.4 28.4

Sub-Total 235.5 834.3

Malaysia M.1 Track Doubling - 85.5


Sub-Total 3.0 114,0

Thailand T.1 Track Doubling 57.0 461.3


Sub-Total 63.0 48 2.6

Note: No additional trackage required in the case of Link M.2 (Bukit Mertajam-Padang Besar)

Based on the above unit costs, the total costs of line capacity expansion (including re-signalling, where applicable ) were calculated as:

■ 4 per cent Traffic Growth CaseUS$ 538.2 million for Indonesia; US$ 76.8 million for Malaysia; and US$182.4 million for Thailand (TAR Link T.1 only); and

■ 8 per cent Traffic Growth CaseUS$ 1,523.4 million for Indonesia; US$ 256.1 million for Malaysia; and US$848.3 million for Thailand (TAR Link T.1 only).

For the Greater Mekong Area, line capacity expansion requirements were determined for existing TAR links in Thailand, Viet Nam and Myanmar.

21

Trans-Asian Railway in the Indochina and ASEAN subregion. Volume 1, Executive Summary

In the case of Cambodia, the two existing links (C.1 and C.2) will not require capacity expansion, as they are currently operating well below their theoretical maximum capacity and with their upgrading for higher axle loads and higher speeds will, in any event, have capacity for substantially increased daily train throughputs.

In the case of Viet Nam, determination of requirements for line capacity expansion was only possible for Link V.3, since comprehensive details of crossing station numbers and train densities were not provided in respect of the other three links.

Similarly, insufficient information was available in respect of Link Y.3 in Yunnan Province of China, although it is understood that train density on this route is now significantly in excess of theoretical capacity. It is likely, however, that this route would be reconstructed in double track if a decision were made to convert it to standard gauge.

Table 6: Line Capacity Expansion Requirements, Greater Mekong Area, Twenty Year Forecast Period, 1996-2015

Country TAR Link Type of Line Capacity

Expansion Required

Additional Trackage (Km) Required with Assumed Traffic GrowthRate

of:

4 per cent p.a. 8 per cent p.a.

Thailand T.2/ T.4/T.5 (Common Section)

Track Trebling 90.0 90.0

T.2 Track Doubling 35.0 35.0





Crossing Loop Addition - -



Sub-Total 439.9 858.6

Viet Nam V.3 Crossing Loop Addition - 1.0

Sub-Total • 1.0

Myanmar B.1 Crossing Loop Addition - 6.0

Sub-Total - 6.0

22


Based on the physical requirements as shown in Table 6 and using the same unit costs as were used for the ASEAN Area, the costs of line capacity expansion in the Greater Mekong Area were calculated as:

■ 4 per cent Traffic Growth CaseUS$ 845.7 million for Thailand; No line capacity expansion required in Viet Nam or Myanmar under this scenario; and

■ 8 per cent Traffic Growth CaseUS$ 2,043.1 million for Thailand; US$ 11.7 million for Viet Nam (Link V.3 only); and US$ 163.1 million for Myanmar.

It should be noted that a comprehensive financial and economic evaluation o f a programme to expand line capacity on TAR routes was not possible as part of the present study, involving as it would a detailed assessment o f costs and benefits individually associated with a ll traffic segments. However, such an evaluation would be essential prior to finalization o f a finacing plan and timetable for the programme.

7.5 Capital Costs of a Programme to Construct Missing Links in the TAR

The realization of a continuous Trans-Asian Railway network in the subregion depends vitally on the construction of missing and new links, totalling about 3,200 km.

All but one of these links are located in the Greater Mekong Area and are described in detail in Volume 3 of this report. With the exception only of the extension of Link T.5 into the territory of the Lao People’s Democratic Republic, all of these missing and new links were evaluated in the 1994 ADB Subregional Transport Sector Study. The evaluations contained in this study were, however, limited to a breakeven analysis of the future volumes of traffic required in order to achieve a specified rate of return on project capital outlays. In the absence of adequate traffic forecasts, this was the only practical approach which could be adopted, but it has the disadvantage that no definitive ranking of projects can be made without an assessment also being made of the probability of achievement of the breakeven traffic voumes. It is also important that the ranking of the railway construction projects against road construction projects (which presumably would compete for limited funds) should be determined on a like-for-like basis, in which all infrastrucure and equipment costs associated with both competing modes are taken into account.

Comprehensive financial and economic evaluations of new and missing link construction programmes were also beyond the scope of the present study, but it is strongly recommended that the relevant railway and transport administrations should now commit resources to the preparation of the traffic forecasts which will provide the essential foundation for these evaluations.

The approach adopted for the present study was to update or supplement the capital cost estimates for the railway construction projects evaluated in the ADB Subregional Transport Sector Study. The updated or supplementary estimates are shown in Table 7.

23


Table 7 : Capital Costs of TAR Missing/New Link Construction

Country/ TAR Link Section Length (Km) Estimated Cost (US$ million)

Malaysia

M.4 Jahor Bahru-Tanjung Pelepas 30 45.0

Thailand

T.4 Nakhon Sawan-Mae Sod 284 426.0

T.5 Ubon Ratchathani-Chong Mek 90 135.0

T.6 Mae Sai-Chiang Rai 60 90.0

Denchai-Chiang Rai 270 405.0

Cambodia

C.1 Sisophon-Poipet 48 72.0

C.3 Phnom Penh-Loc Ninh (Viet Nam) 305 457.5

or or or

C.4 Phnom Penh-Svay Rieng 135 202.5

Viet Nam Ho Chi Minh City-Cambodian Border 105 157.5

Yunnan Province of China

Y.1 Xiangyun-Jinhong 627 1,134.9

Jinghong-Shangyong 94 170.1

Jinghong-Daluo (Myanmar) 141 255.2

Y.2 Dali-Kachang/Houqiao (Myanmar) 330 597.3

Lao PDR Vientiane-Nong Khai (Thailand) 30 45.0

Vientiane-Boten (Border with China) 510 765.0

Pakse-Chong Mek (Thailand) 30 45.0

Myanmar

B.1 Myitkyina-Kachang/Houqiao 100 150.0

B.2 Thaton-Myawaddy 166 249.0

B.3 Daluo-Tachilek 195 292.5

TOTAL 3,245 5,237.0

Notes: (1) Y.2 Kunming-Dali (380 km) not included, as construction already underway(2) Total excludes cost of constructing Link C.3 which is an alternative to Link C.4

24

Trans-Asian Railway in the Indochina and ASEAN subregion. Volume 1. Executive Summon

With the exception of the costs of constructing missing links in China, the above cost estimates were based on the unit construction cost of the newly completed Kaeng Khoi Junction to Klong Sip Kao Line in Thailand. This line was considered to most closely represent the standards to be adopted for future development of the TAR network. (It will be noted that the unit costs of new line construction can vary within a wide range, depending upon the condition of the subsoil, the number and length of bridges and/or tunnels, the number of stations and sidings and the type of signalling/safeworking system employed). The all inclusive unit construction cost for this line was US$ 1.5 million per kilometre.

In the case of new TAR links in China, unit costs were based on the current cost estimates for the Xiangyun-Shangyong line construction project, as supplied by the Yunnan Railway General Corporation. The unit cost for the latter project (US$ 1.81 million/km) reflect construction of an electrified line to 1435 mm gauge standards.

The Kaeng Khoi Junction to Klong Sip Kao line was constructed to the following specifications and standards:

The recent experience of the State Railway of Thailand has indicated that the percentage distribution, by type, of the costs of new line construction is typically as follows:

7.6 Requirements of Specialized Container Rollinqstock

All participating railway systems would need to purchase additional numbers of specialized container wagons to meet the forecasted demand for transportation of containers on TAR links over the next 20 years.

In the ASEAN Area, it was estimated that a total of 1098 wagons would be required for the additional container transportation task on Link I.2 in Indonesia, while 727 wagons would be required for container transportation between Port Kelang and Bangkok over the next 20 years. The associated capital cost of these wagon purchases was estimated to be

Single line, 1,000 mm gauge track20 tonne axle load120 km/hour maximum speed1000 metre minimum radius of curvature1 per cent maximum gradient5,100 mm minimum clearance from rail level (structure gauge)500 metre minimum siding or loop lengthSemi-automatic (tokenless) block, colour light signals and train despatching telephone

Civil works (embankments, tunnels and bridges) Track Works (rail/sleeper laying and ballasting): Buildings and utilities:Signalling and telecommunications:Project management:

50-65 per cent 15-25 per cent 3-5 per cent 10-15 per cent 3-5 per cent

25


US$ 87.8 million in the case of Indonesia and US$ 58.2 million in the case of Malaysia and Thailand.

In the Greater Mekong Area, additional container wagon requirements were estimated at: 340 for Bangkok-Phnom Penh traffic; 173 for Phnom Penh-Sihanoukville traffic; 172 for Haiphong-Hanoi traffic; 83 for Laem Chabang-Vientiane traffic; and 69 for Yangon-Mandalay traffic. If in future, containers to/from Yunnan Province of China could be routed through Haiphong Port, there would be a requirement for 275 container wagons to be allocated to this traffic. The capital costs associated with purchase of these wagons has been estimated at: US$ 27.2 million for Thailand; US$ 13.8 million for Cambodia; US$ 22.0 million for China; US$ 6.6 million for the Lao PDR; and US$ 5.5 million for Myanmar.

In all cases, it was assumed that the wagons to be purchased would be of the skeletal type, with a sufficient deck length to accept a single 45 ft container.

7.7 Locomotive Requirements

Similarly, transportation of the container volumes forecast for the Trans-Asian Railway network in the subregion would require investment in new locomotives.

For the ASEAN Area, requirements over the next 20 years have been estimated at: 15 for Indonesia and 24 for Malaysia/Thailand, with associated costs estimated at US$ 37.5 million and US$ 60.0 million, respectively.

For the Greater Mekong Area, locomotive purchase requirements (and associated costs) were estimated at: 3 (US$ 7.5 million) for Thailand; 2 (US$ 5.0 million) for Cambodia; 3 (US$ 7.5 million) for Viet Nam; 4 (US$ 10.0 million) for China; 2 (US$ 5.0 million) for the Lao PDR; and 2 (US$ 5.0 million) for Myanmar.

The calculations of locomotive requirements were based on an assumption of block train operation for container traffic. Locomotives with an power rating of at least 2,500 HP would be required, to permit single unit haulage of typical block train loads of 1,200 gross trailing tonnes.

7.8 Consolidated Cost of TAR Network Development

Tables 8 and 9 present a summary, by category and country, of the capital costs estimated to be required for the future development of the TAR network in the subregion.

26


Table 8 : Consolidated Capital Costs of TAR Network Development,in the ASEAN Area, 1996-2015

(US$ million)

c a t e g o r y / Growth Rate (if applicable)

COUNTRY

Indonesia Malaysia Thailand (South of Bangkok)

TOTAL

Upgrade outline Gauge/1 2.4 1.3 0 3 4 . 5Upgrade Axle Load/Increase Speed 71.1 - - 7 1 . 1

Line Capacity Expansion

4 per cent growth 538.2 76.8 182 4797.4

8 per cent Growth 1,523 4 256. 1 848.3 2,627.8

Missing Link construction 45.0 4 5 .0Container Wagon Acquisition/2 87 8 21. 2 37.0 146.0

Locomotive Acquisition/2 37.5 21. 8 38 2 97.5

TO TAL

4 p e r cent Growth

8 per cent Growth

7 3 7 .01 , 7 2 2 . 2

1 6 6 . 63 4 5 . 9

1,161.5

2 , 9 9 1 . 9

Capital costs appearing in this table relate to tunnel or bridge enlargement. If the alternative of introducing low floor wagons were to be adopted, the costs would be: Indonesia, US$ 6.0 million; Malaysia, US$ 2.8 million; and Thailand, US$ 2.8 million.

Capital costs apportioned between Malaysia and Thailand in the ratio of length of haul in each country to total length of haul.

27

Trans-Asian Railway in the Indochina and ASEAN Subregion. Volume 1. Executive Summary

Table 9 : Consolidated Capital Costs of TAR Network Development,in the Greater Mekong Area, 1996-2015

(US$ million)

CATEGORY/ Growth Rate

(if applicable)

COUNTRY

Thailand Cambodia Viet Nam China Lao PDR MyanmarTO T A L

Upgrade Outline Gauge

0.3 0.5 0.7 62.6 6 4 . 1

Upgrade Axle Load/Increase Speed

87.3 123.0 383.0 333.3

Line Capacity Expansion

4 per cent Growth

8 per cent Growth

645 7

2,043.1 11 7 163 1

8

45.7

2 ,217.9

Missing Link Construction

1,056.0 274 5 1575 2157.5 855 0 691.5 5,192.0

Container Wagon Acquisition

27.2* 13.8 1 3 .8 22.0 6.6** 5.5 88.9

LocomotiveAcquisition

7.5* 5.0 7.5 10.0 5.0** 5.0 40.0

TOTAL

4 per cent Growth 8 per cent Growth

1,936.73,134.1 3 8 1 . 1

381.1

302.5314.2

2,189.5

2,189.5

866.6866.6

1,147. 6

1,310.7

6,824.0

8,196.2

* Shared with Cambodia **Shared with Thailand

28

8. FACILITATION MEASURES FOR CROSS BORDER TRANSPORT ON THE TAR


NETWORK

The mandate for this study (the ESCAP 48th Commission Session endorsement of the ALTID project) recognized that measures aimed at the elimination of administrative or institutional bottlenecks to the smooth flow of railway vehicles and loading across national borders were as important as measures aimed at the improvement of railway infrastructure. Examples from within the region of the failure of railway systems to realize a satisfactory rate of return on heavy investments in railway infrastructure and equipment on border crossing routes owing to administrative deficiencies (such as the lack of an effective international tariff setting mechanism which would help to generate sufficient traffic) serve to reinforce this recognition.

The two main types of delay which can interfere with the smooth flow of border crossing railway traffic are:

■ Delays due to customs and security control procedures; and

■ Delays due to railway operational and administrative procedures (such as train inspection, brake testing, checking of wagons and their equipment, recording of wagon and consignment details, etc.).

Delays to trains at borders can often be much greater than en-route operational delays, and can therefore have a detrimental impact on railway competitive performance. Clearly, the application by neighbouring countries of harmonized administrative procedures which will contribute to a reduction, rather than to a prolongation, of such delays, is potentially of mutual benefit to these countries. At the government to government level, these procedures can be embodied in international and bi-lateral transit and customs agreements, and at the level of neighbouring railway systems, they can be incorporated in jo int railway working agreements.

8.1 International and Bilateral Transit and Customs Agreements

At its forty-eighth session, the ESCAP Commission adopted resolution 48/11 of 23 April 1992 on road and rail facilitation measures. In that resolution, the Commission recommended that the countries of the region, if they had already done so, consider the possibility of acceding to seven international conventions in the field of transport facilitation.

Of these seven conventions, two - the Customs Convention on Containers (1972) and the International Convention on the Harmonization of Frontier Control of Goods (1982) - are of direct relevance to railway transport. However, to date, only one of the countries

participating in the Trans-Asian Railway project in this subregion has acceded to at least one of these conventions. (China has in fact acceded to the Customs Convention on Containers).

The advantages of accession to these conventions arise mainly from the fact that they would establish standards for border customs control which might form a suitable basis for subsequent bilateral agreements between neighbouring countries. In the longer term, the

29


uniformity of customs control procedures provided through observance of these conventions would also be beneficial to the smooth and rapid flow of border crossing railway traffic. Active consideration of the benefits of accession to these conventions by the countries participating in this project is therefore strongly recommended.

In terms of the improvements required in bilateral customs and transit agreements between neighbouring countries, it was observed (in Section 4) that the cooperation of the customs authorities of Malaysia and Thailand in enforcing minimal container inspections at the border was essential if competitive transit times were to be achieved for a container rail bridging service between the two countries. This is not in any way to suggest that inspection standards be relaxed, but rather that the detailed inspections be undertaken after the arrival of trains at their destination.

Similar cooperation is required between the customs and security authorities of China and Viet Nam in realizing increased trade following the imminent resumption of border crossing railway traffic between the two countries.

8.2 Railway Joint Operating Agreements

The cooperation between the Malayan Railway (KTM) and the Thai State Railway (SRT) in the exchange of international passenger and freight traffic is frequently hailed as a good example of what can be achieved when the railway systems of neighbouring countries agree to establish joint facilities at the border for the reception, marshalling, inspection and light repair of trains from both systems. Such is the arrangement currently applying on one border crossing line at Padang Besar Station (on Malaysian territory) and on another border crossing line at Sungei Golok Station (on Thai territory). Operation of these stations is governed by a Joint Working Agreement between the two railway organizations, which has been in force since 1954.

In addition, the joint working agreement sets out rules for the exchange of rollingstock, locomotives and other railway equipment, for tariff setting in relation to border crossing traffic, for financial settlements related to the distribution of revenue and the sharing of costs, and for liability in the case of accidents or misadventure to passengers, goods, railway equipment and other property. The essential feature of the agreement which distinguishes it from working agreements between railway organizations in other parts of the region is that it is centred around the joint operation of a single border station, thereby avoiding the duplication of facilities and resources, as well as the transit delay, inherent in the more conventional system of having a station each side of the border, each under separate administrative control.

The Malaysia/Thailand Railway Joint Working Agreement can therefore be commended as a model for adoption by other railway organizations of the subregion, as they move closer to the realization of a continuous Trans-Asian Railway network on which international rail services (and, in particular, container transport services) can be provided.

It is possible that ESCAP can play a constructive role in developing the framework of such a model agreement, with the cooperation of the Malaysian and Thai Railway organizations.

30


9. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The analysis of requirements for the development of the Trans-Asian Railway in the Indo-China and ASEAN Subregion, as contained in Volumes 2 and 3 of this Report, has identified numerous actions essential for the realization of a fully operational TAR network in the subregion. The success of the project now depends vitally on a strong commitment by participating countries to giving effect to these actions. To assist this process, an Action Plan has been developed as a basis for discussion at the Policy Level Expert Group Meeting held in February 1996. The actions recommended in this plan have been prioritized into actions which should be taken immediately (eg. endorsements by the Policy Level Expert Group Meeting), actions which can be taken in the short term (ie. within the next 1-2 years), and actions which can be taken in the longer term, but in any event, not beyond four years from now.

DRAFT ACTION PLAN for

DEVELOPMENT OF THE TRANS-ASIAN RAILWAY IN THE INDO-CHINA AND ASEAN SUBREGION

1. Immediate Actions

Action 1: Endorsement by the Policy-level Expert Group Meeting of a guiding operational objective, which adequately defines the expected role of the TAR in the subregion. It is recommended that the following operational objective be adopted:

The Trans-Asian Railway in the Indo-China and ASEAN Subregion should in future provide an efficient and competitive means of transporting containers between and among the countries o f the subregion, with a minimum of border crossing delays.

Action 2: Endorsement by the Policy-level Expert Group Meeting of the TAR network in the subregion, as identified by the countries participating in the study and as described in the study Report. This action should be followed by a recommendation that the identified TAR network in the Indo-China and ASEAN Subregion should be formally designated as such.

Action 3: Endorsement by the Policy-level Expert Group Meeting of the technical and operational standards recommended in the study Report for future application throughout the TAR network of the subregion.

2. Short Term Actions (within 1-2 years)

Action 4: With a view to establishing a Railway Landbridging Service for container transport between Malaysia and Thailand, it is suggested that a study on traffic opportunities between Malaysia and Thailand should be undertaken and if sufficient demand is indicated, then the railway organizations of Malaysia and Thailand should:

31

Trans-Asian Railway in the Indochina and ASEAN subregion, Volume 1, Executive Summary

Action 5:

Action 6:

Action 7:

(i) Actively consider the possibility of forming a joint venture freight forwarding company to compete with the shipping lines for international container business;

(ii) Jointly establish a through international ra ilway tariff, at a level competitive with shipping rates, for routine application to the rail movement of all types of containers between Malaysia and Thailand;

Jointly develop schedules for the through operation, between origins and destinations in either country, of fixed formation container block trains, each consisting of 30 bogie container flat wagons. (Initially, it would be sufficient if such trains could be scheduled to operate at current freight train speeds, but they should no t be scheduled to be detained at border stations beyond the time necessary to effect locomotive changes, to carry out customs inspection o f documentation and to apply container seals);

Jointly review the rollingstock and locomotive requirements for the service in the light of the analysis in the study report, and establish a financing plan and a timetable for acquisition of this equipment;

(V) In order to further reduce delays, secure agreement with the customs authorities of Thailand and Malaysia for further improvements to procedures for border-crossing controls; and

The State Railway of Thailand should survey potential container volume sourced in Thailand with a view to establishing ICDs for local stuffing and loading of containers to rail for export.

The railway organizations of Cambodia, Viet Nam, China and Myanmar should survey the potential for container transport, both domestic and international, and establish a form of contract and a dedicated tariff structure for the transport of containers. In the case of potential international traffic, a through international tariff structure should be established. (The dedicated tariff structure should replace the traditional commodity based tariff which is currently applied to container traffic, should be set at a competitive level, and should incorporate volume, time o f day/week/year and performance incentives).

The railway organizations of Cambodia, Viet Nam and Myanmar should review their future requirements for locomotives and specialized container rollingstock in the light of the analysis in the study report, and establish a financing plan and timetable for the acquisition of this equipment.

To promote smooth and efficient cross-border traffic:

(i) Special facilitation committees should be established at national level to help to improve the efficiency of rail cross-border transport, as in

32


3.

Action

Action

Action

addition to railways, customs, police and other authorities are involved in cross-border procedures;

(ii) The participating countries, if they have not already done so, should consider the possibility of acceding to the international conventions mentioned in the ESCAP Resolution 48/11 on road and rail transport modes in relation to facilitation measures, as well as to the Convention and Statute on Freedom of Transit, Barcelona, 20 April 1921 and the Convention on Transit Trade of Land-locked States, New York, 8 July 1965; and

(iii) ESCAP should ensure that the related seminars on the Implications of Accession to Land (Road and Rail) Transport Facilitation Conventions to be held in 1996-1997 will adequately cover the issues, advantages and implications of accession to relevant international conventions.

Longer Term Actions) (within 4 years)

8: A draft transit agreement covering operations on the designated TAR network in the Indo-China and ASEAN Subregion, and for possible future application elsewhere in the ESCAP region, should be developed under the auspices of the United Nations. (This agreement should incorporate technical and operational standards to which the participating railway organizations would be expected to conform).

9: ESCAP should develop a model railway joint working agreement (based on the Malaysia/Thailand as well as other agreements currently in force) for application throughout the region.

10: The railway organizations of all participating countries should evaluate their own TAR Development Programme, based on the analysis in the study, of the physical and investment requirements needed to ensure conformity with the endorsed technical and operational standards for the TAR in the subregion. In particular:

Traffic Forecasts should be reviewed, refined and amended as necessary;

Capital and Operating Cost estimates for all TAR development options should be refined;

Comprehensive Financial and Economic Appraisals of the components of the development plan should be undertaken against alternative mode development (with a like for like comparison of costs)

33


A Financing Plan and Works Schedule should then be established for the TAR Development Programme

Action 11 : The railway organizations of Indonesia and Malaysia should jointly investigate the technical alternatives for connecting their systems by ferry links.

34

trans-asian railway route requirements ......trans-asian railway in the indochina and asean...

Documents