Tarsc-Fulltext 1980

ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMISSION FOR ASIA AND THE PACIFIC
DEVELOPMENT OF
THE TRANS-ASIAN RAILWAY
TRANS-ASIAN RAILWAY IN
THE SOUTHERN CORRIDOR
OF ASIA-EUROPE ROUTES
UNITED NATIONS
ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMISSION FOR ASIA AND THE PACIFIC
DEVELOPMENT OF
THE TRANS-ASIAN RAILWAY
TRANS-ASIAN RAILWAY
IN THE SOUTHERN CORRIDOR
OF ASIA-EUROPE ROUTES
UNITED NATIONS
New York, 1999
ST/ESCAP/1980
This publication was prepared by Peter Hodgkinson, Consultant, with financial support
by the Government of Germany through GTZ German Technical Cooperation.
The description employed and the presentation of material in this publication 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.
This publication has been issued without formal editing.

CONTENTS
Page
1. INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................1
2. NETWORK IDENTIFICATION ............................................................................................3

2.1 Routes of international significance .........................................................................3
2.1.1 Route TAR-S1 .............................................................................................5
2.1.2 Route TAR-S2 .............................................................................................5
2.1.3 Route TAR-S3 .............................................................................................7
2.2 Routes of subregional significance ..........................................................................8
2.3 Description of TAR links within participating countries ...........................................8
2.3.1 TAR (Southern Corridor) in Bangladesh ......................................................8
2.3.2 TAR (Southern Corridor) in China .............................................................11
2.3.3 TAR (Southern Corridor) in India ...............................................................13
2.3.4 TAR (Southern Corridor) in the Islamic Republic of Iran ...........................17
2.3.5 TAR (Southern Corridor) in Myanmar ........................................................21
2.3.6 TAR (Southern Corridor) in Pakistan .........................................................25
2.3.7 TAR (Southern Corridor) in Sri Lanka .......................................................29
2.3.8 TAR (Southern Corridor) in Thailand .........................................................31
2.3.9 TAR (Southern Corridor) in Turkey ............................................................33
3. ROUTE CHOICES FOR USERS OF TAR SERVICES .....................................................38

3.1 Rail route choices, Kunming - Europe and Kunming -
Central Asia and Islamic Republic of Iran ............................................................38
3.2 Rail route choices, Kunming to seaports ..............................................................42
3.3 Rail route choices, Bangkok - Europe and Bangkok -
Central Asia and Islamic Republic of Iran .............................................................43
3.4 General observations concerning route choice .....................................................45
4. CLOSING THE GAPS IN THE NETWORK .......................................................................46

4.1 Assumed technical standards ...............................................................................48
4.2 Assumed unit costs of missing link construction ...................................................48
4.3 Method of estimating breakeven or threshold traffic volumes ...............................49
4.4 Assessment of individual missing links .................................................................51
4.4.1 Links between Thailand and Myanmar ......................................................51
4.4.2 Links between China and Myanmar ..........................................................56
4.4.3 Links between Myanmar and India ............................................................59
4.4.4 Missing link within the Islamic Republic of Iran .........................................61
4.5 Summarized capital cost and threshold tonnage estimates ..................................63
5. TRAFFIC DEMAND ..........................................................................................................64

5.1 Existing traffic demand ..........................................................................................65
5.1.1 Bangladesh ................................................................................................65
5.1.2 India ...........................................................................................................66
5.1.3 Pakistan .....................................................................................................68
i
Page
5.1.4 Islamic Republic of Iran .............................................................................70
5.1.5 Turkey ........................................................................................................71
5.2 Diverted traffic demand .........................................................................................72
5.2.1 China .........................................................................................................73
5.2.2 Thailand .....................................................................................................74
5.2.3 Myanmar ....................................................................................................75
5.2.4 Bangladesh ................................................................................................75
5.2.5 India ...........................................................................................................76
5.2.6 Pakistan .....................................................................................................76
5.2.7 Islamic Republic of Iran .............................................................................77
5.3 Generated traffic demand ......................................................................................77
5.4 Summarized forecasts of border crossing traffic ...................................................77
5.5 Traffic forecasts in relation to missing link construction ........................................77
5.6 General observations concerning traffic demand forecasts ..................................79
6. TECHNICAL REQUIREMENTS ........................................................................................80

6.1 Load and structure dimensions .............................................................................80
6.1.1 Standards and requirements .....................................................................80
6.1.2 Conformity of individual railway systems with TAR structure
profile standards ........................................................................................81
6.2 Axle load ................................................................................................................84
6.2.2 Conformity of individual railway systems with TAR axle load standards ....86
6.3 Speed ....................................................................................................................88
6.3.2 Conformity of individual railway systems with TAR speed standards ........89
7. OPERATIONAL REQUIREMENTS .................................................................................100

7.1 Compatible and efficient rolling stock design ......................................................100
7.2 Compatibility of train assembly and load scheduling practices ...........................103
7.3 Adequacy of route capacity .................................................................................104
7.3.1 Bangladesh ..............................................................................................104
7.3.2 India .........................................................................................................105
7.3.3 Islamic Republic of Iran ...........................................................................105
7.3.4 Myanmar ..................................................................................................105
7.3.5 Pakistan ...................................................................................................106
7.3.6 Sri Lanka .................................................................................................106
7.3.7 Thailand ...................................................................................................107
7.3.8 Turkey ......................................................................................................107
7.4 Overcoming break-of-gauge problems ................................................................108
7.5 Adequacy of container handling capacity in ports and hinterland .......................109
7.5.1 Bangladesh ..............................................................................................109
7.5.2 India .........................................................................................................112
7.5.4 Myanmar ..................................................................................................116
7.5.5 Pakistan ...................................................................................................117
7.5.6 Turkey ......................................................................................................118
ii
Page
8. COMMERCIAL REQUIREMENTS ..................................................................................120
8.1 Transit times ........................................................................................................121
8.2 Tariffs ..................................................................................................................126
8.2.1 Tariff setting principles .............................................................................126
8.2.2 Tariff benchmarks ....................................................................................128
9. DEVELOPMENT PLANS ................................................................................................132

9.1 TAR network development in the participating countries ....................................132
9.1.1 Bangladesh ..............................................................................................132
9.1.2 China .......................................................................................................134
9.1.3 India .........................................................................................................134
9.1.5 Myanmar ..................................................................................................136
9.1.6 Pakistan ...................................................................................................137
9.1.7 Sri Lanka .................................................................................................138
9.1.8 Thailand ...................................................................................................139
9.1.9 Turkey ......................................................................................................139
10. TRANSPORT FACILITATION ISSUES ..........................................................................142

10.1 Current status of administrative arrangements for border crossing
rail traffic within the countries of the TAR Southern Corridor ..............................142
10.1.1 International transit agreements and conventions....................................143
10.1.2 International rail transit agreements ........................................................143
10.1.3 Bilateral transit agreements and conventions ..........................................145
10.2 Resolving the deficiencies of current border crossing procedures ......................149
10.2.1 Excessive border crossing delays ...........................................................149
10.2.2 Operational inefficiencies ........................................................................150
10.2.3 Tariff setting inefficiencies .......................................................................150
10.2.4 Railway adoption of EDI systems ............................................................151
11. MAIN CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ....................................................152

11.1 TAR network designation ....................................................................................152
11.2 Fundamental role and operational priorities ........................................................153
11.3 Closing the gaps in the network ..........................................................................153
11.4 Identifying and achieving targets for competitive rail service .............................154
11.5 Recommended minimum technical standards ....................................................154
11.6 Specific container handling needs .......................................................................155
11.7 TAR network development needs .......................................................................156
11.8 Traffic information and forecasting system enhancement .................................... 157
11.9 Facilitation measures for cross border traffic ......................................................157
11.10 Action Plan ...........................................................................................................158
iii
ANNEXES
Page
Annex 1: Freight traffic costing sub-model ...................................................................163
Annex 2: Estimate of container traffic financial contribution .........................................166
Annex 3: Estimate of breakeven volume required to justify construction of
missing links ..................................................................................................170
LIST OF MAPS
Page
Map 1 Proposed Trans-Asian Railway routes ....................................................................2
Map 2 Trans-Asian Railway Southern Corridor ..................................................................4
Map 3 Trans-Asian Railway Southern Corridor: Network in Bangladesh ...........................9
Map 4 Trans-Asian Railway Southern Corridor: Network in China ..................................12
Map 5 Trans-Asian Railway Southern Corridor: Network in India .....................................14
Map 6 Trans-Asian Railway Southern Corridor: Network in Islamic Republic of Iran .......18
Map 7 Trans-Asian Railway Southern Corridor: Network in Myanmar ..............................22
Map 8 Trans-Asian Railway Southern Corridor: Network in Pakistan ...............................26
Map 9 Trans-Asian Railway Southern Corridor: Network in Sri Lanka..............................30
Map 10 Trans-Asian Railway Southern Corridor: Network in Thailand ...............................32
Map 11 Trans-Asian Railway Southern Corridor: Network in Turkey..................................34
Map 12 Missing links in relation to existing TAR network in
northern Myanmar, Bangladesh and northeastern India .......................................47
Map 13 Missing links between Thailand and Myanmar in the TAR southern corridor .......53
Map 14 Missing links between China and Myanmar in the TAR southern corridor ............57
Map 15 Missing links between India and Myanmar in the TAR southern corridor .............60
Map 16 TAR missing links in the Islamic Republic of Iran ..................................................62
LIST OF FIGURES
Page
Figure 6.1 Structure and Loading Gauge Restriction in Bangladesh .....................................92
Figure 6.2 Structure and Loading Gauge Restriction in China ................................................93
Figure 6.3 Structure and Loading Gauge Restriction in India .................................................94
Figure 6.4 Structure and Loading Gauge Restriction in Islamic Republic of Iran ...................95
Figure 6.5 Structure and Loading Gauge Restriction in Myanmar .........................................96
Figure 6.6 Structure and Loading Gauge Restriction in Pakistan ...........................................97
Figure 6.7 Structure and Loading Gauge Restriction in Sri Lanka .........................................98
Figure 6.8 Structure and Loading Gauge Restriction in Turkey .............................................99
iv
LIST OF TABLES
Page
Table 2.1 Profile of Route TAR-S1 - Main intercontinental trunk route between
Kunming (China) and Kapikule (Turkey) ...........................................................6
Table 2.2 Profile of Route TAR-S2 - East-west trunk route between Nam Tok
(Thailand) and Mandalay (Myanmar) part of intercontinental route between
Bangkok and Kapikule ......................................................................................7
Table 2.3 Profile of Route TAR-S3(North - south trunk route between Sarakhs
and Bandar Abbas, Islamic Republic of Iran, part of international route
Central Asia - Europe and South/Southeast Asia) ............................................8
Table 2.4 Basic characteristics of TAR (Southern Corridor) links in Bangladesh ...........10
Table 2.5 Basic characteristics of TAR (Southern Corridor) links in China ..................13
Table 2.6 Basic characteristics of TAR (Southern Corridor) links in India........................15
Table 2.7 Basic characteristics of TAR (Southern Corridor) links
in the Islamic Republic of Iran .........................................................................19
Table 2.8 Basic characteristics of TAR (Southern Corridor) links in Myanmar ................23
Table 2.9 Basic characteristics of TAR (Southern Corridor) links in Pakistan .................27
Table 2.10 Basic characteristics of TAR (Southern Corridor) links in Sri Lanka ...............31
Table 2.11 Basic characteristics of TAR (Southern Corridor) links in Thailand .................33
Table 2.12 Basic characteristics of TAR (Southern Corridor) links in Turkey ...................35
Table 3.1 Rail distance matrix, TAR Southern Corridor

(with direct link Fariman - Bafq) .......................................................................39
Table 3.2 Distance comparison - alternative routes from Kunming to (i) Europe,
(ii) Central Asia, (iii) Islamic Republic of Iran.................................................... 40
Table 3.3 Distance comparison - alternative routes from Bangkok to (i) Europe,
(ii) Central Asia, (iii) Islamic Republic of Iran ...................................................44
Table 4.1 Assumed Technical Standards for New TAR Links .........................................49
Table 4.2 Assumed unit capital costs of new line construction .......................................50
Table 4.3 Summary of new line construction costs vs threshold freight tonnages ..........63
Table 5.1 Trend in rail container feeder volume and share, Dhaka-Chittagong-Dhaka ...66
Table 5.2 Rail hauled international container traffic forecast, all TAR links in India ........67
Table 5.3 Forecast of rail hauled container traffic across India=s borders ......................68
Table 5.4 Loaded container throughputs, Lahore Dry Port .............................................68
Table 5.5 Summarized forecasts of rail hauled border crossing container traffic ............78
Table 5.6 Traffic forecasts in relation to threshold tonnage requirement,
missing links ....................................................................................................78
Table 6.1 Dimensions and maximum weights of most commonly used

ISO and non-ISO containers ...........................................................................81
Table 6.2 Conformity with structure profile requirements ................................................84
Table 6.3 Axle loads in Pakistan .....................................................................................87
v
Page
Table 7.1 Comparison of container wagons in service within TAR Southern Corridor ..101
Table 7.2 Container throughput trend, Chittagong Port ................................................110
Table 7.3 Container throughputs, TAR-connected ports in India ...................................112
Table 7.4 Trend in container throughput, CONCOR terminals, 1993/94 - 1997/98 .......114
Table 7.5 Trend in port container throughput, Islamic Republic of Iran, 1992 - 1997 ....115
Table 7.6 Container throughput trend, Lahore Dry Port, 1993/94 - 1996/97 .................118
Table 8.1 Estimate of sea transit time for container movement, Dhaka-Frankfurt .........121
Table 8.2 Estimated all-rail transit time for container movement, Dhaka-Frankfurt .......122
Table 8.3 Estimate of sea transit time for container movement, intermediate routes ....124
Table 8.4 Estimated all-rail transit time for container movement, intermediate routes...125
Table 8.5 Estimate of sea handling and transport charges for container movement,
Dhaka-Frankfurt ............................................................................................128
Ashgabat-Lahore ...........................................................................................130
Ashgabat-Dhaka ...........................................................................................131
Ashgabat-Delhi ..................................................................................................................131
Table 10.1 Status of ESCAP member countries= and area=s accession or being
party to international conventions listed in Commission resolution 48/11,
as of January1999 .........................................................................................144
Table 10.2 Bilateral agreements governing transit at borders within TAR
southern corridor ............................................................................................146
Table 10.3 Border trade agreements between Myanmar and neighbouring
countries ........................................................................................................149
vi
1. INTRODUCTION
The southern corridor of the Trans-Asian Railway is one of three Asia-Europe rail
landbridges studied by ESCAP as part of the Asian Land Transport Infrastructure Development
(ALTID) project which was endorsed by the 48th ESCAP Commission Session in Beijing in April
1992. The overall network comprising these three landbridges is illustrated in Map 1.
The principal objective of this study is to identify, and to evaluate the development and
operation of a network of routes allowing through railway transport of containers between South
Asia and Europe, southern China and Europe and Thailand and Europe. These routes would
run via Myanmar, Bangladesh, India, Pakistan, the Islamic Republic of Iran, and Turkey. Further
objectives are to identify and evaluate routes which will allow the rail transportation of containers
from Central Asia to the ports of Bandar Abbas and Bandar Imam Khomeini and from the South
Asian hinterland (in particular, from Nepal, Bhutan and the Northeastern states of India) to ports
on the Bay of Bengal and the Arabian Sea.
In 1995, ESCAP undertook a preliminary study of the route requirements for the TAR
Southern Corridor.1 This study was restricted to routes within the territories of the five
participating countries, namely: Bangladesh, India, the Islamic Republic of Iran, Pakistan and Sri
Lanka. Apart from identifying a basic network of routes, the preliminary study report
recommended certain technical and operational standards for this network and provided a
limited appraisal of the status of existing routes in relation to these standards. Resource
limitations prevented this study from considering the connection of the Southern Corridor to a
TAR network east of Bangladesh or from reviewing in detail the requirements for railway
connections between the South Asian hinterland and its nearest ports. In addition, it was not
possible within these resource limitations to investigate the international container traffic
potential of the identified TAR network in the corridor, nor to give full consideration to the
improvements required in existing institutional and commercial procedures and arrangements in
order to realize this potential.
In the light of recent significant developments in trade and economic exchanges among the
countries of the sub-region, the present study is intended to re-evaluate and, as necessary, to
re-define the route network in the corridor, as well as to assess an outline plan for its
development which will allow it to facilitate further inter and intra-regional trade and economic
growth.
This report presents the findings of this second, more detailed study which was extended to
include southern China, Myanmar, the western part of Thailand, and Turkey. The countries
comprising the Southern Corridor of the TAR actively participated in and provided inputs for the
study. These countries are: Bangladesh, China, India, the Islamic Republic of Iran, Myanmar,
Nepal, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Thailand and Turkey.
1
Trans-Asian Railway Route Requirements: Preliminary Study on Development of Trans-Asian Railway in the
Southern Corridor of Asia-Europe Routes, United Nations, New York 1996.
1
NIZHNIY NOV G OR OD
MAP 1: PROPOSED TRANS-ASIAN RAILWAY ROUTES
Y E K A T E R INB UR G
K R A S NOY E MOS C OW
E UR OP E
R Y A ZA N P R E S NOG OR 'K OV K A
K OK S HE T A U
R US S IA N F E DE R A T ION
NOV IS IB IR S K
OMS K
S UZE MK A TOB OL
A S T A NA
OZINK I UL A N UDE K A R IMS K A Y A
NA US K I
HOIT MA NZHOUL I
E UR OP E K A ZA K HS T A N UL A A NB A A T A R
VOLGOGRAD
ODE S A B ATAYS K HA R B IN
A S T R A K HA N AKTOGAI MONG OL IA
A R ME NIA AR AL S E A DRUJBA
ALATAW PAS S
C ONS T A NT A S UIF E NHE
ZA MY N UUD
B LACK S E A V E C E L OY E
C A S P IA N S E A E R E NHOT NA K HODK A
P OT I
K A P IC UL E G E OR G IA T B IL IS I S A MUR
NUK US UZB E K IS T A N K HA S A N
IS T A NB UL UR UMQI R A J IN
B A T UMI A ZE R B A IJ A N C HE NG E L DY K Y R G Y ZS T A N
A NK A R A S A MS UN T UR K ME NB A S HI T A S HK E NT DA NDONG DE M. P E OP L E 'S
CETINKAYA B AK U R E P. OF K OR E A
DOGUKAPI YE R AVAN T UR K ME NIS T A N B E IJ ING
T IA NJ IN
DA L IA N P Y UNG Y A NG
T UR K E Y R A ZI
A S HG A B A T
C HA R DJ E V
T A J IK IS T A N
MALATYA J UL F A
TOPRAKKALA S E OUL R E P. OF
ME R S IN
S OP IA N B A NDA R A MIR A B A D S A R A K HS QING DA O
K OR E A
IS K E NDE R UN
T E HR A N
L A NZHOU J APAN
F A R IMA N N P E S HA WA R
IS TA J A MMU MOK P O P US A N
IS L A MIC R E P. AN A ND C HINA L IA NY UNG A NG
QOM OF IR A N GH K A S HMIR ZHE NG ZHOU
AF WA G A H
ATTAR I
C HA MA N L A HOR E S HA NG HA I
A B A DA N
B AFQ K E R MA N S P E ZA ND
B A NDA R IMA N K HOME INI NE
ZA HE DA N
E HK OH-I-T A F T A N
PA L E K HA P A NI
J AV NE W DE L HI L B HUT A N
MIR R OHR I R A XA UL
B A NDA R A B B A S P A R B A T IP UR
MA T HUR A MY IT K Y INA
T A MU XIANGYUN
K A R A C HI K UNMING
DA R S A NA GUANGZHOU
P A K IS T A N INDIA DHA K A
JINGHONG LAO CAI
C A L C UT T A NA NNING S HE NZHE N
L A S HIO
DOHA ZA R I
IT A R A S I C HIT T A G ONG
MA NDA L A Y LAO
HANOI
HA IP HONG
MY A NMA R P DR
MUMB A I V IE NT IA NE
B A NG L A DE S H
V UNG A NH
T HA IL A ND
Y A NG ON
NA M TOK PARKSE
P HIL IP P INE S
B A NG K OK V IE T
S IS OP HON
MA DR A S
P OIP E T P HNOM NA M
P E NH
HO C HI MINH C IT Y
L E G E ND CA
MB
S IHA NOUK V IL L E
T A L A MA NNA R
T UT IC OR IN OD
MA T A R A IA B R UNE I
T A R L INK S (1676 MM) C OL OMB O
DA R US S A L A M
B A NDA A C E H K E L A NG
T A R L INK S (1520 MM) S R I L A NK A MA L A Y S IA
B E L A WA N K UA L A L UMP UR
T A R L INK S (1435 MM)
J OHOR E
R A NT A UP R A P A T
T A R L INK S (1067 MM) S ING A P OR E
T A R L INK S (1000 MM)
NE W T A R L INK S (P L A NNE D) L UB UK L ING G A U
K E R TAPATI
P OT E NT IA L T A R L INK S
P A NJ A NG T he des ignations employed and the pres entation of material on this map do not imply the
B R E A K - OF - G A UG E P OINT ME R A K
J AK AR TA expres s ion of any opinion whats oever on the part of the S ec retariat of the United Nations
S UR A B A Y A c onc erning the legal s tatus of any c ountry, territory, c ity or area or of its authorities , or
F E R R Y C R OS S ING B A NDUNG c onc erning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries .
INDONE S IA B A NY UWA NG I
Dotted line in J ammu and K as hmir repres ents approximately the L ine of C ontrol agreed
upon by India and P akis tan. T he final s tatus of J ammu and K as hmir has not been agreed
JANUARY 1999 upon by the parties .
2. NETWORK IDENTIFICATION
The southern corridor of the Trans-Asian Railway is intended to provide, ultimately, a

continuous railway connection between Southeast Asia and Europe as well as between
Southwestern China and Europe. While it has other functions, such as the connection by rail
of the hinterland regions of the countries in the corridor with their nearest seaports, its
primary purpose must always be to provide a conduit through which it is possible for trains to
pass without interruption between Asia and Europe.
Whether such a continuous link has the potential to attract sufficient traffic and revenue
to cover the substantial injections of capital funds likely to be needed for construction of its
component missing links is another (albeit crucial) matter which is addressed elsewhere in
this report. It is sufficient here to identify first the various routes within the corridor satisfying
the primary function mentioned above and, second, the links comprising these routes and
other routes of secondary significance.
The links in the TAR comprising this route network were identified by the participating
countries in accordance with the criteria set out in the document E/ESCAP/CTC(3)/2
ARefinement of the strategy for implementation of the ALTID project@ adopted at the 54th
session of the Commission, stipulating that nominated links should be one or more of the
following:
i. capital-to-capital links (for international traffic);

ii. connections to main industrial and agricultural centres as well as Agrowth
triangles/zones@ (links to important origin and destination points);
iii. connections to major sea- and river ports (integration of land and water transport
networks);
iv. connections to major inland container terminals and depots (integration of rail and
road networks).
Using these criteria, two types of railway routes have been identified within the corridor.
These are:
i. routes of international significance, which will facilitate uninterrupted transportation

between: Southeast Asia and Europe; Southwestern China and Europe; Central Asia
and Europe; and Central, South and Southeast Asia;
ii. routes of subregional significance, which will facilitate country to country, or
hinterland to port, transportation within the corridor.
The main east-west trunk routes from Thailand and Southwestern China to Europe
through Myanmar, Bangladesh, India, Pakistan, the Islamic Republic of Iran and Turkey
constitute routes of type (i), while routes connecting the hinterland of India to its ports, for
example, are routes of type (ii). Routes of both categories are shown in Map 2, which
illustrates the entire network comprising the southern corridor of the Trans-Asian Railway.
2.1 Routes of international significance

Three routes of international significance were identified in the southern corridor of the
Trans-Asia Railway. For convenience, they have been designated TAR-S1, TAR-S2, and
TAR-S3.
3
MAP 2: TRANS-ASIAN RAILWAY SOUTHERN CORRIDOR
BULGARIA
Black Sea GEORGIA
SVILENGRAD
AKTAS
ISTANBUL
KAPIKULE ARIFLYE
SAMSUN ARMENIA
HAYDARPASA KARS DOGUKAPI
SINCAN ANKARA
KALIN SIVAS
ERZURUM
AZERBAIJAN
ESKISEHIR KIRIKKALE
TAR - S.1 CETINKAYA RAZI
KAYSERI DJOLF
A
TATVAN VAN Y
MALATYA O
TURKEY
SO
PIC TABRIZ Caspian Sea
KA
UF
ADANA
TURKMENISTAN
I
QAZVIN
AN
TOPRAKKALA
MERSIN MASHHAD
TAR - S.1 GA BANDAR AMIRABAD
ISKENDERUN RM SARAKHS
TEHRAN SA
R TAR - S.3 FARIMAN
Mediterranean Sea SYRIAN IRAQ QOM ISLAMIC REPUBLIC
ARAB ARAK PESHAWAR
REPUBLIC KASHAN
OF IRAN ISLAMABAD
BAD ATTOCK RAWALPINDI
TAR - S.3
TAR - S.1
DEZFUL LALA MUSA
ESFAHAN MEYBOD WAZIRABAD
AFGHANISTAN SHEKHUPURA
YAZD BAFQ AMRITSAR
AHWAZ FAISALABAD
TAR - S.1 CHAMAN WAGHA ATTARI
LUDHIANA
QUETTA
BANDAR IMAM KHOMEINI KERMAN SPEZAND MULTAN CANTT KHANEWAL
ZAHEDAN AMBALA
SIRJAN SIBI
NUSHKI SAMASATA LODHRAN
MIRJAVEH KOH-I-TAFTAN
AHMADWAL JACOBABAD
TAR - S.3 DALBANDIN KHANPUR NEW DELHI
TAR - S.1 NEPAL LEKHAPANI
PAKISTAN ROHRI
RAXAUL
BHUTAN
BANDAR ABBAS MATHURA KANPUR PANGSAW PASS
NAWABSHAH
TAR - S.1 SHILIGURI LUMDING CHINA
KOTRI
HYDERABAD JHANSI VARANASI PATNA BANGLADESH
KARACHI KOTA ALLAHABAD
DRIG ROAD SHAHBAZPUR RUILI XIAGUAN KUNMING
MUGHALSARAI TAMU
BINA PTAWA GAYA
TAR - S.1 TAR - S.1
RATLAM GEDE MU-SE
Arabian Sea SITARAMPUR
BHOPAL ASANSOL DHAKA KALAY
BARODA
INDIA CALCUTTA DARSANA LASHIO
HARSI CHAUNG-U
NG MANDALAY
SURAT GO GANGAW
TA PAKOKKU
NAGPUR CH
IT TAUNGGYI LAO PEOPLE’S
CHANDRAPUR MYANMAR DEMOCRATIC
MUMBAI Bay of Bengal TAR - S.2 TOUNGOO REPUBLIC
(BOMBAY)
WARANGAL
HYDERABAD
BAGO
TAR - S.2
YANGON
MOKTAMA MAWLAMYAING
VIJAYAWADA
THANBYUZAYAT THAILAND
THREE PAGODA PASS
YE
KANCHANA BURI
DAWEI BA
N BANGKOK
CHENNAI
(MADRAS)
BO CAMBODIA
BANGALORE NG
Indian Ocean TE
ERODE E
TIRUCHCHIRAPPALLI Andaman Sea
TAR ROUTES OF INTERNATIONAL SIGNIFICANCE (EXISTING)

TELAIMANNAR
TAR ROUTES OF INTERNATIONAL SIGNIFICANCE (EXISTING BY FERRY) TUTICORIN
SRI LANKA
TAR ROUTES OF INTERNATIONAL SIGNIFICANCE (FUTURE) COLOMBO
MATARA
TAR ROUTES OF SUBREGIONAL SIGNIFICANCE (EXISTING) GALLE
TAR ROUTES OF SUBREGIONAL SIGNIFICANCE (FUTURE)

The boundaries and names shown and the
designations used on this map do not imply
official endorsement or acceptance by the
United Nations.
4
2.1.1 Route TAR-S1
This is the main route of international significance within the corridor. It would commence
in Kunming (China), running southwest from the existing Chinese railhead at Xiaguan (near
Dali) to the border with Myanmar at Ruili, thence to the existing railhead of Lashio in
Myanmar and along what is currently a branch line, to Mandalay. From Mandalay, it would
follow a broadly east-west axis, crossing the territory of Myanmar, India (twice), Bangladesh,
Pakistan, the Islamic Republic of Iran, as far as the border between Turkey and Bulgaria, at
Kapikule. From its western extremity it would allow access to Western Europe via Bulgaria,
Roumania, Hungary and Austria. From Kunming to Kapikule, it would have a total length of
11,700 km of which 9,790 km (or 84 per cent) is in place, 95 km (1 percent) comprises ferry
links, and 1,820 km (15 per cent) would need to be constructed, most of it through difficult
mountainous terrain.
From the border between Turkey and Bulgaria, Frankfurt (Germany) is another 1,785
km by rail, giving a total distance between Kunming and Frankfurt of approximately 13,500
km.
Between its eastern and western extremities, route TAR-S1 would cross 7 national
borders (with another 5 to be crossed west of Turkey) and would contain three different track
gauges - metre (1,000 mm), standard (1,435 mm) and broad (1,676 mm).1 In future if it is to
provide a continuous rail link, Route TAR-S1 could have up to five inter-gauge transfer
points, but if it were currently to be used for intercontinental traffic, freight shippers could
face up to 12 locations at which modal transfer (transhipment) would be necessary. Table
2.1 summarizes the characteristics of Route TAR-S1.
2.1.2 Route TAR-S2

This route would start from the westernmost railhead on the Thai system at Nam Tok,
210 km by rail from Bangkok, proceeding west or northwest to the border with Myanmar and
joining the existing railway network of the Myanma Railways before running north to
Mandalay where it would connect with Route TAR-S1. A connection to Yangon would be
provided at the junction station of Bago which is 75 km north of Yangon on the Yangon-
Mandalay trunk line.
In fact, there are two alignment options for Route TAR-S2, both starting from Nam Tok
and both of which are assessed in detail in Chapter 4 of this report.
The first, for which a detailed alignment survey has already been completed by the
Malaysian consultants engaged for the Singapore-Kunming Rail Link Feasibility Study,
would proceed in a northwesterly direction from Nam Tok to the border with Myanmar at
Three Pagoda Pass, a distance of 153 km, and from there a further 110 km to
Thanbyuzayat, a major station on the isolated Mawlamyaing (Moulmein) - Ye line of the
Myanma Railways. From Thanbyuzayat, Route TAR-S2 would run north to the railhead of
Mawlamyaing on the southern bank of the Thanlwin (Salween) River, a distance of 70 km,
and from there a 4 km ferry crossing would be necessary in order to reach the railhead on
the northern bank at Moktama (Martaban).2 From Moktama, Route TAR-S2 would follow
the existing line to Bago, a distance of 196 km, and from there to the junction with TAR-S1 at
Mandalay, a further 545 km. The total length of TAR-S2 via Three Pagoda Pass would be
1,078 km, of which 810 km (or 75 per cent) is in place, 4 km is a ferry link and 263 km (25
per cent) would have to be constructed.
1
This includes 2 border crossings between India and Bangladesh.
2
While it is understood that the Government of Myanmar has a concept plan to construct a road/rail bridge
across the Thanlwin River, there is as yet no evidence that this project has reached detailed design stage.
5
Table 2.1 Profile of Route TAR-S1 - Main intercontinental trunk route, Kunming
(China) to Kapikule (Turkey)
Route component Route length (Km) % of total route length
Total route 11,705 100.0

Missing links 1,820 15.6
Existing rail links 9,790 83.6
Existing ferry links 95 0.8
Metre gauge (1000 mm) 1,130 11.5
Standard gauge (1435 mm) 4,560 46.6
Broad gauge (1676 mm) 4,100 41.9
Non-electrified, single track 6,170 63.0

Electrified, single track 1,040 10.6
Non-electrified, multiple track 640 6.6
Electrified, multiple track 1,940 19.8
Number of border crossings Breaks of gauge (Number)
Total Route (existing) 7 0
Total Route (future) 7 5*

Number of modal transfers
Total Route (existing) 12
Total Route (future)** 0
* These might include: Ruili (China/Myanmar); Tamu (Myanmar/India); Shahbazpur (India/Bangladesh); one
point within Bangladesh; and Mirjaveh (Pakistan/Islamic Republic of Iran).
** When route is continuous
The second alignment alternative has not thus far been subjected to detailed survey, but
has been supported by representatives of the State Railway of Thailand at meetings of the
Special Working Group for the Singapore-Kunming Rail Link Feasibility Study. From Nam
Tok, it would proceed in a westerly direction to the border with Myanmar at Ban Bong Tee, a
distance of about 40 km, thence a further 110 km across the coastal range of southern
Myanmar to the port of Dawei (Tavoy). From Dawei, Route TAR-S3 would run north along
the soon-to-be completed 161 km Ye-Tavoy line,3 and from Ye (which is currently the
southernmost railhead on the Myanma Railways system) would run for another 74 km to
reach Thanbuyuzat. The total length of Route TAR-S2 via Ban Bong Tee and Dawei would
be about 1,200 km, of which 1,046 km (or 87 per cent) is currently or soon to be in place,
four km is a ferry link and 150 km (13 per cent) would have to be constructed.
Depending upon the alignment alternative adopted, intercontinental rail traffic using
Route TAR-S2 would travel a total distance between Bangkok and Kapikule of 11,460 km
(via Three Pagoda Pass) or 11,580 (via Ban Bong Tee and Dawei), and between Bangkok
and Frankfurt of 13,240 km (via Three Pagoda Pass) or 13,360 km (via Dawei). This route
3
Advice received from Myanma Railways during a November 1997 mission in connection with the present
study was that construction of this line would be completed in Aearly 1998", but it is doubtful that this target was
achieved.
6
would cross seven national borders, with inter-gauge transfers being required at four
locations. Current use of the route would involve modal transfers at 14 locations.
Table 2.2 Profile of Route TAR-S2 - East-west trunk route between Nam Tok
(Thailand) and Mandalay (Myanmar) as part of intercontinental route
Bangkok to Kapikule

Total route - via Three Pagoda Pass 1,078* 100.0
Missing links 263 24.4
Existing rail links 811 75.2
Ferry links 4 0.4
Total route - via Bongty, Dawei 1,200* 100.0
Ferry links 4 0.3

Number of border crossings Breaks of gauge (Number)
Total Route (existing) 1 0
Total Route (future) 1 0
Number of modal transfers
Total Route (existing) 4
Total Route (future) 0
* The entire route would comprise single metre gauge non-electrified track.
2.1.3 Route TAR-S3

This route has been designated as a route of international significance owing to its
importance in connecting the landlocked countries of Central Asia with Europe and
South/Southeast Asia.
It would start from Sarakhs on the border between the Islamic Republic of Iran and
Turkmenistan, running 164 km southwest to Fariman on the existing trunk line linking
Sarakhs with the border between the Islamic Republic of Iran and Turkey at Razi. From
Fariman, Route TAR-S3 would follow the alignment of a new line of 790 km to be
constructed on a north-south axis between Fariman and Bafq (which is located on Route
TAR-S1). From Bafq, it would run 635 km south, via the recently completed single track
trunk line, to the port complex at Bandar Abbas on the Persian Gulf. The total length of this
route would be 1,589 km, all of it likely to be (initially) standard gauge, single track, non-
electrified line. Advice received during the course of the ESCAP mission to Tehran in
connection with this study was that construction work on the new line had not yet
commenced.
In advance of construction of the new line between Fariman and Bafq, a longer rail
connection between Sarakhs and Bandar Abbas is currently available via Tehran. This route
is 2,452 km long, incorporating a 427 km double tracked section, but with the imminent
completion of a new double tracked railway between Tehran and Qom, this distance will be
reduced to 2,402 km. Construction of the Fariman-Bafq direct link will result in a further
saving of about 800 km in the rail haul between Sarakhs and Bandar Abbas.
7
Table 2.3 Profile of Route TAR-S3 - north-south trunk route between Sarakhs and
Bandar Abbas (Islamic Republic of Iran) as part of international route between
Central Asia and Europe and between Central Asia and South/Southeast Asia

Total route - via Fariman-Bafq direct 1,589 100.0
Existing rail links 799 50.3
Total route - via Tehran and Qom (new line) 2,402 100.0
Missing links - -
Notes: (a) Both route alternatives are standard gauge. Break-of-gauge exists at border with Turkmenistan
where Russian broad gauge of 1520 mm begins.
(b) The first route alternative is single track throughout. The second route alternative is single track,
with the exception of a 427 km double tracked section between Semnan and Negh-Ab on the
Sarakhs-Tehran mainline. There are plans to duplicate the trunk line between Bafq and Bandar
Abbas. Both route alternatives are non-electrified.
2.2 Routes of subregional significance

Routes which are of subregional or national significance are considered within the
description of links comprising the TAR network in each participating country (Section 2.3).
They comprise a considerable number of long routes connecting major hinterland locations
with seaports, such as for example the 1,319 km route linking Delhi with Mumbai (Bombay)
and the 2,866 km route linking Delhi with Chennai (Madras) and Tuticorin, as well as the
main rail transit route linking Birganj in Nepal with Calcutta, Haldia and Mumbai ports and
the TAR connecting route in Sri Lanka.
2.3 Description of TAR links within participating countries

2.3.1 TAR (Southern Corridor) in Bangladesh
The TAR links in Bangladesh are shown in Map 3 and their primary characteristics are
described in Table 2.4. They are five in number, designated Bn.1, Bn.2, Bn.2a, Bn.3 and
Bn.4.
The first such link, Bn.1 forms part of the principal transcontinental route TAR-S1,
described in the foregoing section. It starts from the northeastern Bangladeshi border station
of Shahbazpur, opposite Mahisasan in the southern part of Assam state of India. From
Shahbazpur, Link Bn.1 follows the existing Bangladeshi metre gauge branch line in a
southwesterly direction to the junction with the mainline to Sylhet at Kulaura, thence the
metre gauge mainline via Akhaura and Bhairab Bazar to Tongi, to which Dhaka is connected
by a 22 km double tracked metre gauge line. From Tongi, this link runs north to Joydebpur,
from which point a new dual gauge (1000/1676 mm) line is being constructed via Tangail to
connect with the new Jamuna River Bridge (opened 23 June 1998), providing a continuous
rail link with Jamtoil, 15 km southwest of Serajganj Ghat, the existing broad gauge railhead
on the western bank of the river. From Jamtoil, the route follows the existing broad gauge
line to the border with the Indian state of West Bengal at Darsana (opposite the Indian
border station of Gede). Of the existing broad gauge route between Jamtoil and Darsana, a
66 km section between Jamtoil and Ishurdi will be converted to dual gauge as part of the
Jamuna Bridge Railway Link Project, to be co-financed by the Asian Development Bank,
OPEC and the governments of Bangladesh, Canada, France and Spain. Link Bn.1 would
8
have a length of 522.5 km, comprising 277.4 km of metre gauge, 165.1 km of dual gauge
and 80 km of broad gauge line. For its entire length this link would be single tracked and
non-electrified.
TRANS-ASIAN RAILWAY SOUTHERN CORRIDOR

MAP 3: NETWORK IN ISLAMIC
TRANS-ASIAN REPUBLIC
RAILWAY OF IRAN
SOUTHERN CORRIDOR
NETWORK IN BANGLADESH
TURKEY RAZI
DJOLFA
CASPIAN SEA TURKMENISTAN N

TABRIZ
SOUFAIN
INDIA
N QAZVIN
BIROL PARBATIPUR
MASHHAD
BANDAR AMIRABAD
ROHANPUR SARAKHS
Bn.3
TEHRAN SHAHBAZPUR
FARIMAN
IRAQ GARMSAR
KULAURA
INDIA Bn.4 QOM

Bn.1
ARAK JAMTOIL
KASHAN
ABDULPUR JOYDEBPUR BHAIRAB BAZAAR
ISHURDI
BAD TANGAIL AFGHANISTAN
TONGI AKHAURA
PAKSEY
DEZFUL MEYBOD
DHAKA
ESFAHAN
AHWAZ
DARSANA YAZD BAFQ MYANMAR
FENI
Bn.2
BANDAR IMAM KHOMEINI KERMAN Feet Meters
LEGEND
ZAHEDAN
G
EXISTING LINK ON 13,123 4,000
SIRJAN AG R I MIRJAVEH
(route of international significance)
BAN HI TT Z A 6,562 2,000
C A
FUTURE LINK OH
DFOHRAJ
(route of international significance) 3,281 1,000
EXISTING LINK Bn.2a 1,640 500
(route of subregional significance)
FUTURE LINK 656 200
GUNDHUM
BANDAR ABBAS PAKISTAN
0 0
TAR border station
TAR link designation The boundaries and names

Bn.1 ARABIAN
shown and SEAthe designations
Ports integrated with TAR BAY OF BENGAL used on this map do not imply
o ff i c i a l en d o r s e me n t o r 100 km
acceptance by the United 67 mi
Nations.
9
Table 2.4:Basic characteristics of TAR links in Bangladesh
Link/Line Section Track Route length distribution, by number of tracks and Max. Min. Max. Axle load
gauge traction type (Km) grade radius of single limit
(mm) (%)* curves loco load, (tonnes)
Total Single Multiple Single Multiple (metres) ( tonnes)
length track / track / track / track /
non-elec. non-elec. elec. elec.
Bn.1
Shahbazpur- 1,000 277 277 0.5

Joydebpur
Joydebpur- Dual 99 99 0.5

a
Jamtoil 1,000/
1,676
Jamtoil-Ishurdi Dual 66 66 0.5
1,000/
1,676
Ishurdil-Darsana 1,676 80 80 0.5
Sub-total Bn.1 522 442 80
Bn.2
Dhaka-Tongi 1,000 22 22 0.5
Tongi- Akhaura** 1,000 98 65 33 0.5
Akhaura- 1,000 201 132 69 0.5

Chittagong
Sub-total Bn.2 321 197 124
Bn.2a
Chittagong - 1,000 47 47 0.5

Dohazari
Dohazari-border 1,000 145 145

(Gundhum)
Sub-total Bn.2a 192 192
Bn.3
Ishurdii-Parbatipur Dual 174 174 0.5

1000/
1676
(under
construc-
tion)
Parbatipur- 1,000 31 31 0.5

Dinajpur
Dinajpur-Kanchan 1,000 3 3 0.5
Kanchan - Birol 1,000 11 11 0.5

border
Sub-total Bn.3 219 219
Bn.4
Abdulpur-Rajshabi 1,676 41 41 0.5
Rajshabi- 1,676 63 63 0.5

Rohanpur border
Sub-total Bn.4 104 104

1042191
TOTAL 1,358 1,154 204
* Bangladesh Railways have reported Aruling grades@, i.e. prevailing gradients which limit the trailing tonnage scheduled for
a particular route.
** Section between Tongi and Akhaura (98 km) shared with Bn.1.
10
The second link, Bn.2, connects Dhaka, northern Bangladesh and northeastern India
with the port of Chittagong. As such, it forms part of a route of regional significance. It has a
length of 321 km, but between Tongi and Akhaura (98 km) it shares the alignment of Link
Bn.1. With the exception of the 22 km section between Dhaka and Tongi, a 33 km section
between Bhairab and Akhaura and a 69 km section between Akhaura and Chittagong which
are double tracked, Link Bn.2 is of single track configuration throughout. For its entire length
this link would have a track gauge of one metre and would be non-electrified.
A third link, designated Bn.2a, is an extension of Bn.2 which terminates in Chittagong.

Link Bn.2a has been proposed by the Bangladesh Railways as a means of connecting with
the central part of Myanmar via a border crossing inland from Teknaf. This link would have a
length of 192 km, of which 47 km is in place and 145 km would have to be constructed.
Initially, this link runs southeast from Chittagong to Dohazari before turning south to the
Bangladesh/Myanmar border. The section Chittagong-Dohazari is in current (albeit
infrequent) operation and is one of the uneconomic branchlines within the Bangladesh
system which have recently been proposed for closure. The section beyond Dohazari would
require construction.
Link Bn.3 (Ishurdi-Birol) is a metre gauge line providing a connection to the border with
India through the border stations of Birol (Bangladesh) and Radhikapur (India). It forms part
of a rail and road transit route allowing the flow of Nepal=s third country trade between the
India/Nepal border at Jogbani (India)/Biratnagar (Nepal) and the Bangladeshi ports of
Chittagong and Mongla. Since at present Link Bn.3 between Ishurdi and Parbatipur is broad
gauge only, it is practical to move trade consignments by road between Parbatipur and
Chittagong or Mongla, necessitating inter-modal transfer at Parbatipur. The dual gauging of
the existing broad gauge line between Ishurdi and Parbatipur, now in progress as part of the
Jamuna River Rail Link project, will allow metre gauge trains to move through to Ishurdi
where rail to road transfer can be effected for onward movement to Mongla (which is not yet
rail-connected) or directly through to Chittagong.
An alternative rail transit route between Nepal and Bangladesh is available through the
Indian border station of Singhabad, opposite Rohanpur in Bangladesh. This route,
connecting with the India/Nepal border at Raxaul (India)/Birgunj (Nepal), has the advantage
of being entirely broad gauge between Raxaul and Khulna in Bangladesh, where rail to road
or rail to barge transfer would occur, for onward movement to Mongla. Consequently,
Bangladesh Railway has nominated Link Bn.4 (Abdulpur-Rohanpur) as a key component of
this route, whose usage will be be further examined.
2.3.2 TAR (Southern Corridor) in China

In China, the southern corridor of the Trans-Asian Railway potentially comprises two
links, as illustrated in Map 4 and detailed in Table 2.5. The first, designated Ch.1 starts in
Kunming, proceeding in a westerly direction for 365 km to the city of Xiaguan, which is
located some 15 km southeast of the important Yunnanese cultural and tourist centre of
Dali. The 213 km Guanton-Dali railway line construction project started by the Yunnan
Railway General Corporation in 1992/93 constitutes part of this link. It is understood that, at
the time of writing (September 1998), this project is complete up to Xiaguan and that the
final section from Xiaguan to Dali will be complete by the end of 1998. The link is a single
track line with a track gauge of 1,435 mm, and while there is provision in the design for its
ultimate electrification, it will commence operation with diesel traction. Initially, it passes
through undulating terrain, but for the final third of its total length of 365 km, it passes
through high mountain terrain - yet it has been designed for a maximum gradient of only 1.2
per cent. Consequently, the new section of the link (between Guanton and Dali) contains 52
tunnels and 100 bridges, the latter with a total length of 50.4 km (or 23 per cent of the whole
line).
11
NETWORK IN CHINA (YUNNAN PROVINCE)
RUSSIAN FEDERATION
KAZAKHSTAN
Druzhba
MONGOLIA
Daheyan
Jayuguan BEIJING
D. P. RP. KOREA
Quingshui
Wuwei
Lanzhou
Baoji
Ankang Shanghai
Chengdu
Hangzhou
Dali
Kunming
The boundaries and names
Rulli Guangzhou shown and the designations
MYANMAR
Fargcheng used on this map do not imply

VIET NAM o ff i c i a l e nd o r s em e nt o r
LAO Zhanjiang acceptance by the United
PEOPLE’S
DEM. Nations.
REP.
12
Table 2.5:Basic characteristics of TAR (Southern Corridor) links in China
gauge traction type (Km) grade radius of single loco limit
(mm) (%) cuves load, (tonnes)
Total Single Multiple Single Multiple (metres) ( tonnes)
Ch.1
Kunming-Xiaguan 1,435 365 365 1.2 775
Ch.1A
Xiaguan-Ruili 1,435 626 626 1.2 775

(missing link) (likely)
TOTAL 991 991
From Xiaguan, there is a proposal to construct a new line connecting the existing
railhead with the China/Myanmar border. This new line, designated Link Ch.1A, would run
southwest for about 630 km to the border town of Ruili, opposite Mu-se in Myanmar. A full
description of this link is provided in Chapter 6.
2.3.3 TAR (Southern Corridor) in India

A total of six TAR links has been nominated for India. They are illustrated in Map 5 and
their principal characteristics are described in Table 2.6. All but one of these links (In.5b) are
currently in place.
(i) Link In.1
This link, forming part of the main intercontinental route TAR-S1, starts at Gede on the
Indian side of Bangladesh=s western border and follows the Indian broad gauge east-west
trunkline system up to the border with Pakistan at Attari, passing through Ranaghat, Naihati,
Bandel, Saktigarh, Sitarampur, Gaya, Sonnagar, Mughalsarai , Allahabad, Kanpur, Tundla,
Aligarh, Ghaziabad, Delhi, Ambala, Sirhind, Ludhiana, Jalandhar, and Amritsar. This link
which is entirely broad gauged (1,676 mm) has a total length of 1,975 km, of which 138 km
consists of quadrupled track, 127 km of triple track, 1,682 of double track and 28 km of
single track line. Additionally, all of the link is electrified except for two sections at the
eastern and western extremities : 44 km between Gede and Ranaghat and 268 km between
Ambala and Attari.
Apart from serving the Indian capital, New Delhi, and providing connections to port
facilities at Calcutta and Haldia, the link is used intensively for the rail movement of coal and
raw steel products from mines and steel plants in eastern India to power stations and
manufacturing plants in western India. It also provides the sole effective land transport
connection with Pakistan, although there is currently only a limited exchange of freight and
passenger traffic between the Indian border station of Attari and the Pakistani border station
of Wagah.
Since Link In.1 crosses the Northern India plain, for most of its length it has gradients no
steeper than 0.3 - 0.5 per cent, the only gradient of any significance being 1.25 per cent on a
section of only 16 km between Mughalsarai and Sitarampur.
13
NETWORK IN INDIA
N AMRITSAR
LUDHIANA
AT
TA
RI
AMBALA
PAKISTAN In.1
NEW DELHI NEPAL
GHAZIABAD BHUTAN TINSUKIA
LEKHAPANI
RAXAUL
RAXAUL
MATHURA
SHILIGURI
In.5A
KANPUR LUMDING
In.3 JHANSI VARANASI PATNA
In.5B MYANMAR
KOTA ALLAHABAD
MUGHALSARAI
In.4 MAHISASAN
BINA PTAWA GAYA
RATLAM SITARAMPUR
ARABIAN SEA BHOPAL ASANSOL GEDE
CALCUTTA
BARODA HARSI
HALDIA
BANGLADESH
SURAT
NAGPUR
MUMBAI
(BOMBAY)
CHANDRAPUR BAY OF BENGAL
WARANGAL
HYDERABAD
Feet Metres
LEGEND
EXISTING LINK VIJAYAWADA 13,123 4,000
(route of international significance) 6,562 2,000
In.2 INDIAN 3,281
FUTURE LINK 1,000
(route of international significance) OCEAN 1,640 500
EXISTING LINK 656 200
(route of subregional significance) CHENNAI
BANGALORE 0 0
FUTURE LINK (MADRAS)
(route of subregional significance) ERODE
TIRUCHCHIRAPPALLI
TAR border station 500 km
The boundaries and names 330 km
In.1 TAR link designation shown and the designations
used on this map do not imply
Ports integrated with TAR off ici al endo rsement or
acceptance by the United
TUTICORIN SRI LANKA Nations.
14
Table 2.6:Basic characteristics of TAR (Southern Corridor) links in India
Link/Line Track Route length distribution, by number of tracks Max. Min. Max. Axle load
Section gaug and traction type (Km) grade radius single limit,
e (%) of loco (tonnes)
(mm) Total Single Multiple Single Multipl curves load,
length track / track / track / e (metres (tonnes)
non- non- elec. track / )
elec. elec. elec.
In.1
Gede-Attari 1,676 1,975 28 283 1,664 0.5 20.32
In.2
Delhi-Tuticorin 1,676 2,866 360 2,506 1.7* 20.32
In.3
Mathura-Mumbai 1,676 1,380 1,380 20.32
In.4
Raxaul- 1,676 471 471 20.32

Sitarampur
In.5a
Myanmar border- 1,676* 45 45 20.32

Lekhapani *
(missing link)
Lekhapani- 1,676 1,830 1,075 430 325 20.32

Mughalsarai
Sub-total In.5a 1,875 1,120 430 325
In.5b
Lumding- 1,000 110 110 12.70

Badarpur
Tamu-Jiribam 1,676* 180 180

(missing link) *
Jiribam- 1,000 160 160 12.70

Mahisasan
Sub-total In.5b 450 450
TOTAL 9,017 2,429 713 5,875
* Applying only within a 135 km section Itarsi-Amla

** All new construction in India assumed to conform to broad gauge
(ii) Link In.2
This link, also broad gauged for its entire length, constitutes a route of regional
significance in that it connects Delhi with the ports of Chennai (Madras) and Tuticorin on the
eastern and southern coasts of India respectively. It also provides a transit route for traffic to
and from Sri Lanka, which arrives at and departs from the port of Tuticorin. From Delhi, Link
In.2 runs for 2,866 km on a north-south axis, passing through the important commercial
centres of Faridabad, Mathura, Agra, Gwalior, Jhansi, Bhopal, Itarsi, Nagpur, Wardha,
Vijaywada, Chennai, Salem, Erode and Tiruchchirappalli. The link runs through
predominantly undulating country and has a maximum gradient of 1.7 per cent within the
135 km section between Itarsi and Amla, where it traverses the Mahadeo Range. With the
exception of a 39 km section at its northern end between Tuklakabad (Delhi) and Palwal
(which is triple tracked and electrified) and a 360 km section at its southern end between
Erode and Tuticorin (which is single tracked and non-electrified), the entire link is double
tracked and electrified.
15
(iii) Link In.3
Link In.3 constitutes another route of regional significance, since its primary purpose is to
connect Delhi with the two gateway ports in the Mumbai (Bombay) area, i.e. Mumbai and
Jahawal Nehru ports which together handle nearly 60 per cent of container traffic through
India=s principal ports. For its first 130 km (Delhi-Mathura) it shares the alignment of Link
In.2. From Mathura it runs for 1,380 km in a southwesterly direction to Mumbai. It passes
through mainly flat terrain and is broad gauged, multiple tracked and electrified throughout.
Important commercial centres served by Link In.3 include Faridabad, Mathura, Kota, Ratlam,
Baroda, Bharuch, Mumbai and Vasco.
(iv) Link In.4
Link In.4 provides a regional route for the movement of transit cargoes between Nepal
and its principal port outlets in Calcutta and Haldia. This link starts at Raxaul on the
India/Nepal border and runs southeast, through predominantly flat terrain, for 471 km to the
principal junction station at Sitarampur which is located on Link In.1. From Sitarampur, the
link shares the alignment of In.1 for a further 200 km to Calcutta. In early 1998, it was
announced that the World Bank would be providing a loan of US$ 27 million to fund
construction of an Inland Container Depot at the Nepali border town of Birgunj opposite
Raxaul. The Indian government has agreed to undertake construction of a 5.4 km broad
gauge line linking the new ICD with Raxaul. Broadgauging of Link In.4 was completed in
1995. The rail links also exist for connecting the gateway ports of Mumbai and Chennai with
the link In.4.
(v) Link In.5a
Link In.5a would provide a connection between the northeastern states and the rest of
India. It would also have the potential to provide an international connection with Yunnan
Province of China via northern Myanmar should it be decided in the future to construct the
missing link along a more northerly alignment. Link In.5a would start at the border between
India and Myanmar, about 45 km east of the existing Indian railhead at Lekhapani in the
northeastern part of Assam state. From Lekhapani, the existing alignment of Link In.5a runs
for 1,830 km east across Assam, West Bengal and Bihar states, passing through the narrow
(30 km) passage, known as the Achicken=s neck@ between the borders of Nepal and
Bangladesh before joining Link In.1 (and international route TAR-S1) at Mughalsarai about
35 km east of the ancient city of Varanasi on the Ganges River. Broadgauging of the link
was completed throughout in 1997 and its total length comprises 1074 km of single track,
non-electrified line, 430 km of double track, non-electrified line and 325 km of double track,
electrified line. Essentially, Link In.5a serves as a Awithin country@ link between the
underdeveloped northeastern states and the industrialized states of northern India.
Significant commercial centres served by Link In.5a include Tinsukhia, Dimapur, Lumding
(junction with the northeastern metre gauge network), Guwahati (location of the only ICD in
northeastern India), New Jalpaiguri, Katihar, Barauni, Patna and Danapur.
(vi) Link In.5b
The final TAR link in India, designated In.5b, has two components. The first is an existing
metre gauge line of about 110 km connecting Lumding (located on Link In.5a) with Badarpur
which lies on international Route TAR-S1. The second is part missing link and part existing
metre gauge link joining the border towns of Tamu in Myanmar and Mahisasan on the
border with Bangladesh (opposite the Bangladeshi border town of Shahbazpur), via Silchar
and Badarpur and having an estimated length of 340 km, of which the existing section from
Jiribam (just inside Manipur State) to Marisasan is about 160 km long. The missing section
of In.5b is fully described in Chapter 4. The Indian Railways has no immediate plans to build
16
this missing section, but does have a plan for conversion of the existing northeastern metre
gauge lines to broad gauge within the current five year plan.
2.3.4 TAR (Southern Corridor) in the Islamic Republic of Iran

Seven TAR links have been nominated for the Islamic Republic of Iran. They are
illustrated in Map 6 and their primary characteristics detailed in Table 2.7. With the
exception of a 92 km section of broad gauge line which extends across the border from
Pakistan, all of these links have a track gauge of 1,435 mm.
(i) Link Ir.1
This link, forming part of international route TAR-S1, runs from the border with Pakistan
to the border with Turkey, a distance of 2,573 km. From Koh-i-Taftan (Pakistan) it crosses
the border on the single track broad gauge (1,676 mm) line, which runs for 92 km in a
northwesterly direction as far as the provincial city of Zahedan. This is the only broad gauge
line in the Islamic Republic of Iran and it is separated from the major portion of the Iranian
Islamic Republic Railways system, which has a track gauge of 1,435 mm, by a gap of 545
km, between Zahedan and Kerman. This gap will be eliminated with the completion of a new
single track non-electrified line of 1,435 mm gauge linking these two stations. Construction
of this line is presently underway, but progress has been retarded by funding restrictions and
by the lack of evidence (to date) that the new line will attract sufficient traffic.
The broad gauge line between the border and Zahedan is owned and maintained by the
Iranian Islamic Republic Railways, which also staffs the stations and administers freight
handling operations under contract. Pakistan Railways is responsible for the supply of
motive power and rolling stock, as well as for train operations on the line. Between the
border and Zahedan, the only station of any significant size is located at Mirjaveh, 8 km from
Koh-i-Taftan. The line is maintained in operable condition, although the track is unballasted
throughout and passes through flat, sandy terrain. It is the intention of the Iranian Islamic
Republic Railways to reconstruct this line on a formation running parallel to the existing
alignment, but to 1,435 mm gauge, in conformity with the rest of the system. This would
result in creation of a break-of-gauge at the border with Pakistan.
The gap existing between the railheads at Zahedan and Kerman is currently bridged by
road transport, although it is understood that comparatively little traffic is generated west of
Zahedan.
From Kerman, Link Ir.1 runs in a northwesterly direction to Bafq, which is the junction
station for the trunk line running south to the Bandar Abbas port complex. In future, Bafq will
also be the junction station for a new line providing a direct link with Central Asia (see
section 2.3.4 (i) for more details). From Bafq, the link follows the mainline to Tehran through
Meybod, Bad, Kashan and Qom. Recently, the Iranian Islamic Republic Railways completed
the realignment of this mainline between Bad and Meybod, cutting 100 km off the rail
distance between these two stations. Between Kerman and Bad, the link passes through
predominantly flat terrain, with a maximum gradient of one per cent, but from Bad to Tehran
it passes through part of the central mountain range, where maximum gradients of 1.5 per
cent are encountered. From Tehran, the route continues on a northwesterly bearing to the
border with Turkey at Razi, passing through the important agricultural and industrial centres
of Qazvin, Miyaneh and Tabriz.
17
NETWORK IN ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF IRAN
AZERBAIJAN
TURKEY RAZI
DJOLFAI
CASPIAN SEA TURKMENISTAN N
Ir.2
SOUFIAN TABRIZ
QAZVIN
BANDAR AMIRABAD MASHHAD
Ir.1 Ir.3 SARAKHS
Ir.7
TEHRAN Ir.4 FARIMAN
IRAQ GARMSAR
QOM
ARAK
KASHAN
The boundaries and names shown
Ir.1
and the designations used on this
BAD Ir.5 AFGHANISTAN
map d o n ot i m pl y off i ci a l Ir.6
endorsement or acceptance by the
United Nations. DEZFUL MEYBOD
ESFAHAN
YAZD BAFQ
AHWAZ
LEGEND Ir.1
EXISTING LINK
(route of international significance) BANDAR IMAM KHOMEINI KERMAN Feet Meters
FUTURE LINK Ir.5 ZAHEDAN 13,123 4,000
SIRJAN MIRJAVEH 6,562 2,000
EXISTING LINK BAM
(route of subregional significance) FAHRAJ 3,281 1,000
FUTURE LINK
(route of subregional significance) 1,640 500
TAR border station 656 200
BANDAR ABBAS PAKISTAN
0 0
Ir.1 TAR link designation
Ports integrated with TAR

PERSIAN GULF 280 km
170 mi
18
Table 2.7 : Basic characteristics of TAR (Southern Corridor) links
in the Islamic Republic of Iran
Link/Line Section Track Route length distribution, by number of tracks Max. Min. Max. Axle load
gauge and traction type (Km) grade radius of single limit
(mm) (%) curves loco load, (tonnes)
Total Single Multiple Single Multiple (metres) (tonnes)
Ir.1
Mirjaveh-Zahedan 1,676 92 92 Flat 2,700
Zahedan-Kerman 1,435 545 545 Flat to 2,700

(missing link) undulating
Kerman - Sistan 1,435 498 498 1.0 300-500 2,700
Sistan-Qom 1,435 328 328 1.5 300 2,000
Qom-Mianeh 1,435 589 589 1.0-1.5 400 1,700-

1,800
Mianeh-Tabriz 1,435 297 297 1.5 300 1,200
Tabriz-Sofian 1,435 31 31 1.5 250 600
Sofian-Razi 1,435 193 193 1.5 250 600
Sub-total Ir.1 1,435 2,573 2,542 31
Ir.2
Julfa-Sofian 1,435 117 117 2.8 600
Ir.3
Sarakhs-Fariman 1,435 164 164 1.2 2,700
Ir.4
Fariman-Tehran 1,435 888 488 400+
Ir.5
Fariman-Bafq (missing 1,435 790 790 Flat 2,700

link)
Bafq-B. Abbas 1,435 635 635 1.2 2,700
Sub-total Ir.5 1,425 1,425
Ir.6
Qom-Bandar Imam 1,435 747 747
Ir.7
Amir Abad-Garmsar 1,435 265 265
TOTAL 6,179 5,631 400+ 148
The link=s total length of 2,573 km includes 545 km of new standard gauge line (once the
gap between Kerman and Zahedan has been closed) and 92 km of broad gauge line (from
the Pakistan border to Zahedan) converted to standard gauge. Except for a 31 km section
between Tabriz and Soufian which was electrified as part of the project to electrify the line
from Tabriz to Djolfa, the entire link would consist of single track, non-electrified line.
19
(ii) Link Ir.2
This link of only 117 km provides a regional rail connection between the Islamic Republic
of Iran and Azerbaijan. Since it passes through mountainous terrain, the line contains steep
gradients throughout (with a maximum of 2.8 per cent). With the 31 km section of Ir.1 from
Tabriz to Soufian, the line is the only electrified portion of the Iranian Islamic Republic
Railway network .
Owing to internal conflicts within Azerbaijan, however, the border has been closed for
some five years and hence the link has been used only for local traffic.
(iii) Link Ir.3
This 164 km link which has been in operation only since May 1996 has the important
function of connecting Central Asia with the Iranian Islamic Republic Railway system. As
such, it forms part of international route TAR-S3. It starts at Sarakhs on the border with
Turkmenistan (opposite a border town of the same name within Turkmenistan) and runs
west to Fariman. At present Fariman is the junction of the main east-west trunk line to
Tehran and a branchline running 38 km north to the provincial city and commercial centre of
Masshad, but in future will also be the junction with the new line to be constructed from
Fariman to Bafq, in order to provide a direct link between Central Asia and Bandar Abbas.
Although gradient details have not been provided for this link, it is considered likely that it
would have gradient features similar to those of the Bafq-Bandar Abbas Line, i.e. a
maximum gradient of 1.2 per cent, since the maximum trailing tonnages of freight trains on
these lines is the same, at 2,700 tonnes. In common with the majority of the railway network
in the Islamic Republic of Iran, this link is single tracked and diesel operated.
(iv) Link Ir.4
In the absence of a direct rail connection between Fariman and Bafq, Link Ir.4 provides
part of international route TAR-S2 which connects Central Asia with the port complex at
Bandar Abbas, via Tehran. It commences at Fariman and runs west for 888 km to Tehran.
Key commercial centres along this link include Neyshabur, Negh-Ab, Shahrod, Semnan,
Varamin and Garmsar.
Owing to its importance as an international transit line, this link is now one of the most
densely trafficked parts of the Iranian Islamic Republic Railway system, and priority is being
given to increasing its capacity through double tracking. It is understood that approximately
400 km of the mainline between Fariman and Tehran has already been duplicated as part of
a plan to double track the entire link.
(v) Link Ir.5
With Ir.3, this link provides the international route TAR-S3, connecting Central Asia with
the port complex at Bandar Abbas. It has two components. The first is the existing 635 km
line running south from Bafq to Bandar Abbas, inauguration of which occurred in
March1995. The second is the yet to be constructed direct rail connection between Fariman
and Bafq, with an estimated length of 790 km.
The Bafq-Bandar Abbas line was completed as a single track, diesel operated line, but
plans call for its ultimate duplication and electrification. Apart from serving as a key transit
route to and from Central Asia, the line also provides access via branchlines to the Gole
Gohar iron ore and Sarcheshmeh copper mines, located about 320 km and 420 km
20
respectively north of Bandar Abbas. The Gole Gohar mine in particular is expected to
generate a large volume of freight, much of it for transportation to steel manufacturing
plants in the vicinity of Esfahan (in the central region of the Islamic Republic of Iran). While
there are 37 stations on the line, the only station of any significant size in addition to the two
end stations is Sirjan (370 km north of Bandar Abbas). The line accesses Bandar Abbas
through the southern coastal range. Thus, to keep gradients below the designed maximum
of 1.2 per cent, it was necessary to construct, throughout the line, tunnels with a total length
of 17 km (the longest being 3.1 km) and some 2270 bridges with a total length of 26 km.
The new line to be constructed between Fariman and Bafq, via Torbat-e-Heydariyeh and
Tabas, will pass through mostly flat desert terrain. Its primary purpose will be to provide a
route for international transit cargoes, although it is understood that there are large mineral
reserves in the northeastern part of the country which might in the longer term provide it with
substantial additional volumes of traffic. Although detailed engineering design work for the
new line has been completed, it is understood that funding difficulties have so far prevented
a start on construction work.
(vi) Link Ir.6
This regional link starts at Qom (on Link Ir.1) and runs southwest for 747 km to the port
of Bandar Imam Khomeini near the head of the Persian Gulf . It provides an alternative route
to Ir.5 for the movement of international transit cargoes, but also serves several important
commercial centres in the western part of the Islamic Republic of Iran, including Arak and
Abvaz. For much of its length, the link passes through mountainous terrain. Although no
information on gradients was provided, it is known that freight train trailing loads throughout
the link are restricted to something less than 1,700 tonnes, suggesting the prevalence of
fairly severe gradients.
(vii) Link Ir.7
This regional link starts at the Caspian Sea port of Amir Abad and runs south for 265 km
to Garmsar (on Link Ir.4). All but 40 km of this link exists, and work on the remaining spur
line connection between Sari and Amir Abad is nearing completion. When complete, the link
will provide another transit route for cargoes originating in or bound for Central Asia or the
northern CIS countries. The link passes through the northern coastal range and is likely to
be subject to severe gradients and train load restrictions.
2.3.5 TAR (Southern Corridor) in Myanmar

Myanmar has a significant role in the development of the Trans-Asia Railway southern
corridor, since it would provide the necessary linkages between the railway networks of
China and Southeast Asia on the one hand and South Asia on the other. Nine links have
been identified within Myanmar, only three of them existing. They are illustrated in Map 7
and their basic characteristics detailed in Table 2.8. All links in Myanmar have a track gauge
of one metre and are non-electrified.
(i) Links My.1, 1a and 1.b
Link My.1, coupled either with Link My.1a or with Link My.1b, would form the major part
of international route TAR-S3, connecting Thailand with Europe, South and Central Asia via
Myanmar. Only Link My.1 currently exists.
21
NETWORK IN MYANMAR
CHINA
TAMU
BANGLADESH My.3a MU-SE

KALAY My.2a
My.3 SHWEBO LASHIO
CHAUNG-U My.2
MANDALAY
GANGAW LAO P. DEM. R.
PAKOKKU
TAUNGGYI
My.1
Feet Meters TOUNGOO
13,123 4,000
6,562 2,000
3,281 1,000
1,640 500
My.1
BAGO
656 200 MOKTAMA
0 0 YANGON MAWLAMYANG
360 km THANBYUZAYAT
My.1a
220 mi THAILAND
YE
EXISTING LINK
My.1b
FUTURE LINK
(route of international significance) DAWEI
EXISTING LINK
(route of subregional significance) GULF
FUTURE LINK OF
(route of subregional significance) THAILAND
TAR border station
The boundaries and names shown and
My.1a TAR link designation
the designations used on this map do not
Ports integrated with TAR imply official endorsement or acceptance
My.1a by the United Nations.
22
Table 2.8:Basic characteristics of TAR (Southern Corridor) links in Myanmar
gauge traction type (Km) grade radius of single limit,
(mm) (%) curves loco load (tonnes)
My.1
Thanbyuzayat- 1,000 270 270 1.0 1,300 12.5

Bago
Bago-Kyi Taungkan 1,000 303 303 0.5 1,300 12.5
Kyi Taungkan - 1,000 238 238 0.5 1,300 12.5

Mandalay
Sub-total My.1 811 508 303
My.1a
Three Pagoda Pass- 1,000 110 110 1.00* 800*

Thanbyuzayat.
(missing link)
My.1b
Bongty-Dawei- 1,000 345 345 1.00* 800*

Thanbyuzayat
(missing link)
My.2a
Mu-se-Lashio 1,000 232 232 1.25* 150*

(missing link)
My.2
Lashio-Mandalay 1,000 313 313 4.0 103 220
My.3
Mandalay - Kalay 1,000 539 539
My.3a
Kalay-Tamu 1,000 135 135 1.25* 150*

(missing link)
TOTAL 2,140 1,837 303
* Assumed
Links My.1a and My.1b, which would be constructed either as alternative or

complementary schemes, are fully described in Chapter 4. Both would connect with the
southern line of the Myanma Railways which is in current operation between Mawlamyaing
(Moulmein) and Ye and is now being extended to Dawei (Tavoy). Link My.1a running from
the border with Thailand at Three Pagoda Pass to Thanbyazayat would have a length of 153
km, all of which would represent new construction and Link My.1b running from the border at
Ban Bong Tee to Dawei and then on to Thanbyazayat would have a length of 345 km, of
which 110 km would represent new construction.
Link My.1 starts at Thanbyuzayat on this southern line and runs for 811 km north to
Mandalay where it connects with Links My.2 and My.3, both forming part of international
route TAR-S1. At Mawlamyaing, 70 km north of Thanbyuzayat, all rail traffic is required to
cross the Thanlwin (Salween) River by ferry to Moktama (Mataban). The Thanlwin River
currently separates the southern line from the rest of the Myanma Railways system and the
government of Myanmar has plans to construct a combined road/rail bridge across the river.
23
From Moktama, Link My.1 runs for 196 km in a northwesterly direction to Bago, which is
a junction station located on the Yangon - Mandalay trunk line. From Bago, Yangon is 75 km
to the south and Mandalay 545 km to the north. While there are a number of sizeable towns
along the trunk line, it is understood that rail freight traffic is heavily oriented to Yangon and
Mandalay.
Link My.1 is double tracked for 303 km north of Bago and single tracked thereafter to
Mandalay. Throughout the link, gradients are not severe, with maxima of one per cent and
0.5 per cent south of Bago and north of Bago, respectively, but between Mawlamyaing and
Ye, the minimum radius of curvature is only 146 metres as a consequence of which freight
train speeds are limited to only 24 km per hour.
(ii) Links My.2, My.2a, My.3 and My.3a
These would form part of international route TAR-S1.
Link My.2a is a missing link, which is described fully in Chapter 4. It would begin at
border with China at Mu-se (opposite Ruili in China) and run on a south-westerly bearing to
the important commercial centre and railhead of Lashio, in northeastern Myanmar. It would
have a total length of 232 km, all of it passing through adverse mountainous terrain.
Link My.2, connecting Lashio with Mandalay, is an existing branchline which suffers
from poor alignment and receives limited maintenance, as a consequence of which freight
train speeds and trailing loads are severely restricted. The steepest gradients (maximum 4.0
per cent) and tightest curves (minimum radius 103 metres) on this link are encountered
between Kyaukme-Pyin Oo Lwin, necessitating a tonnage limitation on 2000 HP locomotives
of only 220 tonnes and freight train speeds of only 22 km per hour within this critical section.
These difficulties are compounded by the presence of several switchbacks or reversing
tracks, which have the effect of reducing average operating speeds over the entire link to
uncommercial levels. It is likely, therefore, that the entire link of 313 km between Lashio and
Mandalay would require complete reconstruction on an improved alignment if it is to be used
for the transit of freight trains of economic size in future years.
Link My.3 would begin at Mandalay, running for about 670 km in a westerly direction to
the border with India (Manipur State) at Tamu. Recently, the Myanma Railways have
completed a programme of new line construction to the west of the Chindwwin River. As at
November 1997 when an ESCAP mission to Myanmar was conducted in connection with
this project, a new line had been constructed from the western bank of the Chindwwin River
opposite Chaung-U to Pakokku, a major provincial city near the confluence of the Chindwwin
and Ayerwaddy Rivers, and then to Kyaw near the boundary of Magway State and the
westernmost Chin State. Also, a line had by then been constructed north from Gangaw
(about 30 km north of Kyaw) to Kalay, another significant provincial centre. A bridge with an
overall length of 2.1 km and a tunnel with a length of 1.7 km remained to be constructed
across the Chindwwin River at Chaung U and through the Ponnyadaung Hills between Kyaw
and Gangaw, respectively. Completion of the bridge was expected by the end of 1998 and of
the tunnel by the end of 1999. Upon completion of these works, through rail transit will be
possible between Lashio and Kalay.
Link My.3a would be a northern extension of My.3 from Kalay to the official border
checkpoint between Myanmar and India at Tamu - a distance of about 135 km. Although
Myanma Railways have firm plans for construction of this link, funding difficulties are likely to
delay the commencement of this project.
24
Except for the 30 km section between Kyaw and Gangaw , where it is required to cross
low mountains, the link appears to pass through predominately flat to undulating terrain.
From Gangaw north to Kalay, severe gradients appear to have been avoided by routing the
link through the Myittha River valley.
2.3.6 TAR (Southern Corridor) in Pakistan

Five links have been nominated for the Trans-Asian Railway network in Pakistan. They
have been designated Pk.1 to Pk.5 and are illustrated in Map 8, with their basic
characteristics described in Table 2.9. All of the nominated links in Pakistan are existing and
have a track gauge of 1,676 mm.
(iii) Link Pk.1
This link which has a total length of 1,730 km makes up the entirety of international route
TAR-S1 within Pakistan. It runs from the border with India to the border with the Islamic
Republic of Iran, essentially following an east-west alignment.
The link starts at Wagah, the border station opposite Attari in India. From Wagah, it runs
west to Lahore, the capital of Pakistan=s Punjab Province, which is 23 km from the border.
The Wagah-Lahore section is double tracked but not electrified. Apart from being a major
commercial and freight distribution centre, Lahore is also headquarters of the Pakistan
Railways and has major train marshalling, container dry port and railway workshop facilities.
From Lahore, Link Pk.1 follows the electrified double tracked trunk line in a
southwesterly direction for 40 km to Raiwind. From Raiwind, the line reverts to single track,
but remains electrified for another 245 km as far as Khanewal. From Khanewal there are two
alternative lines which can be taken to Lodhran: the shorter of the two (91 km) is known as
the Achord line@ while the longer line (136 km) detours via the historically and commercially
significant city of Multan and is known as the Aloop line@. The shorter line has been
designated part of Link Pk.1 and the longer line, part of Link Pk.5 which also serves the
important commercial centre of Faisalabad. From Lodhran, Link Pk.1 continues in a
southwesterly direction to the major junction station of Rohri, from which point a link
designated as Pk.3 proceeds south to Karachi and Link Pk.1 proceeds northwest towards
the borders with Afghanistan and the Islamic Republic of Iran.
From Rohri, the link passes through fertile plains in the Indus River valley, crossing the
river on a 350 metre long steel arch bridge between Rohri and the historical city of Sukkur.
Further to the northwest, the link passes through sandy plains to Jacobad and then on
through rising terrain to Sibi and Abi-Gum. From Abi-Gum, mountainous terrain with
gradients as steep as four per cent is encountered as the line proceeds through the Bolan
Pass to Kolpur and Spezand. The 38 km section between Abi Gum and Kolpur, which
contains the steepest gradients has in fact been duplicated in order to increase track
capacity. Nevertheless, trailing loads for a single 2000 HP locomotive through this section
are restricted to only 600 tonnes, as compared with nearly double and more three times this
tonnage north and south of this section respectively.
Spezand is a major junction station, from which a link designated as Pk.2 proceeds north
through Quetta to near the border with Afghanistan at Chaman and Link Pk.1 heads west
towards the border with the Islamic Republic of Iran. Between Spezand and the next major
station, Nokundi, the link passes through sandy plains, before climbing through
mountainous terrain to reach the border with the Islamic Republic of Iran at Koh-i-Taftan.
25
NETWORK IN PAKISTAN
N
PESHAWAR
TAXILA
ATTOCK ISLAMABAD
RAWALPINDI Feet Meters
Pk.4 MANDRA 13,123 4,000
LALA MUSA
WAZIRABAD
6,562 2,000
AFGHANISTAN 3,281 1,000
SHEKHUPURA 1,640 500
shown and the designations
Pk.5 SANGLA HILL SHAHDARA
used on this map do not imply FAISALABAD 656 200
LAHORE
o ff i c i a l en d or s e m en t o r CHAMAN RA WA 0 0
acceptance by the United SHORKOT CANTT IW GA
Nations. Pk.2 IN H
QUETTA D
KHANEWAL
SPEZAND KOLPUR
MULTAN CANTT
Pk.1 230 km
ABIGUM 140 mi
NUSHKI SIBI
SAMASATA LODHRAN
KOH-I-TAFTAN
Pk.1
AHMADWAL
DALBANDIN JACOBABAD KHANPUR
KOH-I-TAFTAN
ISLAMIC REPUBLIC ROHRI
OF IRAN PADIDAN
INDIA
NAWABSHAH
Pk.3 TAR border station
KOTRI
HYDERABAD
Pk.1 TAR link designation
KARACHI
DRIG ROAD
QASIM
ARABIAN SEA
26
Table 2.9:Basic characteristics of TAR (Southern Corridor) links in Pakistan
Pk.1
Wagah-Lahore 1,676 23 23 0.25 2,250 22.86
Lahore-Rawind 1,676 40 40 0.3 2,250 22.86
Rawind -Khanewal 1,676 245 245 0.2 2,250 22.86
Khanewal- 1,676 91 91 0.3 2,250 22.86

Lodhran
Lodhran-Rohri 1,676 363 363 0.5 2,250 22.86
Rohri-Sibi 1,676 243 243 0.2-0.5 2,000 17.78
Sibi-Abigum 1,676 63 63 1.8 600/1020* 17.78
Abigum-Kolpur 1,676 38 38 4.0 480/815* 17.78
Kolpur-Spezand 1,676 16 16 2.0 1,060 17.78
Spezand- 1,676 155 155 2.0 1,050 17.27

Ahmedwal
Ahmedwal- 1,676 454 454 1.0 1,200 17.27

Koh-i-Taftan
Sub-total Pk.1 1,676 1,731 1,022 424 245 40
Pk.2
Spezand-Quetta 1,676 25 25 1.0 1,060 17.78
Quetta-Bostan 1,676 33 33 1.0 1,050 17.78
Bostan-Chaman 1,676 109 49 60 2.5 450 17.78
Sub-total Pk.2 167 107 60
Pk.3
Rohri-Karachi 1,676 480 480 0.1-0.5 2,250 22.86
Pk.4
Lahore-Shahdara 1,676 7 7 0.3 2,250 22.86
Shahdara-Lala 1,676 125 125 1.0 2,250 22.86

Musa
Lala Musa- 1,676 330 311 19 1.0 1,350 22.86

Peshawar Cantt
Sub-total Pk.4 462 436 26
Pk.5
Shahdara - 1,676 439 424 15 0.1-0.3 2,250 22.86

Faisalabad-
Khanewal - Multan
-Lodhran
TOTAL 3,279 1,989 1,005 245 40
* With double loco unit
The overall length of Link Pk.1 (1,730 km ) comprises 1,021 km of non-electrified single
track line, 245 km of electrified single track line, 423 km of non-electrified double track line,
and 40 km of electrified double track line.
27
(ii) Link Pk.2
This link, with a total length of 167 km, has the important regional transport function of
providing a connection, in combination with Pk.1 and Pk.3, between southern Afghanistan
and the ports of Karachi and Qasim. The link starts from the junction station of Spezand,
running north to Quetta, the capital of Beluchistan Province and a coal mining centre. From
Quetta, the link proceeds through rising terrain (with a maximum gradient of about one per
cent) to Gulistan from which point mountainous terrain starts and continues almost up to the
end station at Chaman, two km from the border with Afghanistan. Gradients in the final 60
km section between Gulistan and Chaman are as steep as 2.5 per cent and the section
contains the longest tunnel on the Pakistan Railway system, with a length of nearly four km.
Double track has been provided in this steeply graded section in order to increase line
capacity.
(iii) Link Pk.3
This link connects Karachi and Qasim ports with the hinterland of Pakistan and with
Afghanistan. It starts at the junction with Link Pk.1 at Rohri, from there running south to the
industrial city of Hyderabad and then southwest to Karachi. For most of its length of 480 km,
it passes through flat, cultivated plain in the Indus River valley. For its entire length it is
double tracked, but non-electrified.
Both ports, at Karachi and Port Qasim, are rail connected. Karachi Port handles
approximately 25 million tonnes of cargo annually and Port Qasim (30 km from Karachi Port)
about 13 million tonnes annually. Karachi with a population greater than 10 million is the
largest city in Pakistan and amongst the largest in Asia.
(iv) Link Pk.4
The primary purpose of this regional link is to provide a connection from the Pakistani
capital city of Islamabad and its twin city, Rawalpindi, to the port city of Karachi, as well as to
the main international route TAR-S1. In addition, however, this link provides a road/rail
connection between the Afghanistani capital city, Kabul, and Karachi/Qasim ports.
The link starts from Lahore, running for 462 km in a northwesterly direction via
Rawalpindi to Peshawar, the capital city of Northwest Frontier Province and a key trading
centre with a dry port. In fact, the line continues for 51 km beyond Peshawar via the Khyber
Pass through the Hindu Kush mountains to Landi Khotal, but this section suffers from steep
gradients necessitating the use of switchbacks, or reversing tracks, as a consequence of
which freight trains terminate at Peshawar and Goods in Transit to Afghanistan (GITA) are
transferred to road vehicles for the journey across the border at Torkham (which is 66 km
from Peshawar).
The entire length of Pk.4 is non-electrified and single tracked with the exception of short
double track sections between Lahore and Shahdara (7 km) and between Chaklala and
Golra Sharif (19 km). For most of the distance between Lahore and Peshawar, the link
passes through nearly flat terrain. Rising terrain is encountered between Rawalpindi and
Peshawar, but gradients are generally no more than one per cent.
In addition to Islamabad and Peshawar, important cities or towns along this link include
Shahdara (7 km from Lahore) which is the junction with Link Pk.5 serving Faisalabad and
Multan, Chaklala (near Rawalpindi) which is the location of a major marshalling yard and dry
port, and Rawalpindi a city of 1.5 million people and an important commercial centre.
28
(v) Link Pk.5
This is a regional link connecting the commercial centres of Faisalabad and Multan with
the key international route TAR-S1, and via Links Pk.1 and Pk.3, with Karachi and Qasim
ports. The link starts at the junction with Link Pk.4 at Shahdara and follows a generally
northeast-southwest axis, passing through Faisalabad, Shorkot, and Multan, to Lodhran on
Link Pk.1. Its overall length is 439 km, all non-electrified and, with the exception of a 15 km
section between Multan and Shershah, all single track. For its entire length it passes through
almost flat terrain. Faisalabad, a substantial agricultural and industrial centre, with a
population of 1.3 million, has its own dry port.
2.3.7 TAR (Southern Corridor) in Sri Lanka

Sri Lanka could be connected to the southern corridor of the Trans-Asian Railway
network in two ways. First, there is a 280 km shipping link between Colombo and the port of
Tuticorin in southern India and second there is a 35 km ferry link between the port of
Talaimannar in northwestern Sri Lanka and the port of Rameswaram in southern India.4 The
first option is considered preferable to the second, since the port of Tuticorin is being
developed to handle container traffic and is connected to the Indian Railways broad gauge
system, whereas Rameswaram is a small port city with a strong religious significance and
consequently is oriented to handling passenger traffic, with only very limited capacity for
cargo transfer. Further, Rameswaram is linked to Chennai (Madras) only by a metre gauge
line which is heavily utilized for local passenger traffic, with little prospect of conversion to
broad gauge in future. For the latter reasons, the Madras-Rameswaram line has not been
nominated by the Indian Railways as a TAR link.
Nevertheless, both sea transport options have been retained in this study to allow for the
possibility of future traffic transfer between northern Sri Lanka and India.
Two TAR links, designated Sl.1 and Sl.2 with a combined route length of 496 km, have
been nominated for Sri Lanka - they are illustrated in Map 9 and their basic characteristics
described in Table 2.10. Both links have a track gauge of 1,676 mm.
Link Sl.1 starts from Matara, the terminus of the southern railway on the south coast of
Sri Lanka and runs via the old port city and southern administrative centre of Galle to
Colombo, for a distance of 159 km. This link is non-electrified and single tracked with the
exception of the final 28 km from Panadura to Colombo which is double tracked. For its
entire length, Link Sl.1 follows the coastline through flat coastal terrain.
Link Sl.2 starts from Colombo, running via Ragama, Polgahawela, Anuradhapura and
Medawachchiya to Talaimannar Pier, for a distance of 337 km. This link is non-electrified
and single tracked, with the exception of a 14 km section between Colombo and Ragama
which is triple tracked and a 58 km section from Ragama to Polgahawela (the junction for
the line to Kandy) which is double tracked. The link encounters rising terrain about 25 km to
the southwest of Polgahawela and this continues intermittently through to Anuradhapura
from which point the line follows flat terrain for the remaining distance to its terminus at
Talaimannar Pier. Advice has been received that the present condition of the track beyond
Medawachchiya (the junction with the line to Jaffna) is unsuitable to sustain traffic, especially
container traffic, for the TAR,
4
This ferry service which, since its inauguration in 1929, provided a three times weekly connection with
India is currently not in operation due to the civil war in the north of Sri Lanka.
29
NETWORK IN SRI LANKA
INDIA
RA
JAFFNA BAY OF BENGAL

ME
SW
AR
AM
FERRY SERVICE
TO RAMESWARAM
(NOT CURRENTLY
TELAIMANNAR PIER
N
OPERATIONAL)
GULF
OF
MANNAR TRINCOMALEE
MEDAWACHCHIYA
ANURADHAPURA
Sl.2
MAHO BATTICALOA
SHIPPING SERVICE
TO TUTICORIN
KURUNEGALA
POLGAHAWELA KANDY
RAGANA
COLOMBO
PANADURA
Sl.1
LEGEND Feet Meters
EXISTING LINK GALLE 13,123 4,000
6,562 2,000
FUTURE LINK MATARA 3,281 1,000
1,640 500
EXISTING LINK
(route of subregional significance) 656 200
The boundaries and names 0 0
FUTURE LINK
(route of subregional significance) shown and the designations
used on this map do not imply
Sl.1 TAR link designation offici al endorsement or
acceptance by the United 81 km
Ports integrated with TAR Nations.
Sl.1 50 mi
30
and that upgrading of this section would have to be contemplated following the cessation of
hostilities in the area.
Table 2.10: Basic characteristics of TAR (Southern Corridor) links in Sri Lanka
Sl.1
Matara-Colombo 1,676 159 131 28 Flat 16.5
Sl.2
Colombo- 1,676 337 265 72 Flat- 16.5

Talaimannar Pier rising
Talaimannar Pier- 35
Rameswaran
(ferry link)
TOTAL 531 396 100
2.3.8 TAR (Southern Corridor) in Thailand

There are currently no connections between the railway systems of Thailand and
Myanmar. The westernmost railhead in Thailand is located at Nam Tok, some 77 km west of
Kanchanaburi and 210 km west of Bangkok. Recently, consultants engaged by the
Government of Malaysia to evaluate the feasibility of various connections as part of the
Singapore-Kunming Rail Link Feasibility Study have undertaken an alignment survey of a
rail link between Nam Tok in Thailand and Thanbyuzayat in Myanmar, via the border
checkpoint at Three Pagoda Pass. No other direct connection between the existing rail
systems of Thailand and Malaysia was evaluated by the consultants, although the possibility
of another connection via Ban Bong Tee and Dawei (Tavoy) was raised in discussions of the
Special Working Group established for this study. In the absence of any evidence that this
link would be technically or financially infeasible, it has been considered desirable to include
it as part of the southern corridor network of the Trans-Asian Railway, either in conjunction
with, or as an alternative to, the link via Three Pagoda Pass.
The two TAR links for Thailand have been designated Th.1a and Th.1b. They are
illustrated in Map 10 and their basic characteristics described in Table 2.11. However, they
have also been subjected to financial and economic appraisal in Chapter 4.
Both links would start from Nam Tok, but while Link Th.1a would run for 153 km on a
northwesterly bearing to the border checkpoint of Three Pagoda Pass, while Link Th.1b
would run almost due west to the Thailand/Myanmar border at Bongty, a distance of only
about 40 km.
31
NETWORK IN THAILAND
LAO PEOPLE’S
DEMOCRATIC
REPUBLIC
N CHIANGMAI
NONG KHAI
UDON THANI
MYANMAR
KHON KAEN
NAKHON SAWAN
UBON RATCHA THANI

NAKHON RATCHA SIMA
Th.1a
SURIN
AYUTTHAYA
NAMTOK
KANCHANABURI
ARANYA PRATHET
Th.1b
BANGKOK
CAMBODIA
PRACHUAP KHIRI KHAN
GULF OF
THAILAND
CHUM PHON used on this map do not imply
o ff i c i a l e n d o r s e me nt o r
acceptance by the United
Nations.
Feet Meters
13,123 4,000
ANDAMAN SURAT THANI LEGEND
6,562 2,000 EXISTING LINK
SEA (route of international significance)
3,281 1,000
FUTURE LINK
1,640 500 (route of international significance)
656 200 TRANG
TAR border station
0 0
Th.1a
Th.1a TAR link designation
YA LA
280 km
170 mi
32
Table 2.11: Basic characteristics of TAR (Southern Corridor) links in Thailand
Th.1a
Nam Tok - Three 1,000 153 153 1.0 800* 20.0*

Pagoda Pass
(missing link)
Th.1b
Nam Tok -Bongty 1,000 40 40 1.0 800* 20.0*
TOTAL 193 193
* Assumed
2.3.9 TAR (Southern Corridor) in Turkey

Turkey is significant as the western extremity of the southern corridor of the Trans-Asian
Railway between Asia and Europe. It is also significant as the connection between the
European and Asian continents.
The Straits of Bosphorus (at the northern end of the Sea of Marmara) and of Dardenelles
(at the southern end) provide the dividing line between the European and Asian portions of
Turkey.
Currently, the Strait of Bosphorus is spanned by two highway suspension bridges - the
Fatih Sultan Mehmet Bridge and the Bosphorus Bridge. The railway networks on either side
of the Bosphorus are connected by ferry services with vessels fitted with rail decks.
Five TAR links, designated Tk.1 - Tk.5, have been nominated for Turkey. They are
illustrated in Map 11 and Table 2.12. All links within Turkey are of 1,435 mm (standard)
gauge.
(i) Link Tk.1
This is the main east-west trunk line which forms international route TAR-S1 within
Turkey. It runs from the checkpoint on the border with the Islamic Republic of Iran at Kapicöy
to the border with Bulgaria at Kapikule (opposite Svilengrad in Bulgaria), an overall distance
of 2,354 km. Exchange of traffic with the standard gauge railway system of Turkey occurs at
the Turkish border station of Kapicöy, opposite Razi in the Islamic Republic of Iran. From
Kapiköy, Link Tk.1 proceeds due west through rising terrain (with a maximum gradient of 1.6
per cent) to the ferry terminal at Van on the eastern shore of Lake Van. At Van, trains
arriving from Kapicöy are dissembled into short rakes for loading onto ferries for the 91 km
east-west crossing of Lake Van, which currently takes 4-5 hours. The Turkish Railways have
a plan to construct a line around the northern shore of Lake Van which would avoid the need
for the lake crossing, but the funding arrangements for this project have yet to be finalized.
33
NETWORK IN TURKEY
BULGARIA BLACK SEA
N GEORGIA
ISLA
AKT
OF IRAN OF IRAN
AS
ARMENIA
KAPIKULE
ISTANBUL SAMSUN Tk.2 Tk.2A
HAYDARPASA MEZRA
Tk.1
MIC REPU
ARIFIYE KARS P I
KA
Tk.5 GU
ANKARA DO
SINCAN SIVAS
Tk.2
ISLAMIC REPUBLIC
KIRIKKALE KALIN ERZURUM
Tk.1 BOSTANKAYA
ESKISEHIR
BLIC
CETINKAYA DIVRIGI
KAYSERI Tk.1 Lake Van
TATVAN VAN
MALATYA Y
KO
PI
KA
Tk.3
ADANA
TOPRAKKALE
MERSIN Tk.4 Tk.3 LEGEND

Feet Meters ISKENDERUN EXISTING LINK
13,123 4,000 SYRIAN ARAB
EXISTING LINK (BY FERRY)
6,562 2,000 REPUBLIC (route of international significance)
3,281 1,000 FUTURE LINK
CYPRUS (route of international significance)
1,640 500 EXISTING LINK
656 200 (route of subregional significance)
MEDITERRANEAN SEA FUTURE LINK
0 0 LEBANON (route of subregional significance)
The boundaries and names Tk.1 TAR link designation
used on this map do not imply Ports integrated with TAR
190 km offi ci a l end orse me nt or
acceptance by the United TAR border station
120 mi Nations.
34
3. ROUTE CHOICES FOR USERS OF TAR
SERVICES
Freight transport decisions within the southern corridor served by the Trans-Asian
Railway will be made on the basis of the cost, frequency, guaranteed consignment delivery
times and reliability of services provided by competing transport modes. In this corridor, rail=s
major competitors are sea transport for intercontinental and long distance regional freight
movement and road transport for shorter distance regional freight movement. A comparison
of the transport packages on offer to freight shippers within the corridor from alternative
transport modes is provided in Chapter 8.
However, for given transport modes, a range of route choices is also available to
existing and potential freight shippers. In the case of rail transport between the end points of
the southern corridor, the range of route choice is particularly wide and will critically influence
shipper transport strategies for the corridor. Relative distances are not the sole factor
influencing these strategies. When rail routes suffer from operational disabilities such as
limited track capacity, poor physical alignment and neglected maintenance, distance
advantages will very often be insufficient to compensate for these disabilities. If it is known,
however, that particular rail routes do not suffer from substantial disabilities of this type then
a significant distance advantage over potentially competing routes will invariably attract
shipper patronage away from the latter. This chapter examines some of the rail route
choices available to freight shippers in the TAR southern corridor. This analysis of route
choices has been undertaken from the perspective of existing or potential rail shippers
located at the eastern and western extremities of the corridor - i.e. shipping lines and freight
forwarders / multimodal transport operators based in Kunming, Bangkok and locations in
Central Asia.
The distance matrix in Table 3.1 has been used as a basis for assessing these route
choices.
3.1 Rail route choices, Kunming - Europe and Kunming -

Central Asia and Islamic Republic of Iran
From Kunming, rail freight shippers would in future have two main route alternatives for
moving their consignments to/from Europe, Central Asia and the northern part of the Islamic
Republic of Iran.
The first would essentially involve by-passing the TAR southern corridor and utilizing the
existing north-south rail routes within China (via either Chengdu or Chongqing) to link up
with the railway network of Kazakhstan at the border station of Drujba (opposite Alashenko
in China). These routes are illustrated in Map 4. This alternative is currently available to
shippers, since all components of the through routes to Europe and the Central Asian
Republics are in place and are understood to be of trunk line standard. Apart from having to
pass through mountainous terrain in Western China, they are not considered to suffer from
any significant operational disabilities.
The second would involve utilizing TAR international route TAR-S1, as identified in
Chapter 2. Unlike the northerly routes through China, this route is not currently continuous,
with physical gaps or Amissing links@ existing in several places.
The comparative distances associated with these route alternatives are given in Table
3.2.
38
Table 3.1: Rail distance matrix, TAR Southern Corridor (with direct link Fariman - Bafq) [Distances expressed in kilometres]
TO
FROM Almaty Tashkent Ashgabat Tehran B. Abbas Ankara Istanbul Frankfurt Lahore Karachi Delhi Calcutta Dhaka Yangon Bangkok Kunming
Almaty 900 1,750 3,200 3,740 5,640 6,210 8,300 5,680 5,420 6,170 7,600 7,960 9,840 10,510 10,760
Tashkent 900 850 2,300 2,840 4,740 5,310 7,400 4,780 4,520 5,270 6,700 7,060 8,940 9,610 9,860
Ashgabat 1,750 850 1450 1,990 3,890 4,460 6,550 3,930 3,670 4,420 5,850 6,210 8,090 8,760 9,010
Tehran 3,200 2,300 1,450 1,380 2,430 3,010 5,100 3,320 3,060 3,810 5,240 5,600 7,480 8,140 8,390
B. Abbas 3,740 2,840 1,990 1,380 3,810 4,390 6,470 3,220 2,960 3,700 5,140 5,490 7,370 8,040 8,290
Ankara 5,640 4,740 3,890 2,430 3,810 580 2,670 5,750 5,500 6,240 7,670 8,030 9,910 10,580 10,830
Istanbul 6,210 5,310 4,460 3,010 4,390 580 2,090 6,330 6,070 6,820 8,250 8,610 10,490 11,150 11,400
Frankfurt 8,300 7,400 6,550 5,100 6,470 2,670 2,090 8,420 8,160 8,910 10,340 10,700 12,580 13,240 13,490
Lahore 5,680 4,780 3,930 3,320 3,220 5,750 6,330 8,420 1,220 490 1,920 2,280 4,160 4,820 5,070
Karachi 5,420 4,520 3,670 3,060 2,960 5,500 6,070 8,160 1,220 1,710 3,140 3,500 5,380 6,040 6,290
Delhi 6,170 5,270 4,420 3,810 3,700 6,240 6,820 8,910 490 1,710 1,430 1,790 3,670 4,340 4,580
Calcutta 7,600 6,700 5,850 5,240 5,140 7,670 8,250 10,340 1,920 3,140 1,430 360 2,240 2,900 3,150
Dhaka 7,960 7,060 6,210 5,600 5,490 8,030 8,610 10,700 2,280 3,500 1,790 360 1,920 2,590 2,840
Yangon 9,840 8,940 8,090 7,480 7,370 9,910 10,490 12,58075 4,160 5,380 3,670 2,240 1,920 820 2,160
Bangkok 10,510 9,610 8,760 8,140 8,040 10,580 11,150 13,240 4,820 6,040 4,340 2,900 2,590 820 2,820
Kunming 10,760 9,860 9,010 8,390 8,290 10,830 11,400 13,490 5,070 6,290 4,580 3,150 2,840 2,160 2,820
Note: Assumed use of Route TAR-S1 for east-west movement
39
Table 3.2: Distance comparison - alternative routes from Kunming to (i) Europe,
(ii) Central Asia, (iii) Islamic Republic of Iran
Origin/Destination Via Rail Distance (Km)
Kunming/Frankfurt Chengdu; Kazakhstan;Russian Federation 11,400
Kunming/Frankfurt Chongqing; Kazakhstan; Russian Federation 11,800
Kunming/Frankfurt Route TAR-S1 13,500
Kunming/Almaty Chengdu 5,500
Kunming/Almaty Route TAR-S1 (via Tehran) 11,600
Kunming/Almaty Route TAR-S1 (via direct link Bafq-Fariman) 10,800
Kunming/Tashkent Chengdu; Kazakhstan 6,400
Kunming/Tashkent Route TAR-S1 (via Tehran) 10,700
Kunming/Tashkent Route TAR-S1 (via direct link Bafq-Fariman) 9,900
Kunming/Ashgabat Chengdu; Kazakhstan; Uzbekistan 7,300
Kunming/Ashgabat Route TAR-S1 (via Tehran) 9,800
Kunming/Ashgabat Route TAR-S1 (via direct link Bafq-Fariman) 9,000
Kunming/Tehran Chengdu; Kazakhstan; Uzbekistan; 8,700

Turkmenistan
Kunming/Tehran Route TAR-S1 8,400
For Kunming to Europe rail freight movement, use of the route system via northwestern
China, Kazakhstan, the Russian Federation and Belarus (effectively the TAR Northern
Corridor) would result in overall journeys which would be up to 2,100 km shorter than those
via route TAR-S1. Use of the first-mentioned route system could save more than three days
in transit time as compared with the TAR southern corridor route alternative, not including
additional border crossing dwell time resulting from the need (between Kunming and
Europe) to cross seven national borders in the case of route TAR-S1, as compared with only
three for the routes via Chengdu or Chongqing.1 In addition, it has to be noted that use of
TAR-S1, once it is continuous, could involve passing through seven break-of-gauge points,
as compared with only two in the case of the routes via Chengdu or Chongqing, Kazakhstan,
the Russian Federation and Belarus. It might be concluded therefore that use of the
northwestern China/TAR Northern Corridor route system might save more than seven days
in transit time overall as compared with use of TAR-S1 (even then assuming that border
dwell times along the latter route could be reduced to 12 hours at each checkpoint, when at
present they exceed two days at some).
1
Transit times calculated on basis of average speed (terminal-terminal, but excluding extended stopping
time en-route) of 40 km per hour in the case of the northwestern China/Central Asia routes and 30 km per hour in
the case of route TAR-S1.
40
Further, it should be noted that realization of a continuous rail connection between
Kunming and Europe via route TAR-S1 would involve new line construction of 1,800 km, the
majority of it through severe mountainous terrain.
In the case of freight movement between Kunming and the three major destinations in
the Central Asian Republics, route TAR-S1 suffers a substantial distance disadvantage as
compared with the route through northwestern China. Use of route TAR-S1 (assuming it is
continuous) would involve a distance penalty of 5,300-6,100 km in the case of Kunming-
Almaty traffic, 3,500-4,300 km in the case of Kunming-Tashkent traffic and 1,700-2,500 km
in the case of Kunming-Ashgabat traffic. In the worst case situation (i.e. traffic between
Kunming and Almaty on route TAR-S1 via Tehran), this distance penalty would translate into
more than six days additional transit time, not including the additional dwell time at border
and break-of-gauge stations.
For freight movement between Kunming and the northern part of the Islamic Republic of
Iran, taking Tehran as a representative destination, the TAR southern corridor route has a
slight distance advantage over the route through northwestern China and the Central Asian
Republics. However, this advantage is likely to be eroded by the slower average speeds
likely to be achieved, and by the additional dwell time at border and break-of-gauge stations,
within the corridor.
Between Kunming and Tehran, the number of border crossings would be 6 and the
number of breaks-of-gauge 4 if route TAR-S1 were used, as compared with only four border
crossings and two breaks of gauge if the route via northwestern China and Central Asia
were used. If it were assumed that the average dwell time at each border station (inclusive of
time taken for inter-gauge transfer, in addition to customs and railway operational formalities
) is about 12 hours, then the likely transit time for a freight train running from Kunming to
Tehran via route TAR-S1 would be greater than 14 days, as compared with about 11 days
via northwestern China and Central Asia2.
As the destination for traffic despatched from Kunming moves further south and east
along TAR-S1, so the TAR southern corridor route begins to realize an increasing distance
advantage over the northwestern China/Central Asia route system. While the line of
equidistance3 lies about 150 km east of Tehran (somewhere near Garmsar) , the commercial
line of demarcation between the two basic route alternatives (TAR southern corridor vs.
northwestern China/Central Asia routes) is likely to lie to the south of Tehran. The practical
effects of this are that rail freight customers are most likely to choose to move their
consignments from Kunming to Tehran via the northern route system, and their
consignments from Kunming to destinations to the south of Tehran via the TAR southern
corridor route, once the latter is continuous. This would imply that traffic between Kunming
and locations in Bangladesh, India and Pakistan would also benefit from the use of a
continuous route TAR-S1.
2
These times also assume an average speed via the northeastern China/Central Asia routes of 40 km per
hour and via route TAR-S1 of 30 km per hour.
3
This is the point at which the distances associated with the alternative routes would be equal. It is to be
contrasted with the commercial line of demarcation which marks the point at which the transit times associated
with the alternative routes would be equal.
41
3.2 Rail route choices, Kunming to seaports
Located as it is in the central part of southern China, Kunming has several port options
for the distribution of its seaborne trade.
The first and most obvious option is that which has been used up until the present time -
rail movement via the Chinese Railways east-west trunk routes to ports on the eastern and
southern coasts of China (including to Hong Kong). The distances involved are very long -
approximately 2,800 km to Shanghai and 2,300 km to Hong Kong, but shippers would
benefit by having access to two ports which attract regular calls by mainline ships.
The second option which is also currently available, but hitherto little used, is movement
on the existing metre gauge line to the port of Haiphong in Viet Nam. At 855 km, this is by far
the shortest port connection available to Kunming based shippers, but it suffers from the
main disadvantages that Haiphong is a limited draft river port which is unlikely to be
developed for mainline vessel calls and that the design standards and condition of the metre
gauge railway line do not permit it to carry trains of economic configuration at commercially
acceptable speeds.
A third option which is soon to be available would involve movement to the port of
Fangcheng on the south coast of China, via the newly constructed 898 km Kunming-
Nanning line, which is scheduled to open prior to the end of 1998. The total rail distance
between Kunming and Fancheng port is about 1,130 km, and it is estimated that transit
times of the order of 28 hours should be possible on this route. It suffers from a similar
disadvantage as the Kunming-Haiphong option in that Fangcheng also is unlikely in future to
attract mainline vessel calls.
A fourth option would involve direction of Kunming-sourced trade through the port of
Yangon or the new Thilawa Port (near Yangon) in Myanmar. Use of rail for the hinterland
transport task would require new line construction. Connection of Kunming to ports in the
Yangon area could be achieved via Ruili and Lashio (i.e. via TAR links Ch.1, Ch.1a, My.2,
My.2a, and My.1). This route would have a total length of about 2,160 km, approximately
860 km of which would be new line (or 1,180 km if the Lashio-Mandalay section has to be
reconstructed). This is the only option which would make use of TAR southern corridor links.
It has the major disadvantage that Yangon is as yet (and is unlikely in future to be) a
mainline shipping port.
The fifth and final port connection option for Kunming-sourced trade would be via the
port of Laem Chabang in Thailand. Again, there are two route alternatives for such a
connection - via Jinghong (China), Kentung (Myanmar) and Chiang Rai (Thailand), with a
total length of 2,300 km, about 1,270 km of which would need to be constructed, and via
Jinghong (China), Boten (Lao PDR) and Nong Khai (Thailand) with a length of 2,310 km, of
which about 1,260 km would require construction. Despite the major investments thus far
committed to the development of deep draft berthing facilities at Laem Chabang, this port
has not succeeded in attracting high capacity mainline vessels, and in common with
Bangkok Port which it has largely replaced remains dependent on feeder vessel services
through Singapore. This factor, combined with the lack of a significant rail distance
advantage over ports on the Chinese coast and the need to construct new connecting
railway lines over substantial distances through hostile terrain, would tend to suggest that
this might not be an option favoured by Kunming based shippers in future.
42
There are other factors which need to be considered in assessing port connection
options, not the least of which is the comparative distance between the alternative ports and
major destination ports in Europe. The more significant of these factors have been
addressed in Chapter 8 .
3.3 Rail route choices, Bangkok - Europe and Bangkok -

Central Asia and Islamic Republic of Iran
While it is possible that in future Bangkok-based rail shippers may have a choice from
about three route options for movement of their consignments to Europe, Central Asia and
the northern part of the Islamic Republic of Iran, none of these options is presently available,
i.e. all would involve construction of new rail links on a major scale.
The first of these options would utilize TAR southern corridor route TAR-S1, while the
other two would effectively by-pass the TAR southern corridor. The latter options would
involve movement of freight bound for Europe or Central Asia via one of two Thai trunklines.
The first runs north from Bangkok to Denchai (located about 530 km along the existing
Bangkok-Chiang Mai line), and from Denchai to Kunming via an as yet to be constructed line
through Chiang Rai (Thailand), Kentung (Myanmar) and Jinghong (China). The second runs
northeast from Bangkok to Nong Khai (located about 620 km from Bangkok on the Mekong
River) and from there to Kunming via an as yet to be constructed line through Vientiane and
Boten (Lao People=s Democratic Republic) and Jinghong (China). Both options would follow
a common route alignment from Jinghong to Kunming and then on to Europe or Central Asia
via the trunk routes through northwestern China, described in Section 3.1.
For Bangkok-based shippers to be able to benefit from use of the TAR southern corridor
routes, approximately 1,230 km of new railway lines would have to be constructed in order to
bridge the gaps in the network. A similar length of new line construction would be required in
the case of the other two route alternatives (1,270 km via Chiang Rai and 1,260 km via
Nong Khai). However, the number of border crossings and breaks-of-gauge would be
significantly fewer in the case of the latter two alternatives - five border crossings and three
breaks-of-gauge between Bangkok and Brest (Belarus), as compared with seven border
crossings and five breaks-of-gauge between Bangkok and Kapikule (Turkey).
The comparative distances associated with these route alternatives are given in Table
3.3.
From this table, it can be observed that distances involved in rail movement from
Bangkok to Europe (with Frankfurt as a representative destination) are little different as
between route TAR-S1 and the alternative routes via northwestern China and the TAR
Northern Corridor. In fact, route TAR-S1 is likely to have a 300-400 km distance advantage
over the alternatives, but given the presence of a greater number of border crossings and
break-of-gauge locations within the TAR southern corridor, it is unlikely that this distance
advantage would translate into a real commercial advantage.
For movements between Bangkok and Central Asia, a rather different picture emerges.
In this case, the routes via northwestern China would have an advantage for movements to
Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan, but for movements to Turkmenistan (with Ashgabat as a
representative destination), the TAR routes would begin to enjoy a distance advantage. In
fact, the line of equidistance would pass through Ashgabat. However, the presence of a
43
greater number of border crossings and breaks-of-gauge within the TAR southern corridor is
likely move the line of commercial demarcation somewhat to the south of Ashgabat.
For movements from Bangkok as far as the northern part of the Islamic Republic of Iran
(with Tehran as a representative destination), the TAR southern corridor route is likely to
have a distinct distance and commercial (i.e. transit time) advantage.
Table 3.3: Distance comparison - alternative routes from Bangkok to (i) Europe,
(ii) Central Asia, (iii) Islamic Republic of Iran
Origin/Destination Via Rail Distance

(Km)
Bangkok/Frankfurt Chiang Rai; Chengdu; Kazakhstan;Russian Federation 13,600
Bangkok/Frankfurt Nong Khai; Chengdu; Kazakhstan; Russian Federation 13,500
Bangkok/Frankfurt Routes TAR-S2 and TAR-S1 13,200
Bangkok/Almaty Chiang Rai; Chengdu 7,700
Bangkok/Almaty Nong Khai; Chengdu 7,600
Bangkok/Almaty Routes TAR-S2 and TAR-S1 (via Tehran) 11,300
Bangkok/Almaty Routes TAR-S2 and TAR-S1 (via direct link Bafq- 10,500
Fariman)
Bangkok/Tashkent Chiang Rai;Chengdu; Kazakhstan 8,600
Bangkok/Tashkent Nong Khai;Chengdu;Kazakhstan 8,500
Bangkok/Tashkent Routes TAR-S2 and TAR-S1 (via Tehran) 10,400
Bangkok/Tashkent Routes TAR-S2 and TAR-S1 (via direct link Bafq- 9,600
Fariman)
Bangkok/Ashgabat Chiang Rai;Chengdu; Kazakhstan; Uzbekistan 9,500
Bangkok/Ashgabat Nong Khai;Chengdu;Kazakhstan;Uzbekistan 9,400
Bangkok/Ashgabat Routes TAR-S2 and TAR-S1 (via Tehran) 9,600
Bangkok//Ashgabat Routes TAR-S2 and TAR-S1 (via direct link Bafq- 8,800
Fariman)
Bangkok/Tehran Chiang Rai; Chengdu;Kazakhstan; Uzbekistan; 10,900

Turkmenistan
Bangkok/Tehran Nong Khai;Chengdu;Kazakhstan;Uzbekistan; 10,800

Turkmenistan
Bangkok/Tehran Routes TAR-S2 and TAR-S1 8,100
44
3.4 General observations concerning route choice
As observed earlier, transport mode and route choices will invariably be made with
reference to price and service packages offered by competing transport operators.
Competitive factors influencing use of the TAR southern corridor, which include tariffs
and transit times, are discussed in Chapter 8. Notwithstanding these factors, it is obvious
that rail shippers at the extremities of the TAR southern corridor also face choices from
among the alternative rail routes on offer, including routes which by-pass this corridor.
In particular, the foregoing analysis has established that in the case of Kunming and
Bangkok-based shippers, the TAR southern corridor is unlikely to provide a competitive
means of moving cargo consignments to Europe or to a majority of destinations in Central
Asia, when there are other non-TAR route alternatives available which will provide shorter
transit times and which do not suffer from a multiplicity of national frontiers and different
track gauges.
Such a conclusion would tend to suggest that the TAR southern corridor might be
advantaged to serve trade within that part of the corridor bounded on the west by the
eastern part of Turkey and on the east by Bangladesh and northeastern India, with the
possibility that trade between Kunming, Bangkok and Yangon to most locations in South
Asia and the Islamic Republic of Iran could also be efficiently served by the TAR southern
corridor. On the basis that much of the trade within this part of the corridor is sourced in the
hinterland (i.e. at some considerable distance from seaports) and is destined for other
hinterland locations, the TAR southern corridor is likely to have the strong advantage of
providing direct connections between these trade focal points. Whether this provides a real
competitive advantage over the alternative combined shipping/land transport services is an
issue which is addressed in Chapter 8.
45
4. CLOSING THE GAPS IN THE NETWORK
Gaps, or Amissing links@ (where there is currently an absence of physical linkages

between the railway networks of neighbouring countries or an absence of continuous railway
links within the countries themselves) exist at seven main points in the Southern Corridor
network. The length of some of these gaps depends upon the actual routes selected, but the
situation may be broadly summarized as follows:
! Between Thailand and Myanmar, there is a gap of some 260 km;

! Between China (Yunnan Province) and Myanmar, there is a gap estimated at 860
km;
! Between Myanmar and India, a gap of about 300 km exists;
! Between the new Jamuna River Bridge and Joydebpur in Bangladesh, there is a gap
of 99 km;
! Between Kerman and Zahedan in the southeast of the Islamic Republic of Iran, the
gap is 545 km;
! Between the railheads on the eastern and western shores of Lake Van in Turkey,
there is a gap of 91 km which is currently bridged by specialized rail ferries; and
! Between Haydarpasa Station in Anatolian Turkey and Sirkeci Station in European
Turkey there is a gap of 4.4 km across Bosphorus Strait, which is also currently
bridged by specialized rail ferries.
This list does not include a gap of about 790 km between Bafq and Fariman in the
Islamic Republic of Iran, for which a detour through Tehran is currently available.
These gaps are depicted in the overall Corridor map (Map 2) and in the maps of the
individual country networks (Maps 3-11), but with the exception of the gaps in Turkey, may
be seen in considerably more detail in the maps included in this chapter (Maps 12-16).
Map 12 provides an overview of the connection between the missing links in China,
Myanmar, India and Bangladesh, and the remainder of the TAR southern corridor network,
as identified by the participating countries, while Maps 13-16 show the possible routes of
individual missing links.
While construction of the link between Kerman and Zahedan is currently underway, there
appears to be little prospect that construction of the links at the eastern end of the corridor
(with the exception of the Jamuna Bridge link which is also underway) will proceed in the
near future, given the severity of the terrain through which they will have to pass, the
consequent high order of magnitude of their construction cost, and (at least in the short
term) the limited traffic generating potential of the routes themselves. It is acknowledged that
in the past major infrastructure projects have been justified on other grounds, such as their
vital contribution to regional economic development, to trade enhancement or to national
security, but whether or not a major infrastructure project proceeds will depend increasingly
on whether potential investors perceive that they will receive an adequate return from their
investment in the project. In the case of new railway line construction projects, a
demonstration of traffic generating potential will be an essential element in any plan to
secure investor confidence in the project.
46
MAP 12: MISSING LINKS IN RELATION TO EXISTING TAR NETWORK
IN NORTHERN MYANMAR, BANGLADESH
AND NORTHEASTERN INDIA
CHINA The boundaries and names shown and the
designations used on this map do not imply official
endorsement or acceptance by the United
Nations.
INDIA
an i
ha p
L ek
Pa
Shiliguri ng
s aw
In.5a
P
In.5a as
s
Guwuhati
Lumding
qiao
In.5a Hou
To Attari,via
Patna
Kalay
Shahbazpur
R
m
ui Ch.1a
n
ar
li
iba
Bn.1
sa
To Dali
ch
In.5b
a
Jir
Ta and Kunming
S il
his
m u
Ma
K
Bn.1 My.3a
M
To Atari,via
G
u-
Sitarampur ed My.2a
se
Darsana Kalay
e
Lashio
Ch
In.1 Bn.2
au
Calcutta
ng
My.2
-U
Gangaw
Haldia Dohazari
My.3
LEGEND Bn.2a
EXISTING LINK Pakokku
FUTURE LINK
EXISTING LINK
(route of subregional significance) My.1
FUTURE LINK
Border station
My.1 TAR link designation
To Yangon
47
It is therefore important that all feasible options for construction of the identified missing
links in the TAR network be rigorously and comprehensively evaluated. With this objective in
mind, the present report is intended to contribute in terms of identifying the feasible route
options, the broadly indicative level of construction cost and the physical level of traffic which
would be needed in order to justify investment in construction of the links.
Accordingly, this chapter addresses the technical standards assumed to apply to the
construction of missing links, the basis for estimating the capital costs of these links, and the
assessment of individual missing links in terms of their physical characteristics, possible
capital cost and breakeven or threshold traffic requirement.
4.1 Assumed technical standards

The technical standards to apply to construction of missing links must clearly be
compatible
with the requirements of the traffic likely to use these links. While international container
transportation has been adopted as one of the primary objectives for development of the
TAR network (see Chapter 1), it is highly likely that the network will have to satisfy other
transportation objectives and hence should embody standards which are also compatible
with these. However, this will be a matter for each participating railway to decide, on the
basis of the type of traffic on offer. It is sufficient to state here that the standards adopted for
new line construction should be the minimum standards compatible with the cost effective
rail movement of containers. Cost effective is here interpreted to mean the movement of
containers in block trainloads of at least 30 bogie flat wagons.1 Such trains are assumed to
require locomotives with a power rating of at least 2400 - 3000 HP and an axle loading of at
least 15 tonnes for metre gauge track and 20 tonnes for standard or broad gauge track. In
practice, it is likely that there will be significant capital cost advantages in also constructing
new metre gauge lines to carry 20 tonne axle loads.
With the addition of a requirement that all new lines should be designed to a structure
and loading gauge compatible with transportation of high cube containers and with
appropriate adjustments to allow for differences due to track gauge, the standards
recommended in the feasibility study of the Singapore to Kunming railway link, sponsored by
the Government of Malaysia, were used as a basis for developing standards for construction
of all missing links in the TAR network.2 These standards, which are summarized in Table
4.1, indicate some convergence in the technical standards now being adopted for track of
different gauge.
4.2 Assumed unit costs of missing link construction

The financial analysis of missing link construction, as described in this chapter, is based on
indicative per kilometre construction costs provided by China and India, for line construction
to 1435 mm and 1676 mm standards respectively, through mountainous terrain, by Thailand
for line construction to 1000 mm standards through hilly (or rolling) terrain and by the Islamic
Republic of Iran for line construction to 1435 mm standards through relatively flat terrain.
These costs are inclusive of the costs of: formation construction; structures (bridges,
viaducts, tunnels and station buildings); track laying; and signalling system installation.
1
The justification for container trains of this size is provided in Chapter 7.
2
Malaysia, Ministry of Transport (1988), Interim Report on Feasibilityof Singapore to Kunming Rail Link.
48
Table 4.1: Assumed technical standards for new TAR links
Outline Gauge Sufficient to allow transportation of 9ft 6ins high containers on

standard height flat wagons through all structures at normal
speed
Speed Target: Passenger trains, 120 km/hour

Freight trains, 80 km/hour
Allowance for possibility of future
200 km/hour passenger speeds
Radius of Target: Straight

Curvature
Minimum
Rolling: 800 metres
Mountainous: 150 metres (for metre gauge)

450-600 metres (for standard and
broad gauge)
Maximum Rolling: 1.00 %

Gradients
Mountainous: 1.20% - 1.25%
Track Rail section: UIC 54 (or heavier, if used by

Structure participating railways)
Sleepers: Prestressed concrete
Ballast depth: 250 mm
Axle Load 20 tonnes
Line construction through mountainous terrain implies a need for extensive cuttings and
embankments, as well as for major tunnelling and bridgeworks. For construction through hilly
terrain, comparatively minor formation works (but sometimes major bridgeworks) would be
needed, while construction through flat terrain would require only sufficient formation and
bridge works to lift the line above the level of flood plains, etc.
With these qualifications in mind, the unit costs used as a basis for estimating the overall
costs of constructing missing links in the TAR network were as shown in Table 4.2.
4.3 Method of estimating breakeven or threshold traffic

volumes
The capital costs of missing link construction estimated on the basis of the unit costs
identified in Section 4.2 above were assessed against the physical volumes of freight traffic
needed to justify these investments. For each link, these volume estimates have been
expressed in million tonnes per annum, and may be referred to as breakeven or threshold
tonnages.
49
Table 4.2: Assumed unit capital costs of new line construction
Source of cost Terrain Type Construction Based on Applied to

estimate Cost Estimate (name of Project) (name of missing link)
(system and (US$ million Per
track gauge) Kilometre)
Chinese Predominantly 3.27 Proposed new line Proposed new 630 km

Railways, mountainous Xiaguan-Ruili, line Xiaguan-Ruili,
1435 mm (Yunnan Province (Yunnan Province of
of China) China)
Indian Predominantly 2.25 Proposed new line (i) Proposed new 180
Railways, mountainous in Mizoram state km line Tamu (State
1676 mm of Myanmar)- Jiribam
(Manipur State of
India)
(ii) Proposed new 230
km line Mu-se -
Lashio,( Shan State
of Myanmar) *
State Railway of Predominantly 1.75 New line, Klong (i) Proposed new 263
Thailand, 1000 hilly Sip Khao - Kaeng km line Nam Tok
mm Khoi Junction, (Thailand) -
construction Thambyuzayat
completed 1995 (Myanmar), via Three
Pagoda Pass
(ii) Proposed alternative
150 km line Nam Tok
(Thailand) - Dawei
(Myanmar), via Ban
Bong Tee
(ii) Proposed new 135
km line Kalay -Tamu
(both in Sagaing
State of Myanmar)
Iranian Islamic Predominantly 1.20 New 545 km line New 545 km line under
Republic flat under construction construction between
Railways, between Kerman Kerman and Zahedan
1435 and Zahedan
* Per km construction costs supplied by Myanma Railways of US$ 360,000 per km for flat terrain, US$ 440,000
for medium terrain and US$ 580,000 for mountainous terrain make no allowance for construction of bridges or
tunnels, and hence are likely to understate construction costs for missing links. For construction through
mountainous terrain in Myanmar, indicative costs from India rather than from China were used to allow for lower
labour costs in Myanmar.
In order to arrive at the estimates of breakeven or threshold tonnages it was initially

assumed that the related investments would have to be recovered over 50 years and provide
a Financial Internal Rate of Return (FIRR) of at least 12 per cent per annum.
In the case of FIRR calculations, the actual rates of return for each investment would
result from positive cash flows in the form of the financial contribution, or revenue less long
run marginal cost, from the freight traffic moved on the relevant link. To establish this
contribution figure, it was first necessary to estimate the long run marginal costs which might
50
result from freight traffic haulage on the relevant link.2 Container traffic was used as the
basis for estimation of these costs. For traffic on rail routes within Thailand and Myanmar,
estimates were made with the assistance of the ESCAP Point-to-Point Railway Traffic
Costing Model, Traincost. (The model run for Thai container traffic is shown as an example
in Annex 1). For traffic on rail routes within China, India and the Islamic Republic of Iran, cost
data from other relevant sources were used.
The resulting cost estimates were deducted from estimated revenue per tonne-kilometre
to arrive at the estimated rate of financial contribution for the traffic. Finally, the breakeven
tonne-kilometre figure was calculated by dividing the present annual value of the estimated
investment in new line construction by the estimated financial contribution per tonne-
kilometre, and this was converted to a breakeven tonnage figure through division by the
length in kilometres of the relevant link.
It should be noted that the use of container traffic as the basis for contribution analysis is
likely to understate threshold tonnages if the majority of traffic to be moved on the links is
bulk traffic, since bulk traffic will invariably attract a lower tariff, but could incur a higher cost
given that there is usually no backloading for wagons conveying bulk commodities.
4.4 Assessment of individual missing links
4.4.1 Links between Thailand and Myanmar

At the second meeting of the Special Working Group for the Singapore-Kunming Rail
Link Feasibility Study held in Kuala Lumpur in September 1997, several route alternatives
were nominated for consideration, among them route options for railway connections
between Thailand and Myanmar.
At this meeting, the State Railway of Thailand (SRT) indicated that during 1998 it would
be undertaking its own feasibility studies of four connecting routes between Thailand and
Myanmar, viz: via Mae Sai, Mae Sod, Three Pagoda Pass, and Bongty (south of Three
Pagoda Pass. Of these routes, the one via Mae Sai is intended to provide a connection
between Thailand and China, through the territory of Myanmar and is therefore not relevant
to the issue of providing links between Thailand and Myanmar on what should basically be
an east-west (not a north-south) alignment.
At the same meeting, Myanmar indicated that it would prefer the route via Three Pagoda
Pass over that via Mae Sod, since the terrain within Myanmar opposite Mae Sod is very hilly,
but undertook to study the alternative route via Ban Bong Tee.
When the Interim Report was released in April 1998, it was obvious that the study had
considered only one route alternative in detail - that via Three Pagoda Pass. For the
purposes of the present study, however, it is considered that there are two alternative routes
which are broadly acceptable to both Thailand and Myanmar, those via Three Pagoda Pass
and via Ban Bong Tee, and that, in the circumstances where neither alternative has yet
been rejected on technical or financial grounds, both alternatives should be subjected to
detailed evaluation.
2
Long Run Marginal Costs are costs which will vary only in the long term, i.e. generally during periods of
longer than 12 months. In addition to operating costs, such as fuel and train crewing costs, and infrastructure and
locomotive/rolling stock maintenance costs, long run marginal costs will include any capital cost increments, such
as locomotive or rolling stock acquisition costs, needed to support additions to output. The long run marginal
costs estimated in this study include the capital costs of locomotives and wagons required to move freight traffic
on the new TAR links.
51
(i) Link descriptions
(a) Via Three Pagoda Pass
The alignment of the route alternative via Three Pagoda Pass, designated Th.1a in
Thailand and My.1a in Myanmar, would follow, in part, the alignment of the old Kanchanaburi
- Thambyuzayat railway constructed during the Second World War under the direction of the
Japanese Army. It follows the old railway alignment for part only of its total length, because
in many places the old alignment is submerged beneath the Khao Laem Dam which was
constructed in the 1970's. The route alignments for Th.1a and My.1a are shown in Map 13.
For the section between Nam Tok and Three Pagoda Pass, the new alignment has been
surveyed in detail by engineering consultants engaged for the Singapore-Kunming Rail Link
Feasibility Study. It starts at the westernmost railhead on the Thai system at Nam Tok, 210
km by rail from Bangkok, and proceeds in a northwesterly direction running parallel to
Highway 323 all the way to the border at Three Pagoda Pass, which would be located at 153
km on the new line.
The line would pass through moderately hilly terrain all the way from Nam Tok (elevation:
+ 180 metres above mean sea level) to Three Pagoda Pass (elevation: + 220 metres above
mean sea level). The steepest gradients would be concentrated between Km 71 and Three
Pagoda Pass, but in no case would the gradients exceed the one per cent target (see
Assumed Technical Standards, above).
Between Nam Tok and Three Pagoda Pass, the line would need to cross three rivers,
the Huai Yai (at Km 7.5), the Kwae Noi (at Km 77.8) and the Pracam Mai (at Km 98.5) - for
which three bridges would be required, one of two 50 metre spans and two of three 50
metre spans, giving a total length of 400 metres.
Apart from bridges, other structures required on this section are high embankments,
mainly where the line would run beside reservoirs. No tunnelling would be required on this
section.
The predominant land use in the countryside through which the line would pass is
agriculture. With the exception of Nam Tok and Sangkhla Buri (at Km 135), there are no
sizeable towns along the route, and the area between Sangkhla Buri and Three Pagoda
Pass is very sparsely populated.
Unless extractive industry is allowed to develop, there would appear to be almost no

locally generated freight demand along the entire route between Nam Tok and Three
Pagoda Pass.
The section within Myanmar, between Three Pagoda Pass and Thambyuzayat has a
total length of 109.6 km. For all but 14.6 km of this length, the proposed railway alignment
runs parallel to the existing road linking Thailand with Myanmar. It generally follows the old
Second World War route and could utilize a total of 12 of the old station sites.
The terrain through which the line would pass may be generally described as Arolling@,
with the steepest gradients concentrated within the first 30 km from Three Pagoda Pass,
where the line would be required to descend through river valleys.
52
MAP 13: MISSING LINKS BETWEEN THAILAND AND MYANMAR
To Yangon IN THE TAR SOUTHERN CORRIDOR
and Mandalay

shown and the designations used
on this map do not imply official
endorsement or acceptance by
the United Nations.
Three Pagoda Pass

LEGEND
EXISTING LINK
FUTURE LINK
EXISTING LINK
FUTURE LINK
TAR border station
Th.1a TAR link designation

New line section
under construction
B
an
B
on
g
Te
e
Dawei
(Tavoy)
To Bangkok
53
There would be four major river crossings, requiring 550 metres of bridge construction,
the longest bridge having 4 spans each of 50 metres. Some deep cuttings would be
required, as would some high retaining structures in river valleys.
The consultants were unable to carry out a detailed alignment survey of this section, and
were thus unable to comment on land use. It is likely, however, that land use in the parts of
Kayin and Mon States through which the line would pass is predominantly agricultural.
(b) Via Ban Bong Tee
While not considered in the interim report of the consultants engaged in the
Singapore-Kunming Rail Link Feasibility Study, a railway route linking Nam Tok in Thailand
with Dawei (Tavoy) in Myanmar nevertheless represents a viable alternative which should
be fully evaluated for inclusion in the TAR network. Two major developments supporting this
observation are:
! The participation of the Petroleum Authority of Thailand (PTT) and its joint venture
partners in exploration for and extraction of natural gas in the Gulf of Moktama
(Mataban), the construction by the PTT of a gas pipeline from Tavoy to Kanchanaburi,
and the development of a deep sea port near Tavoy as a support base for the gas
extraction industry. (The last mentioned development might ultimately lead to the growth
of downstream industries which could provide substantial base load traffic volumes for
the proposed rail link).
! Impending completion (during 1998) of construction by the Myanma Railways of a 161

km extension of the existing Mawlamyaing (Moulmein) - Ye line to Tavoy.
It has been assumed, but has yet to be confirmed, that this second alternative route
would also start at Nam Tok, running almost due west to the Thai/Myanmar border at Ban
Bong Tee, thence to Dawei - a total distance estimated at 150 km. The section of this route
within Thailand has been designated Th.1b and that within Myanmar My.1b.
For much of the route there would be opportunities for the alignment to follow river
valleys (having primarily an east-west orientation), thereby avoiding the need to penetrate
the coastal mountain range, which in places is more than 1,500 metres high.
Between Nam Tok and Bongty, there appear to be no towns of any significant size and
between Bongty and Tavoy, there would appear to be three small towns, none of which are
likely to contain populations of significant size. There is the probability of three or four river
crossings including a crossing of the Kwae Noi River and one of its tributaries.
(c) Common access route to Yangon
Whether the TAR connecting route between Thailand and Myanmar will pass through
Ban Bong Tee or Three Pagoda Pass, it will follow the alignment of the existing railway north
of Thanbyuzayat.
A major bottleneck presently exists between Mawlamyang (Moulmein) and Motama

which are separated by the Thanlwin (Salween) River. At this point, the river is
approximately 4 km wide, and in the absence of a bridge, rail traffic must be transferred
between the two railheads by ferry - involving long delays in train transits.
It is understood that the Government of Myanmar has plans to construct a combined rail
and road bridge across the Thanlwin, thereby providing direct rail access between
54
Mawlanyaing and Yangon, but no information is yet available as to the likely location of this
bridge, its cost, and the timing of its construction.
(ii) Capital cost estimates
(a) Links Th.1a/My.1a (via Three Pagoda Pass)
Since this link would pass through what might be described as Amoderately hilly@ or
Arolling@ terrain, a typical unit cost of US$ 1.75 million per kilometre (refer section 2.2 above)
was used for the purposes of calculating its indicative capital cost. This cost, reflecting
construction of new , fully signalled, single track line (without the need for tunnelling), was
calculated at US$ 268 million, on the Thai side and US$ 192 million on the Myanmar side of
the border.
(b) Links Th.1b/My.1b (via Ban Bong Tee)
This link would also pass through what might be described as Amoderately hilly@ or
Arolling@ terrain, and in this case application of a typical unit cost of US$ 1.75 million per
kilometre would result in an estimate of US$ 61 million on the Thai side and US$ 201 million
on the Myanmar side of the border.
(iii) Threshold tonnage estimates
The basis and calculations of threshold tonnage estimates according to FIRR principles
is detailed in Annexes 2 and 3. Traffic costings were based on Thai unit costs and for the
purposes of this analysis, unit train operating costs in Myanmar were assumed to be 50 per
cent of the rates applicable in Thailand.
(a) Links Th.1a/My.1a (via Three Pagoda Pass)
Financial assessment resulted in threshold tonnage estimates of 7.3 million tonnes

per annum on the Thai side and 7.1 million tonnes per annum on the Myanmar side of the
border. The slight difference between these estimates is explained by the lower unit
operating costs assumed to apply in the case of Myanmar, because the same unit tariff was
assumed to apply both sides of the border.
It must be noted that these tonnages are almost as great as the total annual freight
tonnage currently moved on the Thai railway system, and significantly greater than the total
freight tonnage moved on the Myanmar railway system.
(b) Links Th.1b/My.1b (via Ban Bong Tee)
Since the same unit tariffs and costs were assumed to apply in the case of this link
as for the link via Three Pagoda Pass, the same threshold tonnage estimates also apply in
this case.
(c) Conclusions on financial breakeven levels
Based purely on a financial assessment of the traffic volume required to justify

investment in the construction of missing links, preference would have to be given to the
route alternative through Ban Bong Tee. Potentially, it has a significantly lower investment
cost than the alternative through Three Pagoda Pass (US$ 262 million as compared with
55
US$ 460 million). Similarly, it has a higher probability of achieving the tonnage level
required to justify its investment.
4.4.2 Links between China and Myanmar
While a number of different route alternatives for the rail connection of China and India
have been evaluated by the railway authorities of China, only one has been evaluated in this
study. This is a new line of 858 km between Dali in Yunnan Province of China and the
existing railhead at Lashio in Myanmar, via the official border checkpoints at Ruili (China)
and Mu-se (Myanmar). This line was also considered in the Interim Report of the Singapore-
Kunming Rail Link Feasibility Study.
It is understood that construction by the Chinese Railways of a new standard gauge line
between Kunming and Dali has either been completed or is nearing completion. A decision
about the continuation of this line to the Myanmar border will therefore be imminent.
It is likely that any line constructed from Dali to the Myanmar border will be constructed
in standard gauge and similarly that any line constructed from one of the railheads in
Myanmar to the border with China will be constructed in metre gauge. This brings with it the
problems of inter-gauge transfers occurring at the border, and the delays and additional cost
that this implies. Some general comments have been made about the advantages and
disadvantages of the different methods available for transferring freight between gauges in
Chapter 7, but except to recognize that the need for such transfers can add greatly to the
costs of rail transportation, this issue is not addressed further in this chapter.
(i) Link descriptions
Within China, the new line has been designated as Link Ch.1a and within Myanmar it
has been designated as Link My.2a. These links are depicted in Map 14. Much of the
alignment analysis done for these links as part of the Singapore-Kunming Rail Link
Feasibility study was based on earlier alignment surveys completed by Ministry of Railways
officials.
Link Ch.1a would start from the new Chinese station of Xiaguan (about 15 km south of
Dali) and would follow a generally southwesterly alignment for 626 km up to the border
checkpoint at Ruili. The terrain through which the line would pass is extremely mountainous,
with peaks in places as high as 3,000 metres. The mountain ranges through which the line
would be required to pass are the Gaoligong and Qingshuilang ranges in the north and the
Saobie and Wuliang ranges in the south. The mountainous topography, coupled with the
need to restrict the maximum gradient to 1.25 per cent, made it necessary to survey a route
which follows river valleys to the maximum extent possible. Thus, the alignment selected by
the consultants is long and tortuous, as indicated by the fact that the direct distance between
Dali (elevation 900 metres AMSL) and Ruili (1,900 metres AMSL) is only 300 km.
Owing to the lack of suitable base data, the Interim Report could provide no comment
on the geology and seismology of the region, its hydrology, the number and type of
structures required, and the land use characteristics of the region. These issues are to be
covered in a later report.
56
MAP 14: MISSING LINKS BETWEEN CHINA AND MYANMAR
IN THE TAR SOUTHERN CORRIDOR
To Lekhapani,
India
endorsement or acceptance by W Dali Xiaguan
the United Nations. ay
ao
Xiangyun
Houqiao
Houqiao
Baoshan To Kunming
Te
n gc
ho
ng
n
ngo
Ya
Ch
nd
an
ya
g
la
ni
da
ng
an
Ruili
M
To
Mu-se
CHINA
Lashio LEGEND
EXISTING LINK
MYANMAR (route of international significance)
FUTURE LINK
To Myitkyina EXISTING LINK
FUTURE LINK
To Tamu
TAR border station
Ch.1 TAR link designation

To Yangon
57
However, it appears that only two towns of any significant size (Changning and
Juichang) lie on the proposed alignment of this link. It is also likely that there is extractive
and forest based industry in the region which might in future generate traffic for the rail route.
From Mu-se, Link My.2a would run south approximately 230 km to the existing
northeastern railhead in Myanma at Lashio. In fact the direct distance between Mu-se and
Lashio is only about 120 km, but the fact that the link would have to pass through the
Gaoligong Range with a maximum elevation of 2,000 metres, coupled with the requirement
to that the maximum gradient should not exceed 1.25 per cent, implies that this link would
also have to follow a tortuous course, as does the highway which it would follow for much of
the distance. The alignment investigated by the Malaysian consultants also took into account
the need to serve the townships of Hsienwi and Kutkai, which are the only significant
concentrations of population between Mu-se and Lashio.
Also a factor taken into account by the consultants was the need to minimize the
construction of major structures, such as bridges, tunnels and viaducts, and hence
construction costs along the proposed route alignment. Nevertheless, the need for four
major bridges with a total length of 340 metres, a 200 metre long viaduct and a single tunnel
of 600 metre length was identified.
The country through which the link would pass is generally uninhabited and economic
activity is restricted to agriculture and road stone quarrying activity.
Link Ch.1a would pass through steeply graded terrain and the unit construction cost on
the Chinese side of the border has been estimated by the Yunnan Railway General
Corporation as US$ 3.27 million per kilometre. This translates into an overall capital cost for
construction of Link Ch.1a, comprising 626 km of track of US$ 2.047 billion.
Terrain conditions on the other side of the border also appear to be difficult, but no
specific cost estimates for Link My.2a were available and it was therefore necessary to use
unit costs which would reflect the lower cost of labour in Myanmar, as compared with China.
It was considered that unit rates for new line construction through mountainous terrain in
India might more closely reflect the level of construction cost in Myanmar. Accordingly, a rate
of US$ 2.24 million per track kilometre was used, giving an overall construction cost
estimate for Link My.2a (232 track km) of US$ 759 million.
The basis and calculations for estimation of threshold tonnages according to FIRR
principles are detailed in Annexes 2 and 3. Estimates of long run marginal costs for
Myanmar were derived from runs of the Traincost model (assuming that unit operating costs
in Myanmar are about 50 per cent of the corresponding Thai costs). Cost estimates for
China were based on information provided in A A Brief Description of the Guanton-Dali
Railway, Yunnan PRC@ (1994). The revenue rate applying to movement of containers along
the missing links on both sides of the border was assumed to be that indicated in the
Country Report for China of about US$ 0.36 per TEU-km.
Financial assessment resulted in threshold tonnage estimates of 17.4 million tonnes per
annum on the Chinese side and 14.0 million tonnes per annum on the Myanmar side of the
border.
58
4.4.3 Links between Myanmar and India
The potential rail link of some 320 km between Kalay in Sagaing State of Myanmar and
Jiribam in Manipur State of India, via the official border post of Tamu in Myanmar, formed
the basis of the evaluation.
At the time of writing it is understood that only the first section of this link (a 135 km
section between Kalay and Tamu) has been subjected to detailed alignment survey.
(i) Link description
This link would form part of the main international route TAR-S1. Within Myanmar, it has
been designated Link My.3a and within India, Link In.5b, both of which are depicted in Map
15.
Link My.3a would start from the station of Kalay on the recently completed line to
Gangaw and would follow a northerly alignment for about 135 km up to the border
checkpoint at Tamu. (Tamu has been designated by the Government of Myanmar as the
only official border checkpoint with India).
It has been assumed (but has yet to be confirmed) that alignment of this link would follow
the valleys of the Myittha and Khampat Rivers (both tributaries of the Chindwinn River),
thereby avoiding the steeper gradients which would be associated with the range of small
mountains through which those rivers pass.
Link In.5a would start from Tamu, possibly following Highway 39 in a northwesterly
direction through Imphal, the capital of Manipur State, and from there following Highway 53
in a westerly direction to Jiribam which is the existing railhead on the Indian northeastern
metre gauge network. From Jiribam the existing metre gauge line provides a direct
connection with Bangladesh at the Indian border station of Mahisasan (opposite Shahbazpur
in Bangladesh), passing through the significant historical city of Silchar en route. The
distance from Tamu to Mahisasan is about 340 km, of which the missing section comprises
about 180 km, nearly all of it requiring construction through mountainous terrain, with several
peaks of 2,000 metres or more.
It has been assumed that Link My.3a would be constructed in the metre gauge and Link
In.5b in the broad gauge, thereby creating a break-of-gauge at the border.
Link My.3a would pass through flat to undulating river valley country for most of its length
of 135 km. It was assumed that its unit construction cost would be US$ 1.75 million per
kilometre, giving an overall capital cost estimate of US$ 236 million.
The missing portion of Link In.5b (180 km) would have to be constructed through quite
mountainous terrain, implying a unit construction cost of about US$ 2.25 million per
kilometre and overall capital cost of US$ 405 million.
59
MAP 15: MISSING LINKS BETWEEN INDIA AND MYANMAR
IN THE TAR SOUTHERN CORRIDOR
To Lumding and Lekhapani

the United Nations.
Silchar
Mahisasan
m
ba
i
Jir
To Dhaka, Gede
and Attari
Tamu
LEGEND
EXISTING LINK
FUTURE LINK
EXISTING LINK
FUTURE LINK
TAR border station Kalay
In.5a TAR link designation
To Mandalay, Lashio and Dali
60
are detailed in Annexes 2 and 3. An estimate of the long run marginal cost for Myanmar was
derived from runs of the Traincost model (assuming that unit operating costs in Myanmar are
about 50 per cent of the corresponding Thai costs). The corresponding estimate for India
was derived from the per wagon-km unit cost quoted in the Annual Report and Accounts of
the Indian Railways 1994-95. The revenue rate assumed for container movement on both
sides of the border was that reported in the Country Report for India of about US$ 0.40 per
TEU-km.
Financial assessment resulted in threshold tonnage estimates of 8.7 million tonnes per
annum on the Myanmar side and 9.9 million tonnes per annum on the Indian side of the
border.
The lower order of tonnage required in the case of Myanmar could be attributed to the
lower unit operating cost likely to apply in Myanmar. It should be noted that these estimates
do not include the cost of a break-of-gauge bridging facilities which might have to be
provided at Tamu.
4.4.4 Missing link within the Islamic Republic of Iran

A new rail link with a track gauge of 1435 mm is currently under construction between
Kerman and Zahedan in the Islamic Republic of Iran - a distance of 545 km. This new link
will form part of TAR Link Ir.1 and of the transcontinental route TAR-S1. At the time of
writing, formation and bridge works had been completed on about 100 km, but the project
was encountering funding difficulties amid doubts that it would be able to generate a
sufficient volume of traffic to pay back its investment cost.
(i) Link description
This link, which is depicted in Map 16 will traverse a mostly flat strip of desert terrain
bordered on either side by a low mountain range extending through the central part of the
Islamic Republic of Iran.
Initially, only 15 stations will be built along the line, in order to service the four pairs of
trains per day expected to run in the early years of operation. This number will be increased
progressively to 28. The link will serve two important commercial and cultural centres
between Kerman and Zahedan. These are Bam and Fahraj, located respectively 232 km
and 275 km southeast of Kerman. Bam is of historical significance and a base of support for
local agricultural industries. Fahraj is the focus of new manufacturing industry development,
a large automobile factory having recently located there to produce auto body panels for
possible future export to the CIS countries.
While the alignment of the new link is practically flat throughout most of its length, it will
cross flood plains and numerous small water courses requiring extensive construction of
bridges and culverts of varying length. Throughout the line, gradients will be limited to 1.5
per cent and curves to a radius of 500 metres. A 20 tonne axle load will apply and single
locomotives of medium power will have a trailing load haulage capability of 2,000 tonnes
throughout the line.
61
MAP 16: TAR MISSING LINK IN THE ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF IRAN
To Bafq,
Tehran
and Razi
AFGHANISTAN
PA
KI
ST
AN
To Spezand,,
Bam Fahraj Mirjaveh
Mirjaveh Lahore
IS Koh-i-Taftan and Karachi
O LA
F M
IR IC
A
N RE
PU
BL
IC

the United Nations.
62
Upon completion of this line temporary transhipment facilities will be established at
Zahedan, until the existing 92 km broad gauge line to the border with Pakistan can be
upgraded and converted to standard gauge. Ultimately, the break-of-gauge will be located at
the border.
The unit construction cost of the new line has been estimated by officials of the Islamic
Iranian Republic Railways at about US$ 1.2 million per kilometre.4 Thus, the overall
construction cost of the line is estimated at US$ 654 million.
are detailed in Annexes 2 and 3. Very rough estimates of the long run marginal cost of train
operations on the new line were derived from cost data contained in the document
AOperations Report, 1986-1995@, published by the Islamic Iranian Republic Railways. The
revenue rate applying on this line was assumed to equate to the present rate for container
movement between Sarakhs and Bandar Abbas (2540 km) of about US$ 0.24 per TEU-km.
Financial assessment resulted in a threshold tonnage estimate for this new line of 9.2
million tonnes per annum. This estimate has to be viewed in relation to traffic projections
prepared by the Islamic Iranian Republic Railways which suggest that during the initial 10-12
year period of operation the line will carry three pairs of freight trains and one pair of
passenger trains daily and an annual freight volume of two million tonnes, increasing after
year 12 to 12 freight train pairs and two passenger trains daily and an annual freight volume
of eight million tonnes.
4.5 Summarized capital cost and threshold tonnage estimates

Estimates of the capital costs of constructing the missing links identified in the preceding
sections, in relation to estimates of the annual freight tonnages required to offset these
costs, have been summarized in Table 4.3. In the next chapter, a comparison is made
between the threshold tonnage requirement and the projected tonnage for each missing link.
Table 4.3: Summary of new line construction costs vs threshold freight tonnages
Missing link Estimated construction Estimated threshold freight

cost tonnage requirement
(US$ million) ( million tonnes per annum)
Dali-Ruili (China) 2,047 17.4
Ruili/Mu-se - Lashio (Myanmar) 759 14.0
Nam Tok - Three Pagoda Pass (Thailand) 268 (1) 7.3
(2)
Three Pagoda Pass - Thanbyuzayat (Myanmar) 192 7.1
Kalay-Tamu (Myanmar) 236 8.7
Tamu-Jiribam (India) 405 9.9
Kerman-Zahedan (Islamic Republic of Iran) 654 9.2
TOTAL 4,561
(1) US$ 61 million for Nam Tok-Bong Tee (2) US$ 201 million for Bong Tee-Dawei.
4
Personal communication during ESCAP mission to Tehran in May 1998.
63
5. TRAFFIC DEMAND
This study has a primary focus on the potential for international movement of containers
within the corridor. However, it has to be recognized that the development of the component
links of the TAR network will serve other traffic needs of significance to individual participating
countries. In some cases, these needs can be expected to dominate the future traffic task on
nominated TAR links.
Traffic demand for the TAR Southern Corridor network can be expected in three main forms,
i.e.: existing, diverted and generated demand. All are dependent in varying degrees on the
benefits perceived by existing and potential rail customers to be offered by rail services in the
corridor. (The benefits required to be offered by rail in order to attract traffic to the TAR network
have been identified in Chapter 8).
Existing demand reflects the current usage of services on TAR links by freight customers.
This demand may be expected to grow in line with national GDP growth indicators and/or with
foreign trade growth indicators.
Diverted demand results from the diversion of traffic to the TAR from other transport modes
serving the TAR Southern Corridor. An example of diverted traffic demand potential might be
found in the traffic which currently moves between hinterland locations within the corridor via a
combination of land and sea transport services, but which could in future move directly from
origin to destination by rail. This represents potentially divertible traffic, since it incurs distance,
time (and probably cost) penalties through having to be moved by a circuitous route. The level of
diverted traffic will depend mainly on the net benefits perceived by potential freight customers to
be offered by the TAR over its competitors, but its continued growth will depend on wider
economic and trade growth influences.
Generated demand is demand which is stimulated by the development of transport

infrastructure. In the case of the TAR network it might arise from the development of industry in
areas not previously served by rail or at least not previously accessible by a viable rail service,
but which would be provided with such connections as a consequence of TAR network
development. The possible development of industry in the northeastern states of India as a
direct consequence of the construction of missing links and gauge conversion of the existing
metre gauge system could generate additional traffic for the TAR network. While the multiplier
impacts of railway infrastructure developments have been subjected to detailed study in the
West, almost no study of these impacts has been undertaken in Asia. As a result, conventional
cost/benefit analysis of railway development projects is devoid of any measurement of these
effects, even when they are likely to contribute substantially to the justification of a project.
Measurement of the generated traffic demand for the TAR would require a major econometric
study of economic linkages between TAR network development and potential resource and
industry development in the corridor under study. Thus, any comment on generated traffic
demands in the present report will necessarily be restricted to speculating on the possible
impacts of resource extraction and manufacturing industry growth in the corridor.
Each of the three demand categories described above may be sub-divided into: inter-
regional, intra-regional and intra-country traffic.
64
Inter-regional, or through international traffic, is traffic moving between origins and
destinations in different regions. An example might be containerizable light manufactures from
Yunnan Province to destinations beyond Turkey. It may be assumed that the majority of this
type of traffic currently moves by sea to or from ports on the Chinese coast or ports within the
Islamic Republic of Iran or the countries of South Asia. The potential for this traffic to divert to
the TAR in future depends largely on the construction of the missing links in the TAR network.
However, as was observed in the analysis of route options in Chapter 3, the probability of traffic
originating in Yunnan Province of China or in Thailand eventually diverting to the TAR must be
rated as fairly low.
Intra-regional traffic is traffic with both an origin and a destination within the ESCAP region.
Perhaps the best example of this type of traffic is that which currently moves via sea-cum-land
transport between origins and destinations in the hinterland of countries within the corridor (see
Adiverted traffic@, above). Arguably, traffic of this type represents the most promising opportunity
for the TAR network - provided that the traffic origin and destination are both served by existing
TAR links.
Finally, Intra-Country Traffic is defined as traffic moving from one part of a country to
another, but which uses the identified TAR links for at least part of the journey. An example
might be bagged fertilizer (potentially transportable in containers) moving from the Port of
Karachi for distribution throughout northeastern Pakistan. Road transport is likely to have a
dominant share of Intra-Country Traffic in all countries participating in this study.
The following sections assess the traffic potential for the TAR Southern Corridor network
within the various traffic demand categories.
5.1 Existing traffic demand

Container traffic moves in significant volumes on existing links within the corridor in five of
the eight participating countries. These countries are: Bangladesh, India, Pakistan, the Islamic
Republic of Iran and Turkey. However, only in the case of Turkey does this traffic cross a land
border.
Since most of this traffic is port oriented, much of it can also be regarded as potentially
divertible (inter and intra-regional) traffic.
5.1.1 Bangladesh
The Bangladesh Railway has operated dedicated container trains between Dhaka and
Chittagong since August 1991. Currently, one pair of container trains is operated per day on
TAR Link Bn.2. During 1996/97 considerable effort and funds were committed, as part of a
railway restructuring project sponsored by the Asian Development Bank to improving the
running performance of this service. However, despite progressive and substantial
improvements in train running times and reliability, Bangladesh Railways has failed to increase
its share of the traffic in containers and container cargoes between Dhaka and Chittagong, as
may be observed in Table 5.1.
It is a matter of concern that in spite of the substantial investment in container handling

facilities at the Inland Container Depot at Dhaka and at the rail container terminal at Chittagong,
some 85 per cent of the container cargo volume moved in both directions between Chittagong
and Dhaka is transported in small rigid trucks of limited payload capacity. There are several
reasons for this, not the least significant of which are port tariffs which favour container
65
discharge and loading within the boundaries of the port, port operating practices which result in
road operators being given priority in the allocation of container and cargo handling equipment,
and flexible tariff responses by road operators who are able to undercut rail tariffs in order to
secure backloading in the non-dominant (i.e. Dhaka-Chittagong) traffic direction.
Table 5.1: Trend in rail container feeder volume and share, Dhaka-Chittagong-Dhaka
Year Total container Percentage Rail-hauled Percentage Rail-hauled

volume in Dhaka- change container volume in change share of total
Chittagong Dhaka-Chittagong volume (%)
corridor corridor
(TEU)* (TEU)
1992/93 105,341 13,744 13.0
1993/94 122,471 16.3 15,010 9.2 12.2

1994/95 159,020 29.8 21,757 45.0 13.7
1995/96 175,607 10.4 25,436 16.9 14.5
1996/97 203,231 15.7 29,953 17.8 14.7
* This takes into account both the containers transported by rail and the deconsolidated container cargoes transported
by road.
A serious consequence of these factors is that they contribute to increased congestion in a

port which already suffers severe congestion of its berth back-up areas owing to its limited ship
loading and discharge capacity. In the absence of any improvement in this situation, it is difficult
to project a growth of more than seven per cent per annum in rail hauled container volume over
the forecast time-frame to 2017.
Projection of growth at seven per cent per annum would result in volumes of 59,000 TEU in
2007 and 116,000 TEU in 2017. Effectively, this would mean that only a second pair of trains
per day1 would need to be added by 2007 and a third pair by 2017. However, if container
volume originating in or destined for other South Asian and Central Asian countries can in future
be moved directly by rail, the need to increase the daily number of container train pairs
operating between Dhaka and Chittagong might be avoided completely.
5.1.2 India
Currently, all rail hauled international container traffic in India is port oriented - no containers
are as yet rail hauled across borders.
Forecasts of international container traffic on TAR links in India were derived from
projections presented in the Country Report for India. These projections assume:
$ Increasing containerisation of non-bulk trade commodities with leads of 300 km or

greater;
$ Rail and road shares of the international container haulage business stabilizing at about
80 per cent and 20 per cent respectively; and
1
Assuming continuation of the present train configuration of 25 forty foot flat cars with an overall TEU capacity
of 50.
66
$ Development of cross border rail movement of containers (partly as a consequence of
increasing containerization).
The resulting traffic forecasts are given in Table 5.2.
Table 5.2: Rail hauled international container traffic forecast, all TAR links in India
CONTAINER Current Forecast Ave. Forecast Average

TRAFFIC (1996/97) 2006/07 annual 2016/17 annual
SEGMENT growth growth %
Mill. Mill. Mill. Mill. % Mill. Mill.
TEU Tonnes TEU Tonnes TEU Tonnes
Bilateral - 0.25 4.0 0.38 6.08 4.3
(Neighbouring
countries
only)*
Other** 1.33 15.91 2.00 23.91 4.2
Total 0.576 7.26 (e) 1.58 19.91 13.4 2.38 29.99 4.2
Of which:
Port oriented 0.576 1.22 15.01 9.8 1.85 22.78 4.3
Border - 0.36 4.90 0.53 7.21 3.9
crossing
Source: Country Paper for India
* Neighbouring countries are identified as Bangladesh, Bhutan, Nepal and Pakistan. All except Bhutan are expected to
experience cross border rail flows of containers in future.
** Comprises limited third country border crossing traffic and port oriented traffic. In the absence of a through east-west
international TAR route, third country traffic projections have been limited to those between Nepal and Bhutan and
Calcutta/Haldia ports.
(e) Estimated on basis of ave. gross weight per TEU of 12.6 tonnes (as was used in Country Paper projections)
With an average of 60 TEU per train, currently about 10 pairs of dedicated block trains carry
international containers over the TAR network in India each day. If the average TEU payload of
these trains were to increase to 70 by 2006/07 and 80 by 2016/17, the daily number of train
pairs would increase to 31 by 2006/07 and to 41 by 2016/17. Since the majority of this traffic
would be concentrated on TAR Link In.3 (Delhi-Mumbai) which has already reached capacity
saturation, consideration may have to be given to implementing capacity expansion measures
for this link, additional to those already incorporated in the development plan for the TAR links in
India.
Application of the estimated percentage distribution of neighbouring country physical trade

to the border crossing container volumes in Table 5.2 resulted in the forecasts of cross border
container volumes for each rail served neighbouring country, as shown in Table 5.3. These
forecasts relate only to rail-hauled border crossing traffic and therefore do not include the TEU
volumes which could be expected to move by road across the border with Bhutan in future. In
addition, they do not allow for the possibility of any transit traffic or any bilateral traffic with
Myanmar since these would depend upon the construction of missing links.
67
Table 5.3: Forecast of rail hauled container traffic across India=s borders
Border between TAR links Initial year 2000/01 2006/07 forecast 2016/17 forecast
India and: TEU volume TEU volume TEU volume
Bangladesh In.1/Bn.1; 22,500 150,000 225,000
In.5b/Bn.1
Nepal In.4/new 5 km link in 30,000 60,000 80,000
Nepal
Pakistan In.1/Pk.1 50,000 in 2002/03 150,000 225,000
Using the same payload assumptions as were used in the calculation of train numbers for
the entire TAR network in India, the daily number of train pairs crossing each border may be
calculated as follows:
2006/07 2016/17
Bangladesh 5 6
Nepal 1 2
Pakistan 3 4
The additional number of trains indicated on each border crossing link is not of sufficient
magnitude as to impose line capacity pressures on these links, although it is likely that
increases in the border terminal capacities of neighbouring countries will have to be
contemplated in order to ensure that the forecast number of trains can be accommodated.
5.1.3 Pakistan
Currently, no containers are road or rail hauled across Pakistan=s land borders, and all rail
container haulage in Pakistan is port oriented. Rail movement of containers occurs between the
seaport container terminals of Karachi and Qasim and seven dry port facilities (container
handling terminals with full customs clearance services) in the hinterland at Lahore, Multan,
Rawalpindi, Peshawar, Quetta, Sialkot and Faisalabad, all but the last two being operated by
the Pakistan Railways.
In recent years, there has been a declining trend in the haulage of containers between the
ports and the hinterland dry ports, as is reflected in the trend in loaded container throughputs at
Lahore Dry Port shown in Table 5.4
Table 5.4:Loaded container throughputs, Lahore Dry Port
Year Imports Export TEU Total Loaded TEU

TEU volume % change TEU volume % change TEU volume % change
1993/94 19,169 10,881 30,050
1994/95 10,682 -45.3 8,895 -18.3 19,541 -35.0

1995/96 11,201 4.9 10,474 17.8 21,675 10.9
1996/97 9,467 -15.5 7,945 -24.2 17,412 -19.7
Source: Country Report for Pakistan
68
Lahore Dry Port handles between 90 and 95 per cent of all containers handled at the seven
inland dry ports, so that the trend in its throughput is a good guide to the overall throughput
trend. To a large extent its declining throughput is a reflection of a slowdown in container
imports through the ports of Karachi. In 1996/97, for example, the total volume of container
imports through Karachi and Qasim ports (460,670 TEU) declined by 16.5 per cent from the
previous year=s total - not greatly different from the decline of 15.5 per cent experienced in the
Lahore Dry Port=s throughput of import containers.
While the trend in the volume of containers handled at the Lahore Dry Port is also a good
guide to the trend in the volume of container haulage by rail to and from the hinterland, it must
be noted that the railway transports only 20-22 per cent of all imported containerized cargo
moving into the hinterland from the Karachi ports. As is the case in Bangladesh, the majority of
import containers arriving in Karachi and Qasim ports appear to be unloaded within the port
boundaries and their contents moved by road to consignees in the hinterland. Within recent
years, rail=s competitive position in container haulage has been further eroded as a result of the
licensing of 16 private road carriers for the transportation of bonded cargo from Karachi to
destinations in the hinterland.
In the base year of 1996/97, rail moved approximately 18,000 TEU between Karachi and the
dry ports in the hinterland. More than 90 per cent of this volume moved to and from the Lahore
Dry Port, via TAR Link Pk.1. With an average payload of 60 TEU per dedicated container train,
this was scarcely equivalent to one train per day. Clearly, at its present level of operation,
container transportation is not posing a line capacity problem on any of the relevant TAR links.
Freight traffic forecasts dissected by commodity/traffic segment were not made available for
Pakistan. However, for the system as a whole, freight traffic forecasts based on conservative
and optimistic growth assumptions were prepared in connection with the 9th Five Year Plan
(1998-2003). The optimistic forecast represents an extreme case in that total freight traffic was
expected to grow, by reason only of substantial investments to be committed to system
development, from its 1996/97 achieved level of 4.607 billion tonne-km to 12.0 billion tonne-km
by 2003/04, growing at a rate averaging 17.3 per cent per annum. Alternatively, in the case of
the pessimistic forecast, freight traffic was actually expected to decline by an average of four per
cent per annum to reach 4.1 billion tonne-km by 2003/04, under an assumption of diminishing
investment in real terms.
Even if rail hauled container traffic could sustain growth at the optimistic rate of more than
17 per cent per annum (which is highly doubtful), the total haulage volume in 2006/07 (88,800
TEU) would require the operation of only two pairs of dedicated container trains per day. If
growth continued at this rate until 2016/17 (even more unlikely), total container haulage volume
would reach 438,000 TEU per annum and daily container train operation would reach 10 pairs
of trains per day. Only then would traffic growth impose pressures on line capacity on some
TAR links.
A more realistic growth scenario for existing rail hauled container traffic might be a growth
rate averaging six per cent per annum over the 20 year forecast time frame. This would
compare with a GDP growth for Pakistan averaging 4.3 per cent per annum between 1994/95
and 1996/97. Achievement of a six per cent growth rate would result in rail hauled container
volumes of 32,200 TEU by 2006/07 and 57,700 TEU by 2016/17. These volumes would require
the operation of no more than one and two pairs of dedicated container trains per day
respectively, scarcely imposing line capacity problems on any of the relevant TAR links.
Nevertheless, such a traffic growth outcome would depend on the continuation of

improvements introduced to rail container operations in recent years. These have included:
69
$ Special reduced rates for empty container repositioning to service exports from Lahore
and Faisalabad Dry Ports;
$ Special box rates for movement of containers from Port Qasim to dry ports in the
hinterland;
$ Operational improvements to reduce waiting time of wagons prior to discharge/loading in

Lahore Dry Port;
$ Operational improvements to reduce running times of dedicated container trains

between Karachi and Lahore from 60 hours to 48 hours; and
$ Fixed timetable operation of dedicated container trains on two days of the week
(Saturdays and Thursdays).
5.1.4 Islamic Republic of Iran

The only containers currently moved by rail across the borders of the Islamic Republic of
Iran are those moved in transit between the Central Asian Republics and the ports of Bandar
Abbas and Bandar Imam Khomeini (but principally the former). Although it was reported by the
Turkish Railways that significant volumes of cotton are moving by rail from Central Asia (via the
border stations of Razi/Kapiköy) for shipment from the Mediterranean ports of Mersin or
Ískenderun, this traffic is understood to be moved in covered vans.
From data provided in the Country Report for the Islamic Republic of Iran, supplemented by
road traffic data obtained during the ESCAP mission to Tehran in May 1998, it was estimated
that the total volume freight traffic crossing the Sarakhs border by rail and road in 1997 was
786,000 tonnes, of which 550,000 tonnes was rail hauled.2 Of this latter volume, 446,000 tonnes
was transit traffic.
Since no details of the container traffic component of this border crossing traffic were made
available, it was necessary to estimate the volumes of border crossing container traffic on the
basis of data provided by the Ports and Shipping Organization (PSO) of the Islamic Republic of
Iran. PSO data indicated a total transit cargo volume through the ports of Imam Khomeini,
Shahid Rajaee and Shahid Bahonar in 1997 of 1,116,000 tonnes. This represented 3.8 per cent
of the total cargo throughput of those ports in the same year. Accordingly, it was estimated that
4% of the total container volume reported for all ports in the Islamic Republic of Iran in 1997 of
316,384 TEU would represent transit cargo and that all of the resulting transit container volume
would pass through Sarakhs. This gave an estimate of 12,700 TEU passing through Sarakhs by
rail and road in 1997, 70 per cent of which, or 8,900 TEU, was assumed to be rail hauled. Using
an average gross load per TEU of 12 tonnes, this TEU volume would translate into 106,800
tonnes, representing 24 per cent of the total rail borne transit traffic volume in 1997. The
estimate of rail hauled transit container volume thus appears not to be unreasonable in relation
to the overall rail hauled transit traffic.
2
Details of the calculation of these volumes appear in Table 10.2 of Chapter 10 of this report.
70
Given that future volumes of rail borne transit container traffic will depend not only on the
trend in economic and trade indicators, but also on the rate at which existing transit freight
volumes can be containerized, a growth rate averaging nine per cent per annum over the
forecast time frame might not appear unreasonable. This growth rate would produce a rail borne
transit container volume through Sarakhs of 21,000 TEU by 2006/07 and of 50,000 TEU by
2016/17. Given that container wagons are generally assembled into trains of 40 bogie wagons
each west of Bafq, it is unlikely that container volumes on offer would be sufficient to justify
operation of dedicated container trains until near the end of the forecast period in 2016/17. Even
then, the required number of daily train pairs is unlikely to exceed one, which would not impose
pressures on line capacity on any of the TAR links between Sarakhs and Bandar Abbas.
The other two main border crossings open to rail, at Mirjaveh/Koh-i-Taftan on the border with
Pakistan and at Razi/Kapiköy on the border with Turkey, do not carry container traffic at present.
In fact, the Mirjaveh border processes less than 30,000 tonnes of traffic per annum, most of it
comprising commodities, such as sulphur and bitumen, which are unsuited to movement in
containers. Approximately 270,000 tonnes per annum of freight traffic moves across the Razi
border by rail of which 200,000 tonnes is estimated to be transit traffic from Central Asia.3 As
much as half of this volume might comprise cotton moved from Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan to
the port of Mersin for shipping to Europe. All of this cotton volume is potentially containerizable
and at an average payload per TEU of about 15 tonnes could yield an annual container volume
of 6,700 TEU in each direction. If this volume grew at a rate averaging nine per cent per year, it
would reach 15,900 TEU by 2006/07 and 37,600 TEU by 2016/17. These volumes would be of
too small a magnitude to add significantly to existing daily train density on TAR link Ir.1.
5.1.5 Turkey
Railway border crossing traffic through Kapiköy is identified in Sub-section 5.1.4 above. At
the other major border open to rail - Kapikule on the border between Turkey and Bulgaria -
some 200,000 tonnes and 14,000 TEU of container traffic is processed annually. According to
the Turkish State Railways, this traffic has been experiencing rapid growth mainly as a result of
the success of block train pricing. When visited during the course of the ESCAP mission to
Ankara in March 1998, officials of the Turkish State Railways indicated an expectation that this
traffic would grow by 30 per cent in 1998. The strong growth prospects for the traffic were
boosted by the inauguration of scheduled container carrying liner trains between Europe and
Turkey.
Among the major rail container services being operated from Europe are those of:
$ Acombi (an Austrian Railways affiliate), with scheduled container block trains running
two times per week from Vienna to Halkali (location of an Inland Container Depot 27 km
west of Istanbul); and
$ Intercontainer/Interfrigo, with scheduled container block trains running three times per
week from Shopron on the Austo-Hungarian border to Halkali.
Europe to Turkey traffic mostly comprises chemicals and auto parts and in the reverse
direction manganese is the major commodity carried in containers. A major trade in textiles
between Turkey and Europe has been lost to trucking owing to the acquisition by road hauliers
3
Source: Turkish State Railways.
71
of high cube vehicles and as a result to their enhanced ability to offer efficient door-to-door
services.
If it is assumed that rail borne container volume across the Kapikule border reached 18,200
TEU in 1998, it might not be unrealistic to expect growth throughout the 20 year forecast period
at a rate of about 11 per cent per annum. This would result in TEU volumes of 46,600 by
2006/07 and 132,300 by 2016/17. If it is assumed that container liner trains carry 90 TEU on
average (30 wagons x 3 TEU each), then daily train density would increase to one in each
direction from 2006/07 and to two in each direction from 2016/17. This would not affect line
capacity significantly, but might well require expansion of container terminal handling capacity.
5.2 Diverted traffic demand

Arguably the most promising and practical traffic opportunity for the TAR Southern corridor is
presented by the diversion to rail of intra-regional container traffic currently transported between
origin and destination by a combination of land and sea modes. Most diverted traffic could make
use of the TAR links which are currently in place, provided that existing border crossing
obstacles to the smooth passage of this traffic could be removed. (Please see Chapter 10 for a
discussion of the issues associated with improvement of border crossing procedures).
Diverted traffic might be presented in two forms:
$ International container traffic with an origin and a destination located within that part of
the TAR Southern Corridor already served by continuous rail routes. This traffic results
from the transportation needs of manufacturing industries and other trade sources which
are located mainly in the hinterland of the countries within the corridor. At present these
needs are being satisfied by combined rail (or road) and sea transport, but would be
better served in future by direct rail transport, with associated savings in time and cost to
shippers. Overall, diversion of this traffic would result in a longer rail transport distance,
with additional railway systems participating in the haul, but total trip distances would
reduce substantially. In the case of some railway systems (e.g. that of India), traffic
diversion will relieve capacity shortages on major trunk lines providing railway
connections to the ports.
$ International container traffic which could be diverted from alternative transport modes
only after construction of missing links in the TAR network. This is basically traffic bound
for or sourced in Yunnan Province of China, Thailand and Myanmar which would
originate or be destined for locations in other countries within the TAR Southern
Corridor. Examples of origin/destination pairs which would fall within this classification
are: Kunming/Yangon, Kunming/Dhaka, Bangkok/Yangon, Bangkok/Dhaka,
Yangon/Dhaka, etc. Not included within this classification are origins/destinations within
Europe and the northern portion of Central Asia, which as was observed in Chapter 3
are better served to/from Kunming and Bangkok by alternative (i.e. non TAR) railway
routes. The majority of divertible traffic within this category is at present transported by
road, although it is possible that a not insignificant volume moves by combined land and
sea transport to/from Kunming.
Measurement of opportunities for traffic diversion were frustrated by a lack of adequate data,
especially of port data on an origin/destination basis which would reveal container and other
trade volumes moving between ports within the TAR corridor. What little data were available
were used to identify divertible traffic by country, as exposed hereafter.
72
5.2.1 China
Within the TAR Southern Corridor, the major trade flow to and from China is between
Yunnan Province and Myanmar. A 1994 study by the Asian Development Bank identified trade
flows in 1993 from Yunnan Province to Myanmar amounting to 700,000 tonnes per year and
trade flows in the reverse direction (Myanmar-Yunnan) of 420,000 tonnes per year.4 These
volumes are substantially larger than the estimate of 568,000 tonnes derived from data on the
number of border crossing vehicles supplied by the Border Trade Department of Myanmar, but it
is likely that they include unrecorded trade which is likely to have been omitted from the second
source.5 Alternatively, the Border Trade Department figures may simply reflect a recent decline
in trade volume as a consequence of the Asian economic slump.
If the ADB figures are accepted as a base, then 246,000 tonnes or slightly more than one
third of the estimated volume of trade moving from Yunnan Province of China to Myanmar
comprises rice and other agricultural products which might be considered suitable for
containerization (the remainder of the identified trade being in petroleum products and
construction machinery neither of which might be suited to movement in containers). If an
average payload of 15 tonnes per TEU were used, the total container volume moving in this
trade would be about 16,400 TEU, or about 32,800 TEU for a two way flow.
There is another trade flow from Yunnan Province which is currently moved through ports on
the Chinese coast. The container element of this trade was estimated at 6,400 TEU per annum
for the 1994 calendar year.6 However, it was not possible to dissect this volume by direction or
to establish what proportion, if any, might be directed to other countries in the TAR Southern
Corridor.
It is possible that rail could in future capture all of the container trade moving between
Yunnan Province and Myanmar, but it would be necessary first to construct the missing link of
about 860 km between Dali and Lashio. If this project were to proceed, it is unlikely that a
continuous rail connection between Kunming and Yangon would be available until towards the
end of the forecast time frame, i.e. 2016/17. By that time, the container volume on offer might
have grown to about 158,200 TEU (assuming three per cent per annum growth for the first four
years, 11 per cent per annum growth for the next six years and eight per cent per annum growth
for the second ten years of the forecast time frame). With an average of 66 TEU 7 per train, this
volume would only be equivalent to about three pairs of trains per day.
4
ADB (1994), First Interim Report: Compilation of a Database ARegional Technical Assistance on Promoting
Subregional Cooperation among Cambodia, China, the Lao People=s Democratic Republic, Myanmar, Thailand and
Viet Nam@.
5
For the three official border crossings between Myanmar and China, the total number of border crossing
vehicles between April 1997 and January 1998 was recorded as 76,258. Using an average payload of 6.2 tonnes per
vehicle (the payload which is typical for Indian vehicles operating in mountainous territory) and expanding the result to
represent a complete year, a figure of 568,000 tonnes is derived.
6
ESCAP (1996), Trans-Asian Railway Route Requirements: Develoment of the Trans-Asian Railway in the
Indochina and ASEAN Subregion, Vol.3, page 27.
7
Payload for container trains as indicated in the Country Report for China.
73
5.2.2 Thailand
Trade volume moving from Thailand to Myanmar in 1993 was estimated at 159,000 tonnes,
of which 150,000 tonnes was believed to be comprised mostly of manufactured goods.8 In the
other direction (Myanmar to Thailand), trade volume was estimated at 279,000 tonnes, with
agricultural products (66,000 tonnes) and forestry products (121,500 tonnes) comprising two
thirds of the total.
Trade in both directions between Thailand and Myanmar currently moves by sea (i.e.
shipping services between Bangkok/Laem Chabang and Yangon), road transport across the
principal land border at Mae Sot/Myawaddy and by short-sea service between Ranong and
Kawthaung, in southern Thailand and Myanmar respectively. It is not known what proportion of
this trade (if any) is currently containerized, but since the trade is not part of the global maritime
trade flows, it is unlikely that it would be containerized. The major opportunity for
containerization of this trade might then be presented by the flow of manufactured goods from
Thailand to Myanmar, estimated to amount to 150,000 tonnes in 1993. Assuming an average
payload of 15 tonnes per TEU, this volume would be equivalent to 10,000 TEU per annum one
way or 20,000 TEU for a two way flow.
In addition to the two way flow of trade between Thailand and Myanmar, trade flows
between Thailand and countries within the TAR Southern Corridor, to the west of Myanmar,
would also represent long term potential traffic for the TAR. Unfortunately, it was not possible to
obtain data on the current volumes involved, all of which are likely to be moved by sea transport.
Preliminary forecasts of traffic likely to move on the rail links planned between Thailand and
Myanmar were prepared as part of the feasibility study on the Kunming-Singapore Rail Link9,
but at the time of writing the status and reliability of these forecasts were uncertain.
Consequently, these forecasts were not used in the present study.
As would be the case with potentially divertible traffic to/from Yunnan Province of China, the
diversion to rail of traffic to and from Thailand would depend on the completion of the relevant
missing link (Nam Tok - Thanbyuzayat) and this also could not be expected to occur before the
end of the forecast time frame, i.e. around 2016/17. If base trade volumes equivalent to about
20,000 TEU per annum are accepted as potential traffic to and from Thailand which might be
diverted to the TAR and if traffic growth could be expected at the rate of three per cent per
annum for the first four years, eleven per cent per annum for the next six years and eight per
cent per annum for the second ten years of the forecast time frame, the total of such traffic
might be expected to reach 90,900 TEU by 2016/17. Assuming a payload for container trains
averaging 60 TEU, approximately two pairs of trains per day would be needed to transport this
traffic.
8
ADB (1994), First Interim Report: Compilation of a Database ARegional Technical Assistance on Promoting
Subregional Cooperation among Cambodia, China, the Lao People=s Democratic Republic, Myanmar, Thailand and
Viet Nam@.
9
Malaysia, Ministry of Transport (1998), Interim Report on Feasibility of Singapore to Kunming Rail Link, Kuala
Lumpur.
74
5.2.3 Myanmar
Myanmar=s current level of trade with Yunnan Province of China and with Thailand was
identified in the preceding sections. In addition, there are small volumes of trade with India and
with Bangladesh which cross established borders at Tamu (Myanmar)/Mori (India) and
Maungdaw (Myanmar)/Teknaf (Bangladesh) and which might represent potential traffic for the
TAR upon construction of the missing link between Kalay (Myanmar) and Jiribam (India). These
volumes were estimated on the basis of information supplied by the Border Trade Department
of the Government of Myanmar as 28,000 tonnes per annum for bi-directional Myanmar-India
trade and 12,000 tonnes per annum for bi-directional Myanmar-Bangladesh trade respectively.
The trade with India, which moves across the border by truck, is believed to comprise
exports of mainly pulse crop and forest products and imports of construction materials. Possibly
half of this traffic could be diverted to rail upon completion of the TAR link towards the end of the
forecast period in 2016/17. If it is comprised mainly of agricultural products, a payload of 15
tonnes per TEU might be assumed, resulting in an equivalent TEU volume of only about 900 or
1800 in both directions. If this traffic were to grow at three per cent per annum for the first four
years, at eleven per cent per annum for the next six years and at eight per cent per annum for
the second ten years of the forecast time frame, it would reach a volume of about 8,200 TEU by
2016/17. This volume would be insufficient to justify operation of a pair of trains per day or even
one pair every 3-4 days.
Trade between Myanmar and Bangladesh currently moves in small boats across the inlet
separating Maungdaw from Teknaf. Since this is considered to be mostly local border trade, it is
unlikely to represent potential traffic for the TAR network in future and has therefore been
excluded from the traffic forecasts for this study.
There is the possibility that additional trade currently moving by combined rail/road/ IWT and
sea transport between Myanmar and neighbouring countries within the TAR Southern Corridor
might also be diverted to rail following construction of the missing link between Kalay and
Jiribam. However, owing to the non-availability of data, it was not possible to estimate the
magnitude of this trade.
5.2.4 Bangladesh
Apart from the diversion of trade currently moving by combined road or rail and sea transport
between Bangladesh and its neighbouring countries in the TAR Southern Corridor, the TAR
links in Bangladesh might also have the potential to divert traffic moving between the seven
northeastern states of India and the seaports via the narrow corridor (or Achicken=s neck@)
between Nepal and Bangladesh, as well as traffic moving between the northeastern states and
the rest of India via the same corridor. It may be argued that there could be compelling time and
cost advantages in future for moving foreign trade volumes to and from northeastern India via
the Port of Chittagong rather than via the ports of Calcutta or Haldia. These advantages might
arise from the fact that the distance from Lumding in northern Assam State to Chittagong Port is
little more than 600 km by rail as compared with approximately 1,400 km to Calcutta. However,
their realization might depend upon the ultimate re-gauging of the metre gauge rail system in
northeastern India and in eastern Bangladesh, as well as enhancement of the capacity and
efficiency of Chittagong port which currently would not be capable of servicing trade to or from
northeastern India.
75
Data received from the Port of Chittagong Authority were unfortunately not sufficiently
detailed to permit an estimate to be made of the volume of container trade which might in future
be diverted to direct rail services on the TAR network. It is believed that cotton traffic from
Central Asia might represent the most significant opportunity for such diversion.
In the case of the potential for diversion of traffic moving into and out of the northeastern
states of India, data contained in a recent study suggest that the volume of such traffic carried
by rail and river transport during the 12 month period to the end of March 1995 amounted to 6.2
million tonnes inbound and 3.1 million tonnes outbound.10 Of the inbound tonnage, nearly 80
per cent (4.99 million tonnes) consisted of coal, coke and cement - all presumably moved in
specialized bulk wagons or vessels - and less than two per cent (99,300 tonnes) consisted of
agricultural products which might be amenable to containerization. Of the outbound tonnage,
nearly 60 per cent (1.87 million tonnes) consisted of teak and other forestry products and only
51, 091 consisted of commodities, such as oil seeds, sugar and tea, which might be suited to
movement in containers. This trade might therefore produce a two way container flow amounting
to about 13,000 TEU per annum, but it was not possible to determine the split of this volume by
rail and river, or indeed to estimate what proportion would be port directed (as compared with
rest of India directed).
Although not explicitly stated, it appears that the potential for diversion of traffic to/from
northeastern India via Bangladesh may have influenced a strong growth forecast for border
crossing container traffic in the Country Report for India (see sub-section 5.1.2 above). Using
information presented in this report, a forecast of container volume crossing the border with
Bangladesh was derived as follows: 244,000 TEU and 5 daily train pairs by 2006/07 and
364,000 TEU and 6 daily train pairs by 2016/17. It is presumed that these volumes would mostly
move across the Darsana/Gede border, but what proportion would also move across the
Shahbazpur/Mahisasan border could not be forecast on the basis of the available information.
5.2.5 India
The traffic forecasts contained in the Country Report for India and addressed in sub-section
5.1.2 above include at least some allowance for traffic diversion possibilities. They also include
an allowance for the potential to divert trade with other countries within the TAR Southern
Corridor from combined land and sea transport to direct rail transport. Insufficient port based
data was available as a basis for making such a forecast.
5.2.6 Pakistan
Rail currently handles nearly 100 per cent of the traffic crossing the land border between
India and Pakistan through the one designated border checkpoint at Attari/Wagah. Therefore
there is little potential to attract increased border crossing traffic from road. For the same
reasons given in sub-section 5.2.5, it was also not possible to forecast the volume of trade with
10
Statistics from the Directorate General of Commercial Intelligence and Statistics, Government of India,
reported in R. Sobhan (1998), Pilot Study on Impact of Improving International Transit Links and Facilitation
Measures in Bangladesh, India, Myanmar, Thailand, and Yunnan Province of China (Draft Report), ESCAP.
76
other countries in the corridor which it might be possible to divert from combined land and sea
transport to direct rail transport.

In the Islamic Republic of Iran, the major opportunity for traffic diversion would be presented
by trade which currently moves between Central Asia and other countries in the corridor via the
port complexes at Bandar Abbas and Bandar Imam Khomeini. In sub-section 5.1.4 above, it was
estimated that the rail hauled container volume associated with this trade amounted to about
9,000 TEU and that this volume might reach 21,000 TEU by 2006/07 and 50,000 by 2016/17. It
was not possible to determine what proportion of this volume originates or is destined for
European, as distinct from other Asian, countries. However, a 50/50 split of this traffic between
Europe and Asia, could mean that volumes of 10,000 TEU and 25,000 TEU could cross the
border between the Islamic Republic of Iran and Pakistan by rail in 2006/07 and 2016/17
respectively.
5.3 Generated traffic demand

The closing of gaps in the TAR network through the construction of missing links between
China and Myanmar, Myanmar and India and within the Islamic Republic of Iran, as well as
through the re-gauging of the existing metre gauge rail system in northeastern India, might be
expected to lead to the creation of new industries in the areas through which these new links
would pass and so generate new demand for rail services. It might reasonably be expected that
this generated traffic demand would be concentrated within the seven northeastern states of
India, where arguably, the poor state and coverage of transport infrastructure has been a brake
on development. Four of these states, i.e. Meghalaya, Manipur, Tripura and Mizoram, are
especially rich in natural resources (minerals and forestry) and together with the predominantly
agricultural state of Assam might be expected to benefit from the unlocking of the area=s
resources as a result of having high quality rail access to Myanmar, Bangladesh and (through
Bangladesh) to the rest of India.
Measurement of the economic linkages and traffic generation potential of rail network
expansion and upgrading would require a major specialized study which was certainly beyond
the scope of the present study. However, while no measurement of the generated traffic benefits
of TAR network development was possible for this report, it is conceivable that generated traffic
demand could add significantly to the volume of traffic on offer for future movement on the TAR
network and might therefore be critical in providing an acceptable rate of return for the capital
works associated with such a development programme.
5.4 Summarized forecasts of border crossing traffic

The forecasts of rail hauled container traffic across the national borders of the TAR Southern
Corridor, as developed in the preceding sections, are summarized in Table 5.5.
5.5 Traffic forecasts in relation to missing link construction

In Chapter 4, the threshold traffic levels needed to justify investment in the construction of
missing links in the TAR Southern Corridor network were identified. The high order of
construction cost influenced by the severity of the terrain through which most of these links
would have to pass resulted in annual threshold tonnages of a high order of magnitude.
77
Table 5.5: Summarized forecasts of rail hauled border crossing container traffic
Border between: Year

Current (1996/97) 2006/07 2016/17
TEU p.a. Daily train TEU p.a. Daily train TEU p.a. Daily train
pairs pairs pairs
China/Myanmar - - - - 158,200 3
Thailand/Myanmar 90,900 2
Myanmar/India
Bangladesh/India (Darsana/Gede) - - 150,000 2.9 225,000 3.9
India/Nepal - - 60,000 1.2 80,000 1.4
India/Pakistan - - 150,000 2.9 225,000 3.9
Pakistan/Islamic Republic of Iran - - 10,000 - 25,000 -
Islamic Republic of Iran/Turmenistan 9,000 (e) - 21,000 - 50,000 1
Islamic Republic of Iran/Turkey - - 16,000 - 38,000 -
Turkey/Bulgaria 14,000 - 47,000 - 132,000 2
Table 5.6 provides a comparison of the forecast border crossing traffic tonnages (for all
modes) with the estimated threshold tonnage requirements for each missing link.
The forecast data appearing in the last two columns of Table 5.6 relate to the total tonnage
carried across borders by all modes. These forecasts were derived by applying the growth
factors set out in the preceding sections to the estimated current border crossing volumes.
Table 5.6: Traffic forecasts in relation to threshold tonnage requirement, missing links
Missing link Estimated threshold Forecast border crossing freight

tonnage requirement tonnage, all modes (million
( million tonnes per tonnes p.a.) by:
annum)
2006/07 2016/17
Dali-Ruili (China) 17.4 2.4 5.1
Ruili/Mu-se - Lashio (Myanmar) 14.0 2.4 5.1
Nam Tok - Three Pagoda Pass (Thailand) 7.3 0.9 2.0
Three Pagoda Pass - Thanbyuzayat (Myanmar) 7.1 0.9 2.0
Kalay-Tamu (Myanmar) 8.7 0.06 0.1
Tamu-Jiribam (India) 9.9 0.06 0.1
Kerman-Zahedan (Islamic Republic of Iran) 9.2 0.3 0.6
The table indicates that in no case would the threshold tonnage requirement be met by the
forecast traffic on offer, even in the unlikely event that rail would secure 100 per cent of this
traffic. However, it has to be noted that these forecasts do not allow for generated traffic
demand, as described above. It is likely that the justification of all of the listed missing link
78
construction projects would depend heavily on identification of an adequate level of generated
traffic demand.
5.6 General observations concerning traffic demand forecasts

This attempt at estimating the traffic potential of the TAR Southern Corridor network was
frustrated by an almost complete absence of basic data on rail and shipping traffic between
given origin and destination pairs. Even in the case of traffics for which it could be expected that
comprehensive data records would be maintained, such as the flows of transit containers across
the border between Turkmenistan and Iran, the data did not appear to be available.
Nowhere was the absence of data more apparent than in the case of port to port container
flows within the subregion. Certainly, the administrations of many ports in the subregion
experience difficulty in identifying the ultimate destinations of containers when the majority of
their containers are shipped via transhipment ports and even when this is not the case a
destination in the hinterland of the receiving country may not always be disclosed on
documentation available to port authorities. However, given the apparent advantage for the TAR
to divert container traffic from the port system, it is essential that the relevant railway authorities
attempt to measure the potential volume available from such traffic diversion, as a suitable basis
for forecasting.
Further, if in future it is planned to undertake forecasts of generated traffic demand as part of

studies of the economic linkages of TAR (or any other transport) infrastructure development
projects, the ability to establish base levels of traffic between given origins and destinations will
be vital.
79
6. TECHNICAL REQUIREMENTS
A primary requirement of the Trans-Asian Railway network is that it should in future permit rail
conveyance of shipping containers of all types and sizes either currently used or likely to be used in
international trade, at speeds which are competitive with those of alternative transport modes.
The practical implications of this requirement are that:
(i) The limiting dimensions of structures throughout this network should be sufficient to allow
unrestricted passage of wagons conveying the highest and widest containers used in
international trade - i.e. the structure gauge adopted for the network should provide adequate
clearance for such containers carried at normal running speeds ;
(ii) The maximum allowable axle loads throughout this network should be sufficient to allow
conveyance of such containers in trainloads of economic size and configuration. In practice, this
would mean that axle loads would need to be sufficient for the conveyance on a single wagon of
the equivalent of two (and in some cases three) twenty foot containers loaded up to or near their
maximum payload or for the operation of locomotives of adequate power rating1;
(iii) The maximum allowable line speeds throughout the network must be consistent with the
realization of commercial speeds which are competitive with those of alternative transport
modes (bearing in mind that maximum line speed is only one of the factors influencing
commercial speed, other important ones being operational and border crossing stopping times,
signalling system performance, infrastructure condition, and motive power and rolling stock
condition and performance).
This chapter provides a detailed assessment of these technical requirements in the light of the
primary function of the TAR as identified above and of the extent to which they are met on the
constituent networks of the railway organizations participating in the TAR Southern Corridor project.
It draws upon inputs provided in the Country Reports, in addition to information provided in the
ESCAP preliminary study report.
6.1 Load and structure dimensions

6.1.1 Standards and requirements
The high-cube container with dimensions 40ft (length) x 8ft (width) x 9ft 6ins (height) is the
largest container which is currently carried by railways of the region. However, as may be observed
from Table 6.1, super high cube containers of 45-53ft (length) x 8ft 6ins (width) x 9ft 6ins (height) are
being used in increasing numbers and should provide for the railways of the region the constraints
which must be satisfied by the design of future container wagons and the dimensions of structures
throughout the TAR network. These structures, such as tunnels and through truss bridges, must be
sufficiently wide and high to provide adequate clearance for super high cube containers loaded on
conventional container wagons (with a typical height of 1.1 metres above the rails) to pass at normal
speed.
1
In the majority of cases, it is likely to be the axle loading of locomotives, rather than that of the container wagons,
which will provide the overall axle load constraint for the system.
80
To allow for vertical and lateral movement of wagons due to track irregularities or vehicle
dynamics on curved track sections, a clearance of about 40 cm between the outside dimensions of
wagons and their loading and the inside dimensions of structures typically has to be allowed.
The use of low profile wagons (i.e. wagons with wheels of small diameter or with dropped centre
sections) can sometimes be used to overcome structure constraints without the need to expand the
inside dimensions of structures at often prohibitive cost.
Table 6.1: Dimensions and maximum weights of most commonly used ISO and non-ISO
containers
Freight External height External width External length Maximum

container gross weight
designation ft in mm ft in mm ft in mm (tonnes)
ISO
1A 8 0 2,438 8 0 2,438 40 0 12,192 30
1AA 8 6 2,591 8 0 2,438 40 0 12,192 30
1B 8 0 2,438 8 0 2,438 30 0 9,125 25
1BB 8 6 2,591 8 0 2,438 30 0 9,125 25
1C 8 0 2,438 8 0 2,438 20 0 6,058 24
1CC 8 6 2,591 8 0 2,438 20 0 6,058 24
1D 8 0 2,438 8 0 2,438 10 0 2,991 10
Non-ISO
(1) 9 6 2,896 8 0 2,435 48 0 14,630 35
(1) 9 6 2,896 8 0 2,435 45 0 13,716 35
(1) 9 6 2,896 8 0 2,435 40 0 12,192 35
(1) 9 6 2,896 8 0 2,435 20 0 6,058 35
(2) 9 6 2,896 8 6 2,591 53 0 16,150 35
(2) 9 6 2,896 8 6 2,591 48 0 14,630 35
(2) 9 6 2,896 8 6 2,591 45 0 13,716 35
(1) = High Cube Container; (2) = Super High Cube Container
Source: ESCAP, 1991: AStudy on the Cost Benefit and Problems Following the Introduction of High Cube Containers in
Developing Countries of the ESCAP Region@
6.1.2 Conformity of individual railway systems with TAR structure profile

standards
This section reviews the extent to which the existing railway networks conform with the load and
structure dimensional standards described above and identifies specific instances where conformity
might present a problem.
(i) Bangladesh
81
Throughout the broad gauge system in Bangladesh, there are no restrictions imposed on the
conveyance of containers of any size when loaded on flat wagons of standard height (1010 mm).
The only such restriction existing on the metre gauge system is to be found at one bridge (the
Karnafully Bridge) in the Chittagong-Dohazari section of TAR Link Bn.2a. This restriction can be
removed by modifying the portal frame of the bridge to accept containers of up to 9ft 6in in height
and 8ft 6in in width loaded on standard flat wagons. Figure 6.1 illustrates the structure dimensions
applying throughout the Bangladesh rail system.
(ii) China
The dimensional standards adopted throughout China for the design of railway structures in all
new construction work are understood to be sufficient to accommodate high cube containers carried
on flat wagons of conventional height. The Country Report for China has also indicated that the
routes nominated by China for inclusion in the TAR Southern Corridor network would be capable of
transporting containers of Amaximum width and height@ on a Astandard flat [email protected]
The standard applied by the Chinese Railways is illustrated by the structure gauge diagram in
Figure 6.2.
(iii) India
While the Country Report for India has indicated that all nominated TAR links in India conform
with the structure and vehicle gauge standards specified for the TAR network, this observation
applies only to the nominated broad gauge links. The metre gauge links, which are confined to the
Northeastern States, do not conform with these standards.
Restrictions applying to the dimensions of vehicles (and their loads, as applicable) throughout the
Indian Railways network are as follows - again it is assumed that these restrictions apply in respect
only of the broad gauge network:
Maximum width 3,250 mm (10ft 8ins)

Maximum height above rail level at track centre 4,140 mm (13ft 7ins)
Maximum height above rail level 3,530 mm (11 ft 7ins)
While both high cube and super high cube containers would infringe this vehicle gauge if carried
on standard height (1,000 mm) wagons, they are classified as Aover dimensional consignments@ and
are permitted to move, but at a maximum speed of 75 km per hour.
The structure and vehicle gauges applicable to lines with a track gauge of 1,676 mm in India are
illustrated in Figure 6.3.
(iv) Islamic Republic of Iran
A diagram illustrating the structure and vehicle gauge applicable to all 1,435 mm lines in the
Islamic Republic of Iran is given in Figure 6.4. This diagram indicates that super high cube
containers would certainly, and that high cube containers would probably, infringe the structure
gauge, if carried on standard flat wagons, while ISO containers of 8ft 6in height would infringe the
vehicle gauge of the network. However, the latter may be carried since there would be greater than
40 cm clearance between the outside dimensions of the wagon with its container load and the inside
dimensions of structures.
2
Xu Tao: AReport on Trans-Asia Railway Corridor in China Territory@, August 1998.
82
On the railway system of the Islamic Republic of Iran, the most critical structure limitations are to
be found between Tehran and Tabriz, where mountainous terrain has required extensive tunnelling.
It is understood that there are six tunnels in the section Km 427.6 - Km 497.25 (distances measured
from Tehran), ranging in length from 537 to 1,726 metres.
(v) Myanmar
Myanmar has the most restrictive outline gauge of all the participating railway systems. The
standard applicable to lines constructed more than ten years ago is as illustrated in Figure 6.5. The
dimensions of structures on the Myanma Railways system are generally incompatible even with the
movement of standard ISO containers (of no more than 8ft in height) if conveyed on standard height
flat wagons. The Myanma Railways have attempted to overcome this difficulty with the use of
dropped centre section, or well type, wagons imported from China. A major limitation of these
vehicles, however, is that they may only carry a single 20ft container in the well section. In the longer
term, the Myanma Railways have a programme to enlarge the dimensions of critical structures
(particularly of through truss bridges) on trunk lines, such as Yangon-Mandalay, which are expected
to have an important container carrying role.
It is also understood that more generous structure dimensions have been designed into new line
construction projects, of which there have been many over the past ten years, but no details of these
new design standards have been made available.
(vi) Pakistan
Structure dimensions impose restrictions on the movement of super high cube containers at only
two locations on the TAR links nominated by Pakistan. They are as follows:
$ On Link Pk.1, a tunnel at Km 263, between Spezand and Sibi provides clearance of only 29
cm between the inner tunnel wall and the top corners of super high cube containers loaded
on wagons of 1200 mm height. In this case, the vehicle gauge infringement is 5.1 cm.
$ On Link Pk.4, a tunnel at Km 1608, between High Attock City and Peshawar, restricts the
clearance available for super high cube containers loaded on wagons of 1200 mm height to
36.8 cm. In this case, the vehicle gauge infringement is 6.3 cm.
These restrictions are illustrated by the cross-sectional diagrams in Figure 6.6. It should be noted
that these diagrams represent an extreme case in that the use of 1200 mm high wagons has been
assumed, when in fact the floor height of the standard BKF container flat wagons in use in Pakistan
is only 1105 mm. Use of lower profile wagons would in both cases allow passage of high profile
containers with only minimal speed restrictions. However, a preliminary estimate of the cost of
widening the restricting tunnel on Link Pk.1 is US$ 130 million, with a work time frame estimated at
12 months3.
(vii) Sri Lanka
The vehicle and structure gauge standards currently in force throughout the railway network of
Sri Lanka are depicted in Figure 6.7. They restrict the size of containers carried on the network to
those with a width of 8 ft 6in and a height of no more than 8 ft. Extensive structure modifications
3
Pakistan Country Report
83
would be required on the TAR links nominated by Sri Lanka to permit them to accommodate
containers with heights of 8 ft 6in and 9 ft 6in.
(viii) Thailand
It is likely that the two TAR links being proposed as possible alternative connections with
Myanmar (Th.1a or Th.1b) would be designed to accommodate super high cube containers.
However, it is likely that there will be some structures (especially through truss bridges) which would
restrict passage of such containers on the existing line between Nam Tok and Bangkok.
(ix) Turkey
The loading gauge diagram supplied by the Turkish State Railways (Figure 6.8) indicates that
containers of 9ft 6in height when loaded on Turkish flat wagons of 1200 mm height would infringe
the loading gauge and further that the clearance between the upper corners of the container and the
inside dimensions of structures would only be about 10 cm. This difficulty could be overcome by
adopting a new lower profile wagon, since super high cube containers could pass with sufficient
clearance through structures if loaded on wagons of 1010 mm height. The diagram also indicates
that there would be no restriction on the passage of containers of 8ft 6in height even if loaded on
wagons of 1200 mm height, since such containers would not infringe the loading gauge.
(x) Summary - conformity with TAR structure profile requirements
In summary, the extent to which the participating railway systems conform with TAR
requirements on structure profiles is given in Table 6.2.
Table 6.2: Conformity with structure profile requirements
Will TAR links Bangladesh China India Islamic Myanmar Pakistan Sri Thailand Turkey
accept?…. Republic Lanka
of Iran
8 ft high ISO Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes
2
8 ft 6 in high ISO Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes No Yes Yes
1 2 3
9 ft 6 in high Yes Yes Yes No No Yes No Yes No
non-ISO
1
With modification of the structure of a single bridge on Link Bn.2a
2
Likely to apply only to broad gauge links
3
Could be accommodated with use of lower profile wagons
6.2 Axle load

The key determinant of axle load requirements for the TAR network is unlikely to be the
maximum load bearing on track through the axles of a container wagon, but rather the maximum
axle loading of locomotives used for freight haulage. While lightweight, high horsepower diesel
84
locomotives have recently been developed for service on metre gauge lines, the trend is to heavier
units as the power rating increases.4
Based on broad and standard gauge service requirements, the maximum gross weight (empty
weight plus the weight of fuel) of 3,000-3,500 HP locomotives is typically around 112-115 tonnes and
with a Co-Co wheel configuration (6 axles), the maximum load bearing through axles is
approximately 19 tonnes. This would apply to diesel-electric locomotives, since electric locomotives
(not having the heavy diesel power plants and generators of the diesel electric locomotives) are
usually much lighter. The maximum axle loading of metre gauge locomotives is usually much lighter,
typically not more than 15 tonnes.
By comparison, the maximum axle load likely to be imposed through the axles of container
wagons can be calculated, using as a basis, the largest container carrying wagons employed on the
metre gauge and standard/broad gauge systems.
Excluding the Astate-of-the-art@ lightweight container flat wagons now being introduced in India,
the container flat wagons most commonly used on the broad gauge networks of both India and
Pakistan have a length of 45 ft (13.7 metres), a tare weight of 20-21.5 tonnes and a payload capacity
of about 48 tonnes, giving a maximum gross weight of 68-69.5 tonnes and an axle load of 17-17.37
tonnes.
On the standard gauge network of the Islamic Republic of Iran, container flat wagons of 20 metre
length, with fittings to carry up to three ISO 20 ft containers (albeit at restricted weights of 18 tonnes
each5) are in use. These have a tare weight of 25 tonnes and a maximum payload of 55 tonnes,
giving a gross weight of 80 tonnes and an axle load of 20 tonnes.
Recent purchases of container wagons by the State Railway of Thailand for service on its metre
gauge system have been concentrated on wagons with a 15 tonne axle load, which hitherto has
been the maximum permissible axle load on the system. The most recently introduced wagons have
a length of 14.2 metres (sufficient to carry containers of up to 45 ft in length), a tare weight 16.5
tonnes and a maximum payload of 43.5 tonnes. The axle loading of the heaviest locomotives in use
on the Thai system is also 15 tonnes. It should be noted, however, that the future introduction by
metre gauge systems of container wagons able to carry up to three ISO 20 ft containers is not
inconceivable. Indeed, a three slot container wagon has already been developed for the 1067 mm
gauge system of the Queensland Railways in Australia. If such were the case, then track and
structures should be designed for a maximum axle loading of about 19-20 tonnes.
It is worthy of note that while a maximum axle load of 15 tonnes appears to have been the
standard for some of the metre gauge railways of the region, there is evidence that these railways
are now opting for a heavier axle load standard. For example, KTMB, the Malaysian Railway has a
programme to progressively upgrade the maximum axle load on its mainlines to 20 tonnes and the
State Railway of Thailand has recently embarked on a major track and bridge rehabilitation project
which will also result in a 20 tonne axle load being applied on all major lines in Thailand. The
benefits to be gained from such an upgrade are increased tonnage throughput capacity and
reduced operating cost per gross tonne km, resulting in increased financial contribution.
4
One development in locomotive design which has worked against the increase in gross weight as power increases is
the incorporation of computer wheel slip control, as a means of improving adhesion without additional weight penalty.
5
In practice, there is very little demand for transportation of containers at or near their maximum gross weights. In the
case of 20ft ISO containers, even containers loaded with dense commodities rarely weigh in at more than 18 tonnes.
85
There are compelling arguments in favour of adopting one axle load standard for those parts of
the TAR network for which interchangeability of rolling stock, and possibly of locomotives, between
railway systems is a practical option. This will generally apply to the standard and broad components
of the network. It is evident that a 20 tonne axle load will satisfy the needs of international container
traffic likely to use these components of the TAR network, in terms of accommodating the highest
loads likely to bear on track through the axles of container wagons or of the high horsepower
locomotives needed to haul container trains of economic configuration. While it may be argued that
axle loadings of this magnitude might never be imposed on metre gauge track and structures, it has
been assumed that the other benefits accruing to metre gauge operators will be sufficient to justify
their adoption of a 20 tonne axle load in the longer term. However, from the perspective of meeting
the heaviest axle loads likely to be imposed by locomotives and rolling stock, it would be sufficient if
the metre gauge components of the TAR network could be designed in future to accommodate axle
loadings of up to 15 tonnes.
6.2.2 Conformity of individual railway systems with TAR axle load standards
(i) Bangladesh
Axle load limits currently applying within Bangladesh are 22.5 tonnes on the broad gauge system
and 13 tonnes on the metre gauge system.
(ii) China
For existing trunk lines in China, maximum permissible axle loads are understood to range
between 21.5 and 23 tonnes, suggesting compatibility with a TAR minimum 20 tonne requirement. It
is likely that the same axle load standards will be applied to all new line construction being
undertaken by the Chinese Railways.
(iii) India
The axle load limitations in force throughout the TAR links nominated by India are currently 20.32
tonnes on broad gauge track and 12.70 tonnes on metre gauge track. The Indian Railways has long
term plans for the upgrading of its broad gauge trunk lines to permit axle loading of up to 22.1
tonnes.
Only the one metre gauge link among these nominated links (In.5b) does not conform with a TAR
20 tonne requirement. However, the Indian Railways has long term plans to convert all remaining
metre gauge lines to broad gauge and since this effectively involves complete reconstruction of the
formation and trackwork, these lines also will conform with broad gauge standards in future.
(iv) Islamic Republic of Iran
The maximum permissible axle loading on all nominated TAR links in the Islamic Republic of Iran
is 20-22.5 tonnes.
(v) Myanmar
A maximum axle load of only 12.5 tonnes is applied on the existing main lines from Yangon to
Myitkyina and to Moulmein. However, it is understood that new line construction projects in Myanmar
are being designed to a maximum axle load of 15 tonnes.
(vi) Pakistan
86
The axle load limits currently in force on the TAR links nominated by Pakistan are given in Table
6.3
Table 6.3: Axle loads in Pakistan
TAR Link From/To Maximum

permissible axle
load (tonnes)
Pk.1 Koh-i-Taftan/Spezand 17.27

Spezand/Sukkur 17.78
Sukkur/Wagah 22.86
Pk.2 Spezand/Chaman 17.78
Pk.3 Rohri/Karachi 22.86
Pk.4 Lahore /Peshawar 22.86
Pk.5 Shahdara/Sangla Hill 22.86

Sangla Hill/Khanewal
In general, the light axle load sections are concentrated to the west of Spezand where the
railway traverses arid mountainous terrain. However, even these sections pose no restriction on the
movement of containers loaded on conventional 2 TEU wagons, since in Pakistan these wagons
have a maximum axle loading of 16.25 tonnes. The major disability associated with light axle loads
on these sections is that they require the use of light locomotives and the double heading of trains
for a greater distance than would be the case if heavier locomotives could be used.
(vii) Sri Lanka
An axle load limit of 16.5 tonnes currently applies throughout the Sri Lanka railway network,
hence axle load poses no impediment to the movement of containers on conventional 2 TEU
wagons.
(viii) Thailand
As observed earlier, the maximum axle load currently in force throughout the Thai railway
network is 15 tonnes, but the standard adopted for all new construction is 20 tonnes and this is also
the standard applying to the rehabilitation of the existing main lines.
87
(ix) Turkey
An axle load limit of 20 tonnes is applied throughout the rail system of Turkey, meaning that the
system can accommodate 3 TEU flat wagons carrying containers loaded up to 80 per cent of their
maximum gross weight.
(x) Summary - conformity with TAR axle load requirements
Units: tones
Bangladesh China India Islamic Myanmar Pakistan Sri Thailand Turkey
Republic Lanka
of Iran
22.5 [BG] 21.5-23.0 20.32 [BG] 20.0-22.5 12.5 22.86 16.5 15.0 20
[most links] [existing]
13.0 [MG] 12.70 [MG] 17.27 and 20.0
17.78 [some [future]
links]
TEU carrying capacity of bogie container wagons
2 2 2 3 1 2 2 2 3
It will be noted from this summary table that while China, India, Pakistan, the broad gauge
portion of the Bangladesh railway system, the Islamic Republic of Iran and Turkey currently have
axle load design limits which technically would support the operation of container wagons with a
capacity to carry 3 twenty foot containers, only the Islamic Republic of Iran and Turkey have such
wagons in their fleets. Issues related to the consistency and efficiency of rolling stock design are
discussed in greater detail in Chapter 7.
6.3 Speed
Commercial speed, or the speed derived by dividing the distance travelled between ultimate
origins and destinations by the total time taken to cover this distance, is one of the principal factors
influencing mode choice decisions. Commercial speed itself is influenced by numerous factors, the
main ones being:
(i) Technical
Factors which may be classified under this heading include the design and standard of
maintenance of the permanent way, signalling, motive power and rolling stock, all of which will
have an influence on the maximum speeds which will be permitted on individual lines. Attainment
of target commercial speeds will depend in part on the percentage of the journey which may be
run at or near maximum permissible speeds;
(ii) Operational
Factors of this type include delays to the passage of trains resulting from the need to satisfy
operational requirements, such as wagon loading/unloading, train marshalling
88
(assembly/disassembly), brake and other safety checks, wagon number taking, locomotive
fuelling and servicing, bogie exchange or other forms of inter-gauge transfer of rolling stock;
(iii) Institutional
Delays to trains at national borders resulting from completion of customs and border security
formalities are examples of the effect of institutional influences on train commercial speeds.
In establishing technical standards for the TAR network, due regard should be given to the first of
these factors - i.e. a desirable maximum speed for freight trains which will be compatible with the
attainment of a commercial speed competitive with alternative transport modes.
In Chapter 8 of this report, it will be established that commercial speeds for international freight
trains operating in this TAR corridor should be at least 20 km per hour in order to provide transit
times which are competitive with the principal alternative transport modes - in this case mainly
shipping. Typically, commercial speeds in the corridor represent about 50 per cent of the average
running speeds, which in turn represent about 55-60 per cent of the maximum permissible speed.6
Therefore, to ensure attainment of a target commercial speed of 20 km/hour, a maximum permissible
speed for freight trains of at least 70 km/hour should apply throughout the TAR network.
When combined with the requirement for a 20 tonne axle load, this would imply the need for a
robust track design, with a ballast bed depth below the sleepers of at least 250 mm and with rails of
at least 54 kgs/metre laid on prestressed monoblock concrete sleepers, secured by elastic
fastenings. Additionally, the locomotives and freight rolling stock employed on the network must have
the capability to run up to the specified maximum speeds, and for sustained operation at or near
these maximum speeds. It should be noted that the improved track design standards needed to lift
maximum speeds will result in an improvement of overall track quality, thereby allowing the removal
of sectional speed restrictions imposed for safety reasons on account of poor track condition.
Removal of such speed restrictions will allow an increase in average running speeds and hence in
commercial speeds.
6.3.2 Conformity of individual railway systems with TAR speed standards

Not all of the participating railway systems currently comply with the maximum permissible speed
requirement of 70 km/hour.
In China, the maximum allowable speed for container transportation by rail is quoted at 80
km/hour. It is claimed that this will also be the maximum speed applying to the new line from Xiaguan
to Ruili.7
In India, all nominated TAR links with the exception of In.4 (Raxaul-Sitarampur), In.5a
(Mughalsarai-Lekhapani) and In.5b (Mahisasan-Jiribam) are already capable of delivering freight
train commercial speeds of about 30 km/hour, suggesting that their maximum allowable speeds are
greater than 70 km/hour. Links In.1-In.3 are in fact trunk lines laid for the most part in heavy (at least
50 kg/metre) rail and pre-stressed concrete sleepers. It is likely also that airbraked vehicles which
are not subject to the stringent speed restrictions normally imposed on vacuum braked vehicles
6
Essentially, the difference between commercial and average running speeds is that the former include an allowance
for stationary time for loading/unloading freight, for carrying out operational checks, transhipment at break-of-gauge stations
or train servicing and for completing border crossing formalities. Average running speeds include no allowance for stopping
time unless trains stop in the middle of block sections due to mechanical failure.
7
China Country Paper, page 5.
89
would run on these lines. While Links In.4 and In.5a have recently been converted from metre to
broad gauge and consequently now benefit from robust track standards, it is likely that they continue
to carry a high proportion of vacuum braked stock, allowing them to deliver commercial speeds of
less than 20 km/hour. Link In.5b remains metre gauge throughout and consequently delivers
commercial speeds of only 12.5-21 km/hour.
In the Islamic Republic of Iran, the Country Report quotes a commercial speed of 30 km per hour
for all existing sections of Link Ir.1 (from Mirjaveh to Razi), except the section Tehran to Qom for
which the commercial speed is only 25 km/hour.8 Higher commercial speeds are anticipated for the
new lines to be constructed between Kerman and Zahedan and between Bafq and Fariman.
In Myanmar, the speeds of freight trains are heavily restricted on all existing TAR links as a
consequence of poor track and bridge condition. For example, between Yangon and Mandalay on
nominated TAR link My.1, the maximum speed of freight trains is restricted to 32 km per hour on
some sections and to 48 km per hour on others and the transit time for freight trains on the 620 km
link is quoted at 36 hours, giving a commercial speed of only 17 km per hour.9 Between Yangon and
Moktama (271 km), also on TAR link My.1, the maximum speed for freight trains has been quoted as
32 km per hour and the commercial speed, although not quoted, is likely to be of the order of only
14-17 km per hour. On the line section south of the Thanlwin (Salween) River between Mawlamyaing
and Ye, the maximum speed for freight trains has been quoted as 24 km per hour, suggesting that
commercial speeds on this section could be as low as 12-14 km per hour. Clearly, operation at such
low speed levels would be inconsistent with the future provision of an efficient and competitive rail
container service. The light and poorly maintained track and weak bridges on these lines explains
much of these operational restrictions. Even on the Yangon - Mandalay trunk line, the weight of rail
used has been quoted as only 37 kg per metre and on the Mawlamyang-Ye section in the southern
part of the network even lighter (30 kg per metre) rail is in use, while severely load and speed
restricted through truss steel bridges abound on all parts of the network..
In Pakistan, freight train speeds are limited mainly by the design of rolling stock. For bogie stock,
vacuum brakes and plain bearings are in predominant use and vehicles of this type are limited to
only 55 km/hour. Re-equipment of bogie wagons with roller bearings and airbrakes will allow them to
run in freight trains with a maximum load of 2,250 tonnes at 95 km/hour, but the conversion cost is
estimated at US$ 9,000 per wagon.
In Sri Lanka, 50 km per hour is the maximum speed currently authorized for container carrying
trains. Track rehabilitation, including replacement of 88 lb rails with heavier rails on the main lines,
will be necessary in order to increase this speed to 80 km per hour.
In Thailand, the maximum speed for freight trains on all main lines is 70 km per hour, although on
minor branch lines, such as Kanchanaburi - Nam Tok which would form part of TAR link Th.1,
significantly lower speed limits are likely to apply. The track rehabilitation project now underway in
Thailand is expected to result in an increase in maximum freight train speeds from 70 to 80 km per
hour.
8
Country Report for the Islamic Republic of Iran, September 1998. It should be noted however that elsewhere in this
report a commercial speed of only 15.1 km per hour is indicated (7 days transit for 2540 km between Sarakhs and Bandar
Abbas for Aexpress trains@ - see page 31), suggesting that the speeds of 25-30 km per hour do not allow sufficiently for
stopping time.
9
ESCAP (1996), Trans-Asian Railway Route Requirements: Development of the Trans-Asian Railway in the Indo-
China and ASEAN Subregion, Volume 3, page 52.
90
In Turkey, the maximum freight train speed on all nominated TAR links is reported as 65 km per
hour. It should be noted that this limit is applied on a system which is laid predominantly in 46-49 kg
per metre rail on timber sleepers and which can accept maximum axle loads of 20 tonnes. The
corresponding commercial speeds vary from a low of 20.2 km per hour on Link Tk.1 (Kapicöy to
Kapikule, with an overall length of 2,354 km and stopping time of 59.7 hours out of a total transit time
of 116.25 hours) to a high of 23.7 km per hour on Link Tk.4 (Toprakkale to Mersin).
In summary, maximum freight train speeds of less than 70 km per hour apply throughout a
majority of existing links comprising the main transcontinental route TAR-S, implying that this route
cannot yet offer a commercial speed, end to end, of at least 20 km per hour. A combination of
inadequate track and rolling stock standards and condition explains this sub-optimal performance.
Considerable investment in track and rolling stock rehabilitation/ improvement is likely to be required
in order to bring speeds up to required levels.
91
7. OPERATIONAL REQUIREMENTS
Since the attraction of container traffic to the TAR network depends in large measure on
rail being able to deliver a cost effective and reliable service as compared with its
competitors in the corridor, it is essential that any operational impediments to realization of
these goals be removed.
In this context five factors are important:
(i) Compatibility in terms of the type and design of rolling stock employed by
neighbouring railway systems in international traffic would ensure rolling stock
inter-operability when no break-of-gauge is involved. Ideally, systems should
cooperate in the design of exchangeable rolling stock to ensure that only the
most efficient designs (i.e. those which maximize payload to tare ratios or
minimize gross to net ratios, and are capable of running nearly at passenger
speeds) are adopted;
(ii) Compatibility of train assembly and load scheduling practices between neighbouring
railway systems will be essential in order to avoid the necessity of having to re-
adjust train loads at borders. The desirability of operating fixed formation unit
trains across borders, where track gauge continuity permits, should be
recognized and acted upon by the responsible systems;
(iii) The presence of adequate route capacity on existing links in the TAR corridor will be
essential if the corridor is to meet its objective of providing a cost effective and
competitive means for the international transportation of containers; and
(iv) Breaks-of-gauge while not posing a problem currently, are likely to become a
problem in the future when lines of differing track gauge are connected within the
territory of one country, Bangladesh, and at two borders, China/Myanmar and
Islamic Republic of Iran/Pakistan. Possible re-gauging of the existing metre
gauge network in northeastern India would create two additional breaks-of-gauge
at borders - between India and Myanmar and between Bangladesh and India
(northeast). Provision of modern, high speed container transhipment equipment
at all break-of-gauge points will be essential to minimize delays.
The success of rail in being able to capture additional container traffic for the TAR
network will depend heavily on there being adequate capacity for handling containers at rail
served terminals in the hinterland and at the major sea ports.
7.1 Compatible and efficient rolling stock design

Table 7.1 indicates that the container rolling stock employed by the railway systems
within the corridor varies widely in terms of its design characteristics and efficiency. The
table does not present details for rolling stock operated by the Myanma Railways or by the
railways of the Central Asian Republics, although it is recognized, particularly in the case of
the latter, that the rolling stock of these countries also present problems of compatibility.
100
Table 7.1: Comparison of container wagons in service within TAR Southern Corridor
Container Country
wagon 1 2
characteristic Bangladesh China India Islamic Pakistan Sri Thailand Turkey
Republic Lanka
of Iran
Width between 1000 1435 1676 1435 1676 1676 1000 1435
wheels (mm)
Length over 12464e 13427 13716e 20000e 13716 15392e 14200 20000e
headstocks
(mm)
Height (mm) 900 1149 1009 1240 1105 1219 1010 1240
No. of TEU 2 2 2 3 2.25* 2.25* 2.25* 3
Braking system Vacuum Air Vacuum/Air Air Mostly Vacuum Air/Vac Air
Vacuum
Gross weight 53.75 81.28 80.0 65.0 60 60 80.0
(tonnes)
Net weight 40.75 62.78 55.0 43.5 40 43.5 55.0
(tonnes)
Gross/Net 1.32 1.29 1.45 1.49 1.50 1.38 1.45
Ratio
Design speed 75 75/100 100 100
(km/hr) 75 (vac. break)
100 (air break)
1
The Bangladesh Railways currently owns no broad gauge container wagons. Consequently the data given in
this table relate to the latest metre gauge wagons in service on the Dhaka-Chittagong rail container feeder
service.
2
The data presented in this column relate to the new skeletal container flat wagons being introduced on the
Indian Railways system. These wagons are substantially more efficient than the shorter but heavier wagons they
replace, with a gross/net ratio of 1.29 as compared with 1.34 for the older wagons.
e = estimate, where no data have been supplied by railway systems.

* indicates an assumption, in the absence of any information supplied, that the wagon will be fitted with
twistlocks allowing it to carry 45 ft containers.
Rolling stock compatibility is not essential where discontinuities of track gauge exist,
simply because in such situations there will be no requirement to exchange rolling stock, but
rather to exchange the loading conveyed on that rolling stock. However, imbalances
between the container loading capacity of wagons either side of the break-of-gauge point
can result in one system having to employ more wagons to transport a given quantity of
containers than the other.
101
Where gauge continuity permits the exchange of wagons between neighbouring
systems, rolling stock compatibility becomes a critical issue. Table 7.1 shows that, while
there is rolling stock compatibility between the two contiguous standard gauge (1435 mm)
systems in the corridor - the Islamic Republic of Iran and Turkey - the same is not true for
the neighbouring broad gauge systems of India and Pakistan. Neither would it be true for
the neighbouring broad gauge systems of India and Bangladesh if the latter were to operate
broad gauge container wagons, since the majority of Bangladesh Railway rolling stock is
equipped with vacuum brakes, as compared with Indian rolling stock, a growing proportion of
which is now airbraked. In fact, the major source of incompatibility between the rolling stock
of neighbouring systems is often the type of braking system employed. Vacuum brakes are
not nearly as efficient as air brakes and impose quite stringent speed restrictions on rolling
stock (see, for example, restrictions applying to vacuum braked stock in Pakistan in Section
6.3.2 of Chapter 6).
Other sources of critical difference between the rolling stock of neighbouring systems are
the coupling systems in use and the height of wagon floors above the rail. Although only
incomplete details are available, it is understood that a variety of wagon coupling systems
are in use throughout the countries of the corridor - varying from old fashioned hook type
couplings to modern automatic or knuckle couplings. As was observed in Chapter 6, higher
profile wagons often infringe structure gauges when loaded with high or super high cube
containers. The fact that the container wagons employed in the Islamic Republic of Iran and
in Turkey are high (more than 1200 mm above the rails) explains why containers with a
height greater than 8 ft 6 in cannot be accommodated throughout most of their networks.
In terms of container carrying capacity, rolling stock differences between neighbouring

railway systems sharing the same track gauge can also create problems, in the sense that
use of wagons with limited container loading capacity will require longer and heavier trains to
be run on through schedules than might be the case if wagons of higher container loading
capacity are used. This can sometimes lead to operational difficulties when train lengths
exceed the available length of crossing tracks on single line sections or of terminal arrival
tracks, or when train gross trailing loads exceed the hauling capability of single locomotives,
necessitating Alocomotive banking@ or a doubling up of motive power assigned to trains.
There is a consistency of wagon container carrying capacity and loading efficiency

between the Islamic Republic of Iran and Turkey. Between India and Pakistan, while wagon
container carrying capacity is consistent, the loading efficiency of wagons used in Pakistan is
less than that of Indian wagons.
The benefits of a 3 TEU carrying wagon do not appear to have been recognized in the
countries of South Asia with a common 1,676 mm track gauge or in China, with a 1,435 mm
gauge, although these benefits have long been long recognized in the Islamic Republic of
Iran and in Turkey which share a 1,435 mm gauge.
A 3 TEU wagon of approximately 65 ft length offers considerably more operational

flexibility than does a 45 foot container wagon, for example. This is because it can carry:
three 20 ft containers; or a single 45 ft, 48 ft or 53 ft container;or a single 40 ft and a single
20 ft container. A 45ft wagon, on the other hand, has capacity to carry only: a single 45 ft or
40 ft container; or two 20 ft containers. The disadvantage associated with the 3 TEU wagon
is that it will impose an axle load of nearly 25 tonnes if it is to carry three 20 ft containers at a
full gross weight each of 24 tonnes, but this is scarcely a disadvantage when it is recognized
that only very rarely do 20 ft containers (even when loaded with dense commodities) exceed
an overall mass of 18 tonnes (i.e. 2.5 tonne tare plus 15.5 tonne load).
Additionally, since fewer 3 TEU wagons will be required to convey a given quantity of
containers, the railway will also realize savings from the reduced length and mass of trains
102
made up with such wagons rather than with 2 TEU wagons. For example, a train comprising
20 three TEU wagons will be needed to carry 60 Twenty Foot containers, giving a overall
train length of about 419 metres and a overall gross load of about 1,700 tonnes. By contrast,
if 2 TEU wagons are used, ten more wagons will be needed to carry the same number of
containers, giving an overall train length of about 430 metres and an overall gross load of
about 1,825 tonnes. In fact the tonnage difference in this comparison will be increased if it is
necessary to add one more locomotive to the train in the second case (overall train length
will increase to 449 metres and gross load to about 1,925 tonnes).
7.2 Compatibility of train assembly and load scheduling

practices
The efficiency of international train operations in the corridor will in large part depend
upon there being reasonable consistency in the operating practices of neighbouring railway
systems. For example, in situations where there is continuity of track gauge but no
consistency in the length of trains operated either side of the border, transit delay and cost
penalties will result from the necessity to re-marshall or adjust loading at the border. The two
main influences on train lengths are the hauling capacities of locomotives and the available
length of crossing/passing, station and terminal sidings. While it may not be possible to
achieve compatibility in the former, due mainly to topographical differences between the
neighbouring route networks, it should be possible to achieve some degree of compatibility
with the latter.
The problems associated with differing train lengths can be overcome by specifying
standard train configurations based on unit or block train operation of international container
services. Unit trains are trains comprising a fixed number of wagons of a single type,
operating between a single origin and destination, with intermediate stops only for train
crossing purposes or for operational reasons such as crew or locomotive exchange. Block
trains are similar, except that they may comprise more than one type of wagon, but
nevertheless operate to fixed formation, single origin/destination principles. In container
haulage service, both types of trains should comprise wagons which may be run at or near
passenger train speeds to avoid being held in crossing sidings for faster opposing or
passing passenger trains. The main advantages of such trains are that by avoiding
marshalling yards and intermediate stops for loading/ unloading both transit times and
operating costs can be very low.
At least four of the railway systems within the corridor (Bangladesh, India, Pakistan and
Thailand) currently operate unit or block container trains between hinterland
origins/destinations and the seaports, but none has so far had experience in the operation of
such trains across its borders1. The configurations of these trains also varies widely, from the
45 bogie wagon (90 TEU) trains now being introduced on broad gauge trunk routes in India
to 30 bogie wagon (60 TEU) trains in Pakistan and Thailand and the 25 bogie wagon (50
TEU) trains operating on the metre gauge between Dhaka and Chittagong in Bangladesh.
The main principle guiding decisions about train lengths is that wagons should be added
up until the point at which either the maximum length for crossing/passing purposes, or the
maximum trailing tonnage for single locomotives (of types in predominant use), is reached.
The reasoning behind this principle is that long run marginal costs (i.e. operating costs plus
1
At the time of writing, however, the railways of Thailand and Malaysia are working on implementing a
weekly container service between Port Klang (Malaysia) and Bangkok.
103
wagon and locomotive amortization) will decline with increasing train size up until the point at
which another locomotive must be added.
The experience of Thailand in scheduling loads for its Laem Chabang - Lard Krabang
container feeder service is instructive. Initially services were operated with 2,400 HP diesel
electric locomotives having a hauling capacity for the route of 1200 tonnes and the maximum
train length for crossing purposes is about 700 metres (as determined by the length of the
shortest crossing loop between Laem Chabang and Lard Krabang). The equivalent number
of container wagons (each with a gross weight of 40.5 tonnes and a length of 14.4 metres)
meeting these criteria was 30. When the State Railway of Thailand acquired locomotives
with a power rating of 2900 HP, the hauling capacity increased to 1800 tonnes, the
equivalent of 44 bogie wagons, but the resulting train length at about 650 metres was still
within the maximum length for crossing purposes.
Other operational factors which could impair the efficiency of cross border services are
differing procedures for the inspection and servicing of locomotives and rolling stock, as well
as differing standards of train crew proficiency and training. To a large extent these
deficiencies can be eliminated through the application of effective joint working agreements
between adjoining railway systems, such as the agreement in force between Thailand and
Malaysia since 1954. These agreements should embody standardized inspection, servicing
and staff training/qualification procedures for application by the neighbouring railway
systems.
7.3 Adequacy of route capacity

Inadequate route capacity on existing links could pose a significant operational barrier if
the TAR network is to generate significant volumes of international container traffic. Route
capacity is here defined as the maximum number of trains which can pass through the
capacity limiting section of a given line within any 24 hour period. For single line sections this
is established from the time taken by the slowest train through the longest section between
crossing loops, while for multiple line sections it is established from the time taken by the
speed of the slowest train through the longest signalling block, supplemented by the
minimum signalling headway (time interval) between trains.
A survey of the situation within each participating country, however, suggests that
serious route capacity problems on nominated TAR links are pervasive only in the case of
Turkey. For the other countries, in the relatively few cases where route capacity shortages
do exist, they can be overcome by alternative routing of trains or by minor investment in the
removal of bottlenecks.
7.3.1 Bangladesh
Only three sections on the nominated TAR links in Bangladesh even come close to
capacity saturation. They are: the 115 km section on Link Bn.3 between Santahar and
Parbatipur where the daily number of trains represents 80 per cent of the measured capacity
of the line; the 65 km section on Link Bn.1 from Tongi to Bhairab Bazar where about 82 per
cent of capacity is used; and the 80 km (approximate) section on Link Bn.2, between
Akhaura and Laksam, where the daily number of trains stands at 81 per cent of measured
capacity.
Poor track and rolling stock condition explains much of the capacity limitation on these
sections, but it is possible that the development plans already committed for these sections
will help to overcome these problems. The first mentioned section, Santahar to Parbatipur, is
in the process of being upgraded as part of the programme to convert the line from Jamtoil
104
to Parbatipur to dual gauge. The latter two sections form part of the Dhaka to Chittagong
main line which has been proposed for duplication and conversion to broad gauge following
completion of the dual gauge Jamtoil to Joydebpur section under construction as part of the
Jamuna River Bridge rail link. This work also will involve substantial track upgrading between
Dhaka and Chittagong which should result in significant speed increases and an overall
expansion of route capacity.
7.3.2 India
Three of the identified TAR links on Indian Railways, i.e. In.1, In.2 and In.3 have very
high capacity utilization. However, unlike most other participating railway systems, the Indian
Railways has the option of diverting traffic to alternative, nearly parallel routes when capacity
problems arise on TAR links. Indian Railways top level management are confident that any
significant route capacity shortages can be resolved in this way, and further that projected
increases in the number of container trains operated on the nominated TAR links can be
accommodated without substantial investments in capacity relieving measures.2
For the remainder of the links nominated by India, route capacity shortages are
encountered on only one, In.4 (Raxaul-Sitarampur), which is important for the transportation
of export and import traffic between Nepal and the ports of Calcutta and Haldia. On this link,
however, only two sections are becoming critically short of capacity - a 22 km section
between Kiul and Rampur Dumra and a 13 km section between Hathidha and Barauni where
the line crosses the Ganges River.3 In these sections, the daily number of trains
respectively represents 93 per cent and 84 per cent of measured route capacity. There are
likely to be limited opportunities for the Indian Railways to divert traffic around these
sections, especially the bottleneck section over the Ganges River, so that capacity relieving
measures may well have to be contemplated for these sections in the light of projected
transit traffic to and from Nepal.

Insufficient data were made available on the capacity and capacity utilization of TAR
links nominated for the Islamic Republic of Iran. However, it is known that investment funds
are currently being committed to track duplication of the trunk lines between Tehran and
Fariman and between Tehran and Qom, forming TAR link Ir.4 and part of TAR link Ir.1
respectively, suggesting that route capacity on these links may have been inadequate, in
terms of coping either with the current or the projected traffic task (daily number of trains).
7.3.4 Myanmar
The route capacities of all existing main lines in Myanmar are severely restricted as a
consequence of the speed penalties imposed by poor track and bridge condition. However,
with the exception only of one line (Yangon-Mandalay), current train density is not at a level
which could cause capacity shortages in the near future. As observed in Section 6.3.2 of
Chapter 6, the maximum freight train speed on the Yangon-Mandalay main line forming part
of TAR link My.1 ranges between 32 and 48 km and on the Yangon-Moktama and
Maylamyaing-Ye lines, also forming part of TAR link My.1, it is 32 and 24 km per hour
respectively. The corresponding estimates of route capacity in maximum daily number of
trains, both freight and passenger, existing train density in actual daily number of trains, both
2
Discussion with the Chairman of the Railway Board on 20 April 1998, during the ESCAP mission to India.
3
Country Report for India, Annexure Table 4.1.
105
freight and passenger, and capacity utilization in per cent are as follows: Yangon-Mandalay
36 and 26 trains, i.e. 72 per cent of capacity; Yangon-Moktama 24 and 10 trains, i.e. 42 per
cent of capacity; and Mawlamyaing-Ye 26 and 4 trains, i.e. 15 per cent of capacity.4 Only the
Yangon-Mandalay line comes close to capacity saturation and even then this would not
occur within the time frame of this analysis unless traffic were to increase by a minimum of
two per cent per annum, in which case train density would reach capacity by 2015. A
programme to strengthen track and bridges as well as to re-gauge structures as
recommended in the 1996 study by ESCAP of the Development of the Trans-Asian Railway
in the Indo-china and ASEAN sub-region would also have the effect of increasing speed
limits and hence of increasing route capacity throughout the network.
7.3.5 Pakistan
Potentially the most serious shortage of route capacity occurs on TAR link Pk.1, within
the 245 km electrified single track section between Raiwind and Khanewal, where currently
19 trains per day run against an estimated maximum daily number of 20. This section is
critical in the sense that it forms part of both the main TAR-S1 east-west trunk route and the
main feeder route for container traffic from and to the ports of Karachi and Qasim. The factor
contributing most to the restriction of capacity within this section is the 55 km per hour speed
limitation on freight trains comprising vacuum-braked, plain bearing-equipped wagons.
Removal of this restriction will cost an estimated US$ 9,000 per wagon but will allow an
estimated additional 8 trains per day to run in the section.5
Other nominated TAR links facing capacity shortages are Links Pk.3 (Rohri-Karachi) and
Pk.4 (Lahore-Peshawar), where the daily number of trains currently absorbs 79 and 94 per
cent of measured route capacity, respectively. Conversion of rolling stock to air brakes and
roller bearings would also increase route capacity on these links, as would the reopening of
closed crossing stations on the latter link where long block sections currently impose
excessive block occupation times. In fact, station closures recently enforced as an economy
measure in the prelude to restructuring and privatization of the Pakistan Railways may well
worsen the financial performance of the railway if, as is suggested in the case of TAR link
Pk.4, they restrict capacity to operate potentially profitable trains.
7.3.6 Sri Lanka

While no specific details were provided, it is understood that route capacity shortages do
not present a problem on the Sri Lanka network, with the possible exception of those
sections of Links Sl.1 and Sl.2 which are heavily utilized for Commuter traffic within
suburban Colombo and the 60 km section of Sl.1 between the junction stations of
Polgahawela (line to Kandy) and Maho (line to Trincomalee and Batticaloa) on Link Sl.2.6
The Commuter network extends from Panadura (28 km south of Colombo) to Polgahawela
(72 km north of Colombo) and, although it is multiple tracked, nevertheless provides an
intensive service during the morning and evening peak hours, with little to no possibility of
being utilized for freight service during the daylight hours.
4
ESCAP (1996), Trans-Asian Railway Route Requirements: Development of the Trans-Asian Railway in
Indo-China and ASEAN Subregion, Volume 3, Annex 2, page 5.
5
Country Report for Pakistan, pages 38-40.
6
Country Report for Sri Lanka, page 4.
106
Beyond the multiple-tracked suburban network, route capacity is limited by the running
times through single track block sections. These times have been quoted as 20-30 minutes
and would restrict capacity to only 34-50 trains per day.
7.3.7 Thailand
Access to the TAR Southern Corridor from Thailand would be provided by the existing
210 km line from Bangkok to Nam Tok. The first 80 km of this line, between Bangkok and
Nong Pladuk Junction, also forms part of the southern trunk line linking Thailand with
Malaysia. All but about 8 km of this line is of single track configuration and as it is intensively
used both by commuter and long distance trains, it is rapidly approaching capacity
saturation. Beyond Nong Pladuk Junction, the line is relatively underutilized, carrying a
maximum of only 8 trains per day. The ESCAP study of TAR network development in the
Indo-China and ASEAN Subregion (1996) indicated that the Bangkok-Nong Pladuk section
carried 56 trains per day against a measured capacity of 72, suggesting capacity utilization
of about 78 per cent.7 If train numbers were to grow at a rate averaging two per cent per
annum, this section would be short of capacity by 2011.
The urgency of capacity expansion measures for the southern trunk line has been
recognized by the Government of Thailand which has approved in principle a track doubling
programme covering a heavily trafficked 28 km section of this line from Talingchan Junction
to Nakhon Pathom. This programme, coupled with the likely rehabilitation of an 18 km
section from Bang Sue Junction to Talingchan Junction under the State Railway of
Thailand=s track rehabilitation programme, should resolve capacity problems between
Bangkok and Nong Pladuk Junction well into the future.
7.3.8 Turkey
Of the five principal TAR links nominated for Turkey, only Tk.2 (Kars-Cetinkaya) appears
to have sufficient route capacity to accomodate any significant growth in international
container traffic, yet it is unlikely that even this section will have sufficient capacity if the
freight traffic projections for the new Kars-Tbilisi line (eight million tonnes per annum) are
realized.
On Link Tk.1, forming part of the intercontinental route TAR-S1, only sections east of
Malatya and west of Ankara up to Haydarpasa appear to have adequate route capacity.
These sections appear to have a route capacity utilization of less than 70 per cent. Capacity
shortages between Malatya and Ankara, where the line passes through difficult mountainous
terrain, are particularly serious with existing traffic exceeding capacity on at least two
sections - 311 km between Kayseri and Irmak and 80 km between Cetinkaya and
Bostankaya. The operation of commuter services on Link Tk.1 to the east of Ankara and to
the west of Sirkeci (Istanbul) place additional pressures on the capacities of these sections,
albeit that they are track duplicated sections. The capacity of Link Tk.1 is further restricted by
the bottlenecks at Lake Van and the Bhosphorus Strait, both of which require ferry
crossings, taking five hours and 45 minutes respectively, as well as additional train
marshalling activity, amounting to two hours on each side of each crossing.
Traffic on Links Tk.3 (Malatya-Iskenderun) and Tk.4 (Toprakkale-Mersin) has already

reached capacity saturation with daily train numbers on both links representing about 93 per
cent of route capacity.
7
ESCAP (1996), Trans-Asian Railway Route Requirements: Development of the Trans-Asian Railway in
Indo-China and ASEAN Subregion, Volume 2, Annex 2, page 2.
107
On Link Tk.5 (Cetinkaya-Samsun), not one section has a capacity utilization of less than
92 per cent. The tortuous alignment of this link through rugged terrain and resulting low
speeds appears to be the main factor contributing to this situation.
7.4 Overcoming break-of-gauge problems

Currently freight traffic is transferred between differing track gauges at only four locations
on the TAR network - at Sarakhs on TAR Link Ir.3, between the 1520 mm gauge of the
Central Asian railways and the 1435 mm gauge of the Iranian Islamic Republic railways; at
Parbatipur and Santahar on TAR Link Bn.3 in Bangladesh, between the 1,000 mm and
1,676 mm gauges; and at New Bongalgaon on Link In.5a in northeastern India, again
between the 1,000 mm and 1,676 mm gauges. It is likely that since the recent broad gauging
of the remainder of Link In.5a up to Lekhapani, the transfer point has been relocated further
east from New Bongalgaon, perhaps to Lumding, where the connection is now made with
the northeastern metre gauge system.
In the case of the Sarakhs border station, transfer is effected by means of bogie
exchange, while at the other three locations it is effected by manual labour. For the break-of-
gauge stations where manual transfer methods are employed, overall wagon detention times
typically average between 24 and 36 hours.8 Although no specific data were provided in
respect of the Sarakhs bogie exchange, an information booklet issued by the Iranian Islamic
Republic Railways (IIRR) indicates that Aabout 200 bogies can be changed in 24 hours
based on two working [email protected] If this is interpreted as 100 wagons processed in 24 hours,
then to exchange the typical container block train of 23 wagons would take about 5.5 hours.
On the assumption that bogie exchange can be done concurrently with border formalities,
then the typical border dwell time for a container train might be of the order of eight hours,
including an allowance for operational activities such as coupler, brake and wheel testing.
When through TAR routes become a reality, it is likely that up to five breaks-of-gauge will
be encountered on the main intercontinental route TAR-S1 between Kunming and Kapikule.
Clearly with existing transfer techniques requiring up to 24 hours to transfer one train, the
loss of five days due to transfer of freight and/or vehicles between gauges could erode any
competitive advantage which rail might otherwise have had for freight movement within the
corridor, emphasizing the need for adoption of fast and cost-effective transfer methods. It is
by no means certain that bogie exchange provides the speediest and most cost effective
alternative for transfer of container traffic.
The 1996 ESCAP study of railway break-of-gauge problems and solutions suggests a
modern container transhipment terminal equipped with two reachstackers would have the
capability of transferring two trainloads of containers, representing 80 wagons and 160
containers, in two shifts each of eight hours (equivalent to five wagons per hour). This would
be slightly faster than the Sarakhs bogie exchange, but the capital cost of such a terminal at
about US$ four million would be only two thirds the cost of an automated bogie exchange,
while its operating cost is likely to be significantly less than half that of a bogie exchange.
One major difficulty associated with a bogie exchange is the logistical problem and
associated cost of maintaining an adequate inventory of bogies especially when there is a
large imbalance in the directional flows of wagons. Another difficulty which is likely to
8
ESCAP (1996), The Railway Break-of-Gauge Problem and Possible Solutions in the ESCAP Region.
9
IIRR (1996), Golden Route.
108
preclude bogie exchange as the preferred method at a majority of the break-of-gauge points
along route TAR-S1 is that it is still not technically possible to exchange wagons between the
metre and standard or broad gauges. Wagons designed for operation on disparate gauges
such as these are structurally quite different from one another and therefore incompatible for
bogie exchange purposes.
7.5 Adequacy of container handling capacity in ports and

hinterland
The container transport capability of the TAR network depends crucially on linkages with
container handling and distribution systems in ports and in the hinterland areas served by
these ports. These handling and distribution systems must be sufficiently comprehensive in
terms of their coverage of container trade generating industries and locations and sufficiently
well equipped to allow rapid loading and discharge of container carrying rail vehicles.
Railway involvement in container transportation throughout the TAR Southern Corridor is

still in its infancy. While a majority of the railway systems within the corridor are now involved
in such transportation, their services are oriented to the feeder transportation of containers to
and from the ports. To support this traffic, some systems have established inland container
handling facilities which could equally serve container cross border traffic. In seeking to
reorient their container haulage services from port to direct international transportation, the
railway systems of the region will need to ensure that the container handling and distribution
facilities either in place or planned will be adequate in terms of their location, capacity and
equipment in order to support the cross border transportation task. The status of these
facilities in each of the participating countries with an involvement in rail transportation of
containers is addressed below.
7.5.1 Bangladesh
(i) Port capacity
The great majority of containers arriving in or leaving Bangladesh do so via the Port of
Chittagong, although a second major port at Mongla in the west of Bangladesh also handles
containers and is better located than Chittagong to transfer container trade to/from Nepal.
Chittagong retains its importance as a potential gateway for container trade to/from the
seven northeastern states of India, in addition to its present role of handling the majority of
container trade from/to origins and destinations in Bangladesh. However, it is limited in these
roles by poor equipment availability and poor manpower productivity, as well as by
commercial, operational and administrative practices which favour inefficient handling and
transportation of containers.
Despite these limitations, the growth in container throughput at Chittagong Port in recent
years has been robust, as is shown in Table 7.2.
However, the future container growth potential at Chittagong Port is seriously restricted
by a combination of factors, of which the main ones are:
109
$ Progressively deteriorating cargo and container handling equipment availability (as
indicated by a decline from 81.6 per cent in 1992/93 to 38.1 per cent in 1995/96)10;
$ Poor port labour productivity, with a container handling rate per gang hour of only
8.70 in 1995/96 (against an already modest target of 12), this performance being
influenced to a large extent by poor equipment availability; and
$ Port handling charges and operating practices which favour retention of container
stuffing/unstuffing activity within the port boundaries, thus encouraging road
transportation of container cargoes rather than rail transportation of containers, and
thereby exacerbating an already serious landside congestion problem in the port.11
Table 7.2: Container throughput trend, Chittagong Port
Year Container throughput Percentage

(TEU)* change, year-
on-year
1991/92 121,326
1992/93 150,487 24.0
1993/94 174,958 16.3
1994/95 227,172 29.8
1995/96 250,867 10.4
1996/97 290,330 15.7
Source: Chittagong Port Authority
* Approximately 70 per cent of the total throuhput volume

is estimated to have a Dhaka origin or destination
The limited growth potential of the Port of Chittagong under present constraints is amply
illustrated by the fact that it has one of the highest berth occupancy rates in the region,
standing at 84.53 per cent in 1994/95.12 In effect, this means that, on average, ships occupy
berths for 7,400 hours out of a total of 8,760 hours in any year. After allowing for time taken
for basic maintenance of berths and equipment amounting to, say 1000 hours in any year, it
may be seen that no time remains for the berthing of additional vessels. It is believed that
landside congestion of the port, under the influence of the factors listed above, explains its
high berth occupancy rate and associated poor vessel turnround performance, which in
1995/96 averaged 5.13 days.
10
Mission Report: Advisory Services for the Chittagong Port Authority and Ministry of Shipping, Chittagong,
Bangladesh, June 1997, United Nations, Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific.
11
As an example of the tariff disadvantages confronting rail in Chittagong Port, charges for lifting containers
to and from rail wagons at Chittagong Port are almost double the charges applying to the same service at the
Dhaka ICD (Tk 1,000 for a loaded 20 ft container at Chittagong Port, as compared with Tk.600 at the Dhaka
ICD). Comparable truck loading/unloading charges for deconsolidated container cargo at Chittagong Port are not
readily ascertainable from the Port Tariff schedule, but on an equivalent container load basis are also likely to be
about half the charge applying to rail loading/unloading of containers. Road haulage charges for deconsolidated
cargo are likely to be substantially lower on a tonne-km basis than the rail tariff for container haulage, given the
ability of road operators to offer backloading rate incentives.
12
Chittagong Port: an overview, Chittagong Port Authority 1995.
110
Various solutions to the Chittagong Port capacity problem are being investigated,
including the construction of a new, privately owned and operated container terminal with a
capacity to handle up to 220,000 TEU per year and the contracting out of handling services
at the existing terminal to the private sector. The Bangladesh Government has yet to give its
approval to any of these possible solutions.
Chittagong Port is connected to the hinterland by road, rail and inland waterways. The
shares of these modes in the movement of dry cargo from the port in 1994/95 were quoted
in a recent ESCAP document as 72 per cent, 10 per cent and 18 per cent respectively13.
Containers are moved by rail between Chittagong Port and an ICD in Dhaka in dedicated
daily trains, but as observed in Chapter 5, rail has only a 14 per cent share of the total
container trade moving to and from Dhaka. In common with a majority of ports throughout
the region, the rail loading and unloading tracks at Chittagong are located well away from the
container berths and their associated stacking areas, necessitating long transfer moves with
truck hauled chassis or other port handling equipment.
(ii) Inland container handling capacity
An Inland Container Depot (ICD) was established at Dhaka in April 1987 under the joint
ownership of the Bangladesh Railway and the Chittagong Port Authority, but with all
container handling operations under the control of the Chittagong Port Authority. Initially, all
rail movement of containers to and from the ICD was achieved by means of regular mixed
freight trains, but since August 1991 dedicated container block trains have operated between
Dhaka and Chittagong, rarely at a frequency greater than one per day in each direction.
The Dhaka ICD has a storage capacity for only 1,000 TEU at any one time. Its annual
throughput capacity has been quoted at only 25,000 TEU per year (which would be
equivalent to only 25 stock turns or an average dwell time per container of 14.6 days), but
clearly as indicated in Chapter 5 it has already surpassed this volume, suggesting that
improved container turnarounds are possible. At the present throughput volume (about
29,000 TEU per year), the average container dwell time is 12.6 days, still excessive by
present day international standards. It should be noted that if container dwell time could be
reduced to seven days, the ICD would have a capability of handling about 52,000 TEU per
year, which is more than one and three quarters times its current throughput.
The present items of handling equipment at the ICD (one heavy duty forklift/toplifter, two
medium lift forklifts and one empty handling forklift) are not stretched at the present
throughput level, but one impediment to improved operational efficiency at the ICD lies in its
proximity to the main Dhaka passenger station and the need to shunt rakes of container
wagons across tracks used for suburban rail service. In common with a majority of the rail
served container terminals in the region, the Dhaka ICD was not designed to receive and
despatch full length container carrying trains. Present plans call for the construction of a new
terminal at a location which will not be exposed to conflicts with suburban traffic.
The only other inland customs clearing facility in operation in Bangladesh with potential
to handle containers is a road served dry port located at Benapole, located on the
southwestern border with India, some 35 km southwest of the City of Jessore and about 130
km from Mongla Port. This facility was acquired by the Mongla Port Authority in 1984 and
has been developed to facilitate import-export trade with India, none of which is at present
13
Advisory Services for the Chittagong Port Authority and Ministry of Shipping, ESCAP, June 1997.
111
containerized. In future, it might also have a significant role processing third country transit
trade with Nepal, but would need to be equipped with specialized container lifting equipment
for this purpose. The fact that Mongla Port is not as yet rail connected might also limit the
container handling potential of the Benapole dry port.
No other rail served ICD facilities have reached the advanced planning stages in
Bangladesh, but an ICD to be served by inland waterway transport (IWT) is planned for
construction at Narayanganj, about 20 km southeast of Dhaka. The Japanese Overseas
Economic Cooperation Fund which will be providing soft loans for this project has already
completed a feasibility study and commencement of construction work is imminent.
The establishment of an additional inland container handling facility in the northeastern

part of Bangladesh or over the border in India may well be justified if Chittagong is in future
to have a trade distribution role for the seven northeastern states of India. Currently, the only
ICD located in the northeastern states of India is at Amingaon near Guwahati (see sub-
section 2.5.2 b).
7.5.2 India
(i) Port capacity
The TAR links nominated for India serve the following container handling ports: Calcutta,
Haldia, Chennai (Madras), Tuticorin, Mumbai (Bombay) and Jawaharlal Nehru Port.
The container throughput trends for these ports are given in Table 7.3.
Table 7.3: Container throughputs, TAR-connected ports in India
Year Port
Calcutta Haldia Chennai Tuticorin Mumbai J.N.Port Total, 6 Total,
ports major ports
TEU TEU TEU TEU TEU TEU TEU TEU
(=000) (=000) (=000) (=000) (=000) (=000) (=000) (=000)
1991/92 58 9 106 28 280 112 593 683

1992/93 74 7 127 35 315 145 703 799
1993/94 96 6 162 48 428 177 917 1,052
1994/95 112 6 200 57 487 244 1,106 1,257
1995/96 121 4 227 69 518 339 1,278 1,449
1996/97 133 9 256 89 583 423 1,493 1,698
1997/98 141 29 293 102 601 504 1,670 1,892
1998/99 132 28 283 100 509 663 1,715 1,924
Av. annual rate 12.4 17.6 159.1 19.9 8.9 28.9 16.4 15.95
of growth (%)
Source: Indian Ports Association, per Country Report for India.
Collectively, these ports handle more than 85 per cent of the total port container
throughput of India. As may be observed from Table 7.3, the growth in their container
throughtput over the past five years has been spectacular, albeit that they were starting from
a low base. In particular, Jahawarlal Nehru Port (in the Mumbai area) and Tuticorin Port (the
112
transfer port for container movement to/from Sri Lanka) have consistently experienced
container traffic growth of greater than 25 per cent per annum over the past 5 years.
In 1995/96, the proportion of ICD contributed volume in the overall port container
throughput ranged from lows of 0 and 0.3 per cent in Tuticorin and Calcutta respectively, to a
high of 76.3 per cent in Haldia Port.14 It is understood that the Indian Railways are
concentrating their container movement on Haldia rather than Calcutta, given the severe
berth and landside congestion, as well as the difficult rail access, of the latter port. Haldia, at
the estuary of the Hooghly River, is located about 105 km downstream of Calcutta and
consequently can receive larger vessels than can the latter port. Rail access to Haldia is
easy as compared with Calcutta where trains must pass through densely populated urban
areas in order to reach the port. The fact that the ICD network contributes less than one per
cent of Calcutta=s total container volume perhaps suggests that an excessive proportion of
this volume is stuffed and unstuffed within the port boundaries, thereby adding to the
congestion of the port. Another contributing factor is the current necessity to examine all
Nepal-bound cargo at the Port of Calcutta. This will undergo a major change once the
Birganj ICD is opened in Nepal, thus facilitating the through movement of containers from
Birganj to Calcutta without having to detain the containers at Calcutta Port for customs
inspection and cargo handling operations.
To a lesser extent, Chennai and Mumbai ports, with only 10 per cent and 14 per cent
respectively of their total container volume being stuffed or unstuffed in ICD=s, also face
severe congestion problems. However, capacity-related congestion problems in the ports of
Calcutta and Mumbai is no longer an issue as containers can be diverted to the other ports
serving these cities, i.e. Haldia Port and Jawaharlal Nehru Port respectively. In the case of
Chennai, the Port Trust is implementing a plan to relocate container handling to a satellite
port at Ennore.
Data relating to ship turnround performance and container handling productivity for the
six TAR connected ports also demonstrate the presence of substantial limitations on
container handling capacity in a majority of these ports. In 1996/97, average container
vessel turnrounds stood at: 5.87 days in Calcutta Port, 1.54 days in Haldia Port, 4.33 days in
Chennai Port, 3.13 days in Tuticorin Port, 6.76 days in Mumbai Port and 3.74 days in J.N.
Port.15 While this performance was poor in all ports with the possible exception of Haldia
Port, in the case of both Calcutta and Mumbai ports it has deteriorated to levels which are
clearly incompatible with sustained container throughput growth. The corresponding data
relating to container handling productivity reveal that Calcutta and Mumbai ports with only
4.4 and 8.4 containers per gross crane working hour respectively in 1995/96 again have the
poorest performance of any of the major Indian ports.16 It is likely that these figures reflect a
high rate of equipment failure or non-availability, since Calcutta reported an availability rate
for container tractors of only 53 per cent in the same year. They reinforce the observation
that both ports are unlikely to be able to sustain high rates of container traffic growth without
a substantial reform of work practices (including off-port relocation of container
stuffing/unstuffing activity), reinvestment in handling equipment, or both.
(ii) Inland container handling capacity
14
India, Ministry of Surface Transport, Basic Port Statistics of India, 1996/97.
15
India, Ministry of Surface Transport, Basic Port Statistics of India, 1996/97.
16
A Agross crane working hour@ includes any time within the crane working hours during which a crane is
idle for whatever reason.
113
Since 1988 rail served container handling facilities throughout India have been under the
control of the Container Corporation of India Ltd (CONCOR), a subsidiary company of the
Indian Railways. Currently CONCOR owns a total of: 16 Inland Container Terminals (ICD=s)
providing comprehensive container handling and customs inspection/clearance services at
major inland trade generating locations ; 6 Container Freight Stations (CFS=s) with container
handling facilities but without customs clearance; and 5 Port Shipping Container Terminals
(PSCT=s) which facilitate the interchange of containers between the railways and the port
system at the container ports of Calcutta, Chennai, Cochin, Howrah and Kandla.
The majority of these facilities are concentrated in the important industrial regions in the
north and south of India. Present plans provide for the construction of new terminals at 8
locations throughout India. Only one ICD is located in northeastern India. This is the
Amingaon ICD located near Guwahati in Assam State. It exists primarily to handle the export
tea trade, which is moved by rail in containers to the port of Haldia.
Current ICD facilities range from the principal Tuklakabad ICD in New Delhi which has a
CY (container yard) storage capacity for 8,500 TEU and is equipped with heavy duty
container handling equipment such as rail mounted gantry cranes and reachstackers, to
small facilities, such as the Belanganj ICD at Agra, with CY storage capacity for less than
1,000 TEU and forklifts or toplifters for container handling with storage.
Container throughput growth for the CONCOR facilities during the past five years has
averaged more than 30 per cent per annum over the past five years, as shown in Table 7.4.
In 1997/98, about 98 per cent of the throughput of international containers and 60 per cent of
the throughput of domestic containers was transported on the nominated TAR links in India.
Table 7.4: Trend in container throughput, CONCOR terminals, 1993/94 - 1997/98
Year Throughput of Throughput of Domestic Total Container

International Containers Throughput
Containers
(No. of TEU)
(No. of TEU) (No. of TEU)
1993/94 188347 48824 237171
1994/95 275615 127027 402642
1995/96 349141 244977 594118
1996/97 424741 278801 703542
1997/98 491481 230238 721719
Av. annual rate of growth (%) 27.1 47.4 32.1
Source: Country Report for India
The capacities of existing CONCOR facilities are considered adequate to handle not only
existing levels of traffic, but anticipated traffic for the next 3-4 years as well. Rather,
priorities for the future development of inland container handling facilities in India are seen
as the provision of additional facilities in border areas to serve expected cross border
container trade. The Country Report for India identifies a possible need for such facilities to
handle India-Pakistan, India-Bangladesh, India-Nepal and India-Bhutan container traffic. Of
these, the report suggests that the existing Ludhiana ICD may be used in conjunction with
the ICD in Lahore, Pakistan to handle India-Pakistan traffic but that the other trades might
require the construction of new facilities.
114
8. COMMERCIAL REQUIREMENTS
There is no guarantee that the mere availability of a through railway route to Europe will
automatically encourage freight shippers based in Kunming or elsewhere throughout the TAR
southern corridor to use this route. In making decisions about route and mode choices, shippers
will always be guided by their perceptions of the relative cost, standard and reliability of services
offered by alternative modes and operators.
For container shippers, the following service attributes are considered to be important in
arriving at decisions about mode and route choice:
(i) Overall costs paid by shippers inclusive of transportation, handling and repositioning
costs of containers taking into account the shipping logistics;
(ii) Transit time, representing the time interval between despatch of a consignment from
a shipper=s premises and its arrival at the consignee=s premises;
(iii) Consignment security, or the extent to which consignments will be secure from
damage or pilferage enroute, since this could affect an operator=s insurance cover
and hence the overall transportation cost;
(iv) Reliability of service - specifically the extent to which an operator or mode can
consistently meet promised delivery times for the shipper=s consignments;
(v) Comprehensiveness of service provided by operators, in terms of the extent to which

a single operator will arrange and accept responsibility for all components of the
transportation/handling chain between ultimate origin and destination; and
(vi) Availability of real time information on the location of a freight consignment or

container at any point in its journey between origin and ultimate destination.
These six attributes can be thought of as comprising the Aservice package@ offered by
individual operators, which depending upon its perceived quality can either make or break a
transport operator=s ability to win and/or retain business. Not all categories of shippers will rate
these attributes in the same order of priority or even in the order of priority as suggested above.
For shippers of relatively high value commodities, reliability rather than cost may be the most
important selection criterion, since reliable service may allow their customers (the consignees)
to reduce the inventory level needed to safeguard against unreliable delivery of consignments.
For shippers of low value commodities, on the other hand, cost is likely to be the most important
criterion, since excessive transportation costs could impair their competitiveness on international
markets. Whatever the nature of a shipper=s business, however, mode or operator selection will
invariably depend upon the trade-off made by shippers among the four attributes.
This chapter addresses the requirements for railway Aservice packages@ which would have
to be offered (and delivered) in order to attract international container business to the TAR. The
three elements which most influence rail=s competitiveness are: transit time, reliability and cost
and these are addressed accordingly. However, it has to be acknowledged that rail may never
expect to be competitive on some routes, while on others it has a reasonable expectation of
being able to offer service of competitive quality in future. An example of the former is perhaps
the long haul movement of containers between Asia and Europe, while an example of the latter
is movement between the Asian countries of the corridor. Nevertheless, this chapter contains a
120
comparison of the service packages offered by rail and its competitors in the case of both types
of routes.
8.1 Transit times

The transit times which could potentially be offered by rail, as compared with those
estimated to be provided by rail=s main competitor, shipping, were assessed in respect of one
long haul route - for container movement between Dhaka and Frankfurt - and for several
container routes between origins in Central Asia and destinations in the hinterland of countries
within the corridor.
(i) Relative transit times, Dhaka - Frankfurt
The preliminary study report (ESCAP 1996) contains estimates of sea transit times for
consignments of containers to Frankfurt from six origins in South Asia, among them the port of
Chittagong in Bangladesh. The estimate for the latter origin has been amended in this study to
include transit time for the hinterland journey between Dhaka and Chittagong, as well as to
make a more realistic time allowance for transhipment in Colombo port. The amended estimate
is given in Table 8.1.
Table 8.1: Estimate of sea transit time for container movement,

Dhaka-Frankfurt (15,400 Km)
Trip component Mode Transit/dwell time Remarks

(days)
Dhaka-Chittagong Rail 1 Includes allowance for local delivery to

rail terminal in Dhaka
Ship loading in Chittagong 2
Chittagong-Colombo Feeder ship 6
Transhipment in Colombo 3
Colombo-Rotterdam Mainline ship 18-20 Includes allowance for en-route port calls
Transhipment in Rotterdam 1
Rotterdam-Frankfurt Road truck 1 Door-to-door delivery in Frankfurt
Total 32-34
Notes: (1) Sea transit and port dwell times derived from data supplied by various shipping lines, as reported in
ESCAP APreliminary Study on Development of Trans-Asian Railway in the Southern Corridor of Asia-
Europe Routes@, 1996.
(2) Rail transit and dwell times derived from Country Reports and from ESCAP ALand Transport Corridors
Between Asia and Europe@ 1997.
The data relating to commercial speeds as supplied by participating railway systems were
used in conjunction with information on border dwell times to estimate the possible all-rail transit
time between Dhaka and Frankfurt.
121
Table 8.2: Estimated all-rail transit time for container movement, Dhaka-Frankfurt
Trip component Distance Estimated Transit Border Dwell time at Total

(km) Commercial time dwell time break-of-gauge (days)
speed (hours) (hours) points (hours)
(km/hr)
Dhaka-Darsana 278 20 14 72 24 4.5
Darsana-Attari 1,975 30 65 72 Not Applicable 5.7
(1)
Attari-Koh-i-Taftan 1,731 20 87 24 Not Applicable 4.6
Koh-i-Taftan-Razi 2,573 15.1 (2) 170 24 24 (3) 9.1
(4)
Razi-Kapikule 2,354 20.2 116 12 Not Applicable 5.3
(5)
Kapikule-Frankfurt 2,239 50 45 48 Not Applicable 3.9
(6)
Total 11,150 22.4 497 252 48 33
(1)
Notes: Based on average of reported commercial speeds for container trains, Karachi-Lahore and
Karachi-Peshawar of 20.3 km/hour and 17.5-21.0 km/hour respectively (Country Report of
Pakistan).
(2)
Based on reported transit time Sarakhs-Bandar Abbas of 7 days (Country Report of Islamic
Republic of Iran).
(3)
Future break-of-gauge will be at Koh-i-Taftan. Prior to this, road transfer occurs at Zahedan for
transport between Zahedan and Kerman railheads. The figure of 24 hours allows for this road
transfer.
(4) Derived. Transit time of 116.25 hours reported during ESCAP mission to Turkey, March 1998. This
includes allowance for ferry crossings of Lake Van and Bosphorus Strait.
(5)
Estimated number of borders at which delays imposed: 4 (Bulgaria, Roumania, Hungary and
Austria) with estimated average delay at each: 12 hours.
(6) It must be noted that the 33-day transit time indicated reflects an ideal scenario with block-trains
travelling the whole length of the corridor with no problem of onward connections. However, one
may expect that traffic will pick up at a different pace in different countries resulting in a more
contrasted situation with containers being shed at one ICD where no load is to be picked up with
the consequence that the remaining load may have to wait for onward connections. In such a case,
the transit time could be lengthened by another 4 to 6 days.
It may be concluded that, under present operating and administrative conditions, the TAR
southern corridor would at best offer a transit time for Dhaka-Frankfurt container traffic equal to
that estimated to be provided currently by sea transport. This is despite the more than 4,000 km
distance advantage enjoyed by rail.
Overall, the commercial speed for the route (including allowance for operational stopping
times, but not including allowance for border or break-of-gauge delays) is estimated at only 22
km per hour. If the commercial speed could be lifted to 30 km per hour, i.e. approximately the
speed applying in India, through operational improvements (such as reductions in the number
and duration of stops for operational purposes), the overall transit time for the route could be cut
by 5.5 days. The wide gaps between the commercial speeds and the average running speeds
(see Chapter 6) in most of the above listed countries can only be explained by operational
delays, such as stopping for brake and wheel examination, train crew and/or locomotive
exchange, etc.
Further, the border crossing delays between Bangladesh and India, and between India and
122
Pakistan would certainly appear to be excessive in relation to the need for adequate inspections
in order to safeguard customs revenue and satisfy security requirements. If these could be
reduced from three to one day on average, there would be an additional saving of 4 days in the
overall transit time for the route. Coupled with the operational savings mentioned above, these
savings could cut container transit times by rail to 25 days, as compared with 33 days under
present conditions for sea transport. Only then could rail be said to offer transit times at a
competitive level with those of shipping.
(ii) Relative transit times, intermediate routes
In reality, rail=s competitive advantage in the southern corridor is focused on a number of

intermediate routes. These are routes which have both a hinterland origin and a hinterland
destination, are currently served by a combination of shipping and rail or road, and which could
in future be served directly by rail. Examples of these routes are: Ashgabat-Dhaka; Ashgabat-
Delhi and Ashgabat-Lahore. Ashgabat-Kuala Lumpur and Ashgabat-Bangkok could be added to
the list, except that they do not currently have a rail transportation option. All are significant for
the transportation of cotton from the source of supply in Central Asia to the garment
manufacturing industry in South and Southeast Asia.
The estimated combined sea and land and rail only transit times for container traffic on the
first three of the above listed routes are given in Tables 8.3 and 8.4, respectively.
The foregoing tables suggest that even with current commercial speeds lower than those of
sea transport and with excessive border dwell times at two locations, rail can still offer a
significant transit time advantage over existing container shipping services on Central Asia to
South Asia routes. This advantage ranges from 6 days in the case of Ashgabat-Dhaka traffic to
10 days in the case of Ashgabat-Lahore traffic, and is influenced by the significantly shorter
direct rail distances as compared with combined shipping/rail distances, as well as by the
lengthy dwell times for containers in South Asian ports. It is worth noting that the comparative
advantage of rail could be increased to 10 days in the case of Ashgabat-Dhaka traffic and to 9
days in the case of Ashgabat-Delhi traffic, if the excessive time required to complete border
formalities at both Wagah/Attari and Gede/Darsana could be reduced to a level more consistent
with times reported at the other two borders (Koh-i-Taftan/Mirjaveh and Sarakhs). With the
completion of the new direct rail connection between Bafq and Fariman in the Islamic Republic
of Iran, the transit times for both the sea transport and the all-rail options could be expected to
reduce by about 3.5 days. This would result from a saving of about 800 km in the trip distance
and from the possibility that with fewer stops on the new line, the commercial speed might be
expected to increase to about 20 km per hour from the estimated current speed of only 15 km
per hour. Thus, for the all-rail option, the transit time between Ashgabat and Lahore might be as
little as 10.5 days in future.
A question now surely arises as to why, given the potential transit time advantage in
despatching containers by rail over an international route network which is already in existence,
direct rail services on the identified routes could not have already materialized. The answer to
this question possibly lies in the variability of commercial speeds and border dwell times, but
almost certainly in the absence of a competitive international rail tariff and a purposeful
commercial strategy targeted at diverting container and other profitable traffic from what is
essentially a cumbersome and inefficient combined sea/land transport service. It is not,
however, sufficient to suggest that such a commercial strategy could be implemented,
unsupported by other initiatives - for example to improve relations at the government- to-
government level. Undeniably, improved relations between India and Pakistan will provide the
key for unlocking normal commercial forces which will produce a substantial flow of traffic
across their mutual land border, and allow third parties to benefit in the process.
123
Table 8.3: Estimate of sea transit time for container movement, intermediate routes
Route Trip component Distance Mode Transit/dwell

(Km) time (days)
Ashgabat-Dhaka Ashgabat-Bandar Abbas ( via Tehran) 2801 Rail/road 8
Dwell time at Sarakhs border 1
Ship loading in Bandar Abbas 2
Bandar Abbas-Jebel Ali 267 Feeder ship 0.4
Transhipment at Jebel Ali 1
Jebel Ali-Colombo 3105 Mainline ship 4.4
Transhipment at Colombo 2
Colombo-Chittagong 2200 Feeder ship 3.1
Dwell time in Chittagong Port 7
Rail loading and transport to Dhaka 321 Rail 1
Total 8694 30
Ashgabat-Delhi Ashgabat-Bandar Abbas (via Tehran) 2801 Rail/road 8
Jebel Ali-Mumbai 2179 Mainline ship 4.5-7.5
Dwell time in Mumbai port 3
Rail loading and transport to Delhi 1319 Rail 2.5
Total 6566 22-25
Ashgabat-Lahore Ashgabat-Bandar Abbas (via Tehran) 2801 Rail/road 8
Jebel Ali-Karachi 1253 Mainline ship 1.8
Dwell time in Karachi port 7
Rail loading and transport to Lahore 1220 Rail 3
Total 5541 24
Notes: (1) Speed of 16 knots (29.6 km/hr) assumed for all sea voyages, verified with shipping agents, Bandar Abbas.
(2) At Sarakhs border, customs formalities and gauge transfer together assumed to require 24 hours.
(3) Higher sea transit time Jebel Ali-Bombay (7.5 days) assumes voyage via Karachi including dwell time 3 days.
124
Table 8.4: Estimated all-rail transit time for container movement, intermediate routes
Route/ Distance Estimated Transit Border Dwell time at Total

(km) Commercial time dwell break-of-gauge (days)
Trip component speed (km/hr) (hours) time points (hours)
(hours)
Ashgabat-Dhaka
Ashgabat-Sarakhs 399 15.1 26 24 Included in border 2.1

dwell time
Sarakhs-Koh-i-Taftan (via 2640 15.1 175 24 8.3

Tehran)
Koh-i-Taftan-Attari 1731 20 87 72 Not Applicable 6.6
Attari-Darsana 1975 30 65 72 Not Applicable 5.7
Darsana-Dhaka 278 20 14 24 1.6
Total 7023 19.1 367 192 24 24
Ashgabat-Delhi

dwell time
Sarakhs-Koh-i-Taftan (via 2640 15.1 175 24 Applies in future 8.3

Tehran) and is allowed for
in border dwell
time
Koh-i-Taftan-Attari 1731 20 87 72 Not Applicable 6.6
Attari-Delhi 464 30 15 Not Applicable 1.9
Total 5234 17.3 303 120 18
Ashgabat-Lahore

dwell time
Sarakhs-Koh-i-Taftan (via 2640 15.1 175 24 Applies in future 8.3

Tehran) and is allowed for
in border dwell
time
Koh-i-Taftan-Lahore 1708 20 85 12 Not Applicable 4
Total 4747 16.6 286 60 14
Notes: (1) All but the first of the above commercial speeds were as indicated in Country Reports for this study.
(2) Commercial speed, Ashgabat-Sarakhs,was assumed to be the same as that in the Islamic Republic of
Iran. This is slightly higher than the speed assumed in the 1997 ESCAP study on ALand Transport
Corridors between Central Asia and Europe@. This was 300 km per day or 12.5 km per hour.
125
8.2 Tariffs
8.2.1 Tariff setting principles
One of the difficulties inherent in attempting a comparison of international sea and rail
transport tariffs is that more often than not through international rail tariffs are not in existence,
or if they are, they are not set with reference to the structure and level of the tariffs of competing
modes. Among the participating railways in the Southern Corridor, only China, the Islamic
Republic of Iran, Turkey, and to a very limited extent Thailand, have had any experience of
operating within international rail tariff setting mechanisms. Whatever the deficiencies of the
SGMS and COTIF tariff setting mechanisms within which three of these four railways operate,
they at least provide a tariff structure which applies throughout the entire journey of a
consignment and which is transparent and capable of being understood by rail customers.
Within the Southern Corridor, rail hauled containers currently cross only two borders - those
between the Islamic Republic of Iran and Turkmenistan, and between Turkey and Bulgaria.
Transit container traffic from origins in Central Asia to the port complex at Bandar Abbas moves
under SGMS tariff setting rules, while container traffic between origins/destinations in Turkey
and Western Europe moves under the Europe-Asia Tariff Agreement (TEA). The latter
agreement is administered by the B-PO Tariff Union (or Tariff Union of Balkan and Near East
Countries), to which the railway systems of Bulgaria, Greece, the Islamic Republic of Iran,
Macedonia, Roumania, Serbia, the Syrian Arab Republic and Turkey are parties.
While bilateral container traffic could move between the Islamic Republic of Iran and Turkey
under this agreement, in fact no rail-hauled containers currently cross the Razi/Kapikoy border.
A particular problem has recently arisen for the movement of transit wagons from Central Asia
through Turkish territory, since Turkey is not a member of the SGMS tariff setting convention,
neither are the Central Asian countries members of the COTIF convention or B-PO Tariff Union.
At the time of writing, this matter was being resolved through discussions between the Turkish
and Central Asian railway authorities, but it is understood that this problem has prevented the
application of through international tariffs to the movement of transit wagons from Central Asia
through Turkey and points west. This problem is compounded by the fact that some wagons
owned by railway systems of the Central Asian Republics infringe the Turkish loading gauge
and can be transported only as far as Lake Van, where their contents are either discharged into
Turkish wagons or transferred to road.
Container wagons do not yet move across the borders of the Islamic Republic of
Iran/Pakistan, Pakistan/India, India/Bangladesh (west), or Bangladesh (east)/India, although
there are no insurmountable technical problems which would prevent such movements. The
small volumes of freight traffic which do presently move across these borders are moved mostly
in four wheel (2 axle) boxcars. One of the factors working against container wagon movements
across these borders is the lack of an appropriate through tariff setting agreement between the
various countries. Current tariffs applied to traffic between these countries are additive, in the
sense that the tariff of the traffic originating system is applied up to the border with the receiving
system, while the tariff of the receiving system is applied from the border to the ultimate
destination. Typically, shippers pay the freight charge at the point of despatch for movement of
their consignments to the border and consignees or their agents pay, either at the border station
or the ultimate destination, the receiving system charge for movement of consignments from the
border.
The net effect of additive tariffs is that railway customers, overall, will have to pay much
higher tonne-kilometre charges than they might if a distance tapering tariff were applied from
126
origin to destination.1 This is because the per tonne kilometre rate applied by each system will
taper only over the shorter distance run by wagons on its territory. As an example, the following
hypothetical charges might apply to the movement of a freight consignment from New Delhi
(India) to Peshawar (Pakistan), a distance of 949 km 2:
Section Distance Hypothetical charge Charge payable for

(Km) per net tonne-km one tonne
(US$ equiv.) (US$ equiv.)
(1) Delhi-Attari/Wagah 464 0.012 5.568
(2) Attari/Wagah-Peshawar 485 0.012 5.820
(3) Sum of (1) and (2) 949 11.388
(4) Delhi-Peshawar 949 0.007 6.643
In this example, item (3) represents the outcome when the tariff is additive and item (4)
represents the outcome when a single through tariff is applied, on the assumption that a similar
type of tariff structure would be applied either side of the India/Pakistan border. The example
demonstrates very clearly that in the case of the additive tariff system, freight customers would
pay almost double the charge they would pay if a single through tariff were applied.
The essential points which must be made about tariff setting principles in this context are
that:
(i) The attraction of greater volumes of international freight traffic to the TAR network
will depend critically upon the application of a single through tariff between origin
and destination;
(ii) This will imply that the neighbouring railway systems not only agree to the unification
of their respective tariff structures, but also that they put into place a mechanism for
the equitable distribution of revenue among themselves, in accordance with an
appropriate, and preferably uncomplicated, formula (such as, for example, a
distribution based on their respective shares of the total haul distance);
(iii) Unified tariff rates must be established at a level which will be attractive to customers
who are presently using alternative transport modes. In other words, the participating
railway systems will have to abandon cost plus pricing of their services in favour of
customer oriented pricing focused on marketplace realities.
With these principles as a background, it is useful to establish competitive benchmarks for

railway tariffs in the Southern Corridor by comparing the current level of railway charges with
those of rail=s principal competitors, i.e. shipping and road transport for longer and shorter haul
routes respectively.
1
A distance tapering tariff is one in which the rate per tonne-km falls in proportion to increasing distance. It is
based on the theory that each charge has both a fixed (terminal related) and variable (haulage related) component. As
distance increases, the invariant component is spread over a greater number of kilometres and so its unit rate (per
tonne-km) declines proportionately. Such a tariff structure is commonly applied by most railway organizations to their
freight customers.
2
This hypothetical example was based on the container tariff structure currently applying within Pakistan. It
demonstrates a possible outcome if a similar tariff structure could be applied both sides of the border.
127
8.2.2 Tariff benchmarks
The tariff levels with which rail would have to compete in order to attract traffic to the TAR
Southern Corridor network were assessed in respect of container movement on one long haul
route, i.e. Dhaka to Frankfurt and on one intermediate route, i.e. Ashgabat to Lahore.
(i) Benchmark container transport charges, Dhaka - Frankfurt
Charges applying to the handling and transport of containers by sea between Dhaka and
Frankfurt were obtained from a representative sample of shipping agents based in Chittagong.
These are shown in Table 8.5.
Table 8.5: Estimate of sea handling and transport charges for container movement,
Dhaka-Frankfurt
Trip component Distance Charge for loaded Rate per TEU-km

20 ft container (US$) (US$)
Loading to rail in Dhaka 13
Rail linehaul to Chittagong 321 65 0.202
Loading to ship in Chittagong 88
Ship movement to Rotterdam (via 14635 1132 0.077

Colombo)
Transhipment in Colombo 193
Transhipment in Rotterdam 130
Road delivery, Rotterdam-Frankfurt 400 500 1.25
Total 15400 2121 0.138
These estimates demonstrate that in order to attract new container haulage business on the
route between Dhaka and Frankfurt, rail would have to offer an all-up charge which is
significantly less than US$ 2,121 per TEU. Allowing for the shorter rail distance involved, this
would be equivalent to US$ 0.190 per TEU-km.
Given that the cheapest unit rates for the longest rail hauls of containers within the TAR
Southern Corridor are currently no lower than US$ 0.181 per TEU-km, or US$ 0.228 per TEU-
km with the addition of terminal and local delivery charges3, it is difficult to envisage that rail can
be competitive in the Asia-Europe container trade.
This is confirmed by a recent European Commission study which quoted an all-up charge for
sea transport, handling and local transport of 20 ft containers from Essen to Bangkok of just
US$ 1,671 (for a 17,400 km haul, equivalent to US$ 0.096 per TEU-km) and by recent media
reports that westbound rates between Bangkok and destinations in Europe were now as low as
3
Haulage charge for 20ft loaded container between Tuklakabad ICD and Chennai (Madras) Port - 2,143 km. If,
as is suggested in the Country Report for India, terminal charges of about US$ 48 per TEU per terminal and local
delivery charges of about US$ 0.086 per TEU-km for, say, 30 km have to be added to the haulage charge, then the
all-up charge for a container haul of 2,143 would be of the order of the order of US$ 0.23 per TEU-km.
128
US$ 1,725-1,825 per TEU (US$ 0099-0.105 per TEU km).4 Even if the westbound rates
increase as envisaged by an average of US$ 200 per TEU from 01 January 1999, the resulting
per TEU-km rate of US$ 0.110-0.116 would still pose a formidable challenge for rail, especially
when rail is unlikely to enjoy a transit time advantage on these routes. In this case rail, which
would have a haul distance via routes TAR-S3 and TAR-S1 of about 13,000 km, would have to
offer an all-up charge of something less than US$ 0.148 -0.156 per TEU-km, in order to
compensate for the lack of a transit time advantage.
(ii) Benchmark container transport charges, intermediate routes
Sea freight rates for container movement between Bandar Abbas and a selection of ports in
South, Southeast and East Asia were provided on request by a representative group of shipping
agents based in Bandar Abbas. However, of the South Asian ports, only a rate for Bandar
Abbas-Karachi was provided. This was US$ 370 per loaded 20 ft container, including charges
applying to container transhipment in Jebel Ali Port, Dubai. This rate was used to assess the all-
up shipping handling and transport charge, providing the benchmark for charges which would
have to be offered for all-rail movement of a loaded 20 ft container on the route between
Ashgabat and Lahore. This benchmark is about US$ 1,550 as may be observed from Table 8.6.
When apportioned over the shorter rail distance between Ashgabat and Lahore of 4,747 km, this
would be equivalent to US$ 0.327 per TEU-km.
4
European Commission, DG VII (Transport) (1997), Comparative Study of Surface Transport Routes between
Europe and Asia and Bangkok Post, Business Section, Cargo space shortage puts exports at risk, Monday, October
26, 1998.
129
Ashgabat-Lahore
Trip component Distance Charge for loaded Rate per

(Km) 20 ft container TEU-km
(US$) (US$)
Loading to rail, Ashgabat 50 (1)

Rail linehaul, Ashgabat-Bandar Abbas 2801 684 (2) 0.244
(1)
Bogie exchange, Sarakhs border 50
Ship movement, Bandar Abbas-Karachi 1520 370 0.243
(1)
Ship discharge and loading to rail, Karachi Port 50
Rail linehaul, Karachi-Johore 1219 281 (3) 0.231
Total 5540 1545 0.279
Notes: (1) Handling charges in rail and port terminals estimated as per ESCAP :ALand Transport Corridors
between Central Asia and Europe, 1997, with the exception of those for Bandar Abbas which represent
actual charges as provided by the Port and Shipping Organization of the Islamic Republic of Iran and
Lahore, which are negligible and have been excluded.
(2)
Per TEU rail linehaul charge provided by the Iranian Islamic Republic Railways for Sarakhs-Bandar
Abbas was extended to Ashgabat.
(3)
Rail linehaul charge, Karachi-Lahore was derived from Country Report for Pakistan.
Although sea freight components of charges for container movement between Ashgabat and
Dhaka and Ashgabat and Delhi were not available, it is believed that they would be of the order
of US$ 525 and US$ 400 per TEU, respectively. The estimated container shipping charge of
US$ 525 for movement between Bandar Abbas and Chittagong is based on the quoted charge
for Bangkok bound containers, since like shipping moves to Bangkok, shipping moves to
Chittagong from Bandar Abbas would involve two lots of transhipment (one at Jebel Ali and
another at Colombo), but since Chittagong has a smaller base container volume it is likely to be
subject to higher unit freight rates than is Bangkok.
Benchmark charges were accordingly estimated for these two routes and are given in
Tables 8.7 and 8.8.
130
Ashgabat-Dhaka

(US$) (US$)
Loading to rail, Ashgabat 50 50 (1)
Rail linehaul, Ashgabat-Bandar Abbas 2801 684 0.244
(1)
Ship movement, Bandar Abbas-Chittagong 5572 525 0.094
(1)
Ship discharge and loading to rail, Chittagong Port 88
Rail linehaul, Chittagong-Dhaka 321 130 (2) 0.374
(1)
Off-loading from rail, Dhaka 13
Total 8694 1600 0.184
(1)
Notes: Source: ESCAP (1997) except charges for Bandar Abbas and Dhaka which are actuals
(2)
Source: Bangladesh Railways
Table 8.8 : Estimate of sea handling and transport charges for container movement,
Ashgabat-Delhi

(US$) (US$)
Loading to rail, Ashgabat 50 (1)
Rail linehaul, Ashgabat-Bandar Abbas 2801 684 0.244
(1)
Ship movement, Bandar Abbas-Mumbai 2446 400 0.164
(1)
Ship discharge and loading to rail, Mumbai 50
Rail linehaul, Mumbai-Delhi 1319 273 (2) 0.207
(2)
Off-loading from rail, Delhi 48
Total 6566 1615 0.246
(1)
Source: ESCAP (1997) except charges for Bandar Abbas which are actuals
(2)
Source: Country Report for India
The estimates given in Tables 8.6-8.8 suggest that, unlike all-rail container movement
between Asia and Europe, all-rail container movement on intermediate routes between Central
Asia and South Asia does have some possibility of being competitively priced (as compared with
shipping). This is so because the rail charges required to match the shipping charges are: US$
0.325 per TEU-km for Ashgabat-Lahore, US$ 0.228 for Ashgabat-Dhaka and US$ 0.309 for
Ashgabat-Delhi; all within easy reach of current tariff structures, provided a through international
tariff on a tapering scale from origin to destination can be devised and offered.
131
9. DEVELOPMENT PLANS
Most of the railway systems participating in this study have established development plans
for their networks and for their locomotive and rolling stock fleets. Since many of the projects
identified in these development plans have implications for the on-going development and
operational enhancement of the Southern Corridor of the Trans-Asian Railway, they have been
outlined in this chapter. Any development requirements over and above those addressed in the
country programmes and identified in the foregoing analysis have also been included in the
country by country outlines in this chapter.
9.1 TAR network development in the participating countries
9.1.1 Bangladesh
Significant projects of the Bangladesh Railways, either underway or planned for

commencement in the near future, include:
(a) On TAR Links Bn.1 and Bn.3, construction or reconstruction of the Bangabandhu
(Jamuna River) Bridge connecting lines. The principal component of this project is the
construction of a new dual gauge line of 99 km length between Joydebpur and Jamtoil to
connect the east and west zones of the Bangladesh Railway network across the recently
completed Jamuna River Bridge. Construction of this new line which is estimated to cost
US$ 151.2 million (US$ 1.53 million per km) commenced in 1997 and is scheduled for
completion in 2001. The two other components of this project involve conversion by 2001
of existing broad gauge (1676 mm) lines between Jamtoil and Ishurdi (66 km) and
between Ishurdi and Parbatipur (174 km) to dual gauge, at an estimated cost of US$ 93.3
million.
(b) On TAR Links Bn.1 and Bn.2, rehabilitation of track and bridges between Darsana and
Ishurdi and between Dhaka and Chittagong. This project, costing US$ 131.7 million,
commenced in 1995 and is scheduled for completion in 2000. It involves track and bridge
renewal with the objective of maintaining current speed and axle load standards. Included
in this work is the partial rehabilitation of the longest railway bridge in Bangladesh - the
Hardinge Bridge across the River Ganges at Paksey.
(c) On TAR Link Bn.2, signalling system rehabilitation, replacement and modernization. This
is a proposed system-wide project to upgrade signalling and interlocking equipment at 30
stations, of which 16 stations are located on the Dhaka-Chittagong line. It has an
estimated cost of US$ 14.3 million and is under feasibility study for funding by the
Government of Germany. Its objective is to increase line capacity and enhance safety.
(d) On TAR Link Bn.2, construction of double track from Tongi to Bhairab Bazar. This project
is also under feasibility study for funding by the Government of Germany. It was conceived
as a project to double track the Tongi-Bhairab Bazar section (65 km) in metre gauge for a
cost estimated at US$ 43.18, but is now likely to be revised to allow for conversion of the
existing metre gauge line to dual gauge and the construction of an additional line in broad
gauge between Joydebpur and Akhaura (110 km).
132
(e) System-wide procurement of locomotives and wagons. As part of a programme to procure
47 new locomotives for an estimated cost of US$ 121 million, 12 metre gauge locomotives
have already been acquired, tenders are being finalized for procurement for an additional
19 locomotives, and the Government of Germany has promised financial assistance for
purchase of 6 broad gauge locomotives. Also underway is a project to rehabilitate 56
broad gauge and 156 metre gauge locomotives at an estimated cost of US$ 28 million
and to acquire 100 new container wagons at an estimated cost of US$ 3.85 million.
Projects which will be subjected to detail appraisal for commencement in the medium-
longer term include the following:
(f) On TAR Link Bn.2, conversion of second metre gauge track Ashuganj-Akhaura and Chinki
Astana-Chittagong to broad gauge, and construction of second track in broad gauge,
Akhaura-Chinki Astana. This project, which is estimated to cost US$ 192 million, would
connect Chittagong to the broad gauge system, in addition to expanding line capacity on
Bangladesh=s busiest line. It will be subjected to feasibility study under an ADB Technical
Assistance Programme during 1999.
(g) On TAR Link Bn.2a, track and signalling improvements, Chittagong-Dohazari and
construction of new metre gauge line from Dohazari-Gunghum (border with Myanmar).
Track and bridge reconstruction and strengthening, as well as signalling system
improvement, will be required on the existing light branch line between Chittagong and
Dohazari (47 km), at an estimated cost of US$ 16 million. Construction of the proposed
new 145 km line between Dohazari and Gundhum is estimated to cost US$ 130 million
(approximately US$ 900,000 per kilometre). Although the Country Report for Bangladesh
states that the new line will be constructed in the metre gauge, the proposed connection of
Chittagong to the broad gauge system (see above) would seem to emphasize the
desirability of also constructing the new line in broad gauge.
(h) Various system-wide locomotive and rolling stock procurement and upgrading proposals.
These proposals include procurement of up to 76 new locomotives (US$ 150.3 million),
refurbishment of 60 metre gauge locomotives (US$ 76.0 million), conversion of 10,000
wagons from plain to roller bearings (US$ 2.9 million), and conversion of wagons to
airbrakes and automatic couplers (US$ 4.4 million).
(i) Procurement of new container wagons to support traffic growth on TAR network. Another
100 container wagons will be added to the existing fleet of 166 by 2000 in order to satisfy
transport demand on the Dhaka-Chittagong feeder service until 2010 (see item Ae@
above). It has been determined that an additional 27-56 metre wagons will be required to
support traffic growth on this line up until 2017. In addition, it has been estimated that
support of international container services on the TAR network may require procurement
of about 75 broad gauge container wagons between 2001 and 2017 (14 in 2001/02, 30 in
2004/05, and 31 between 2010 and 2017). At a unit cost of US$ 60,000 for a metre gauge
wagon and US$ 80,000 for a broad gauge wagon, the wagon procurement programme
beyond 2000 could cost up to US$ 9.4 million.
(j) Provision of break of gauge container transhipment facility. The proposed eastward
extension of the broad gauge system will require the provision of modern container
transhipment facilities at the main new break-of-gauge station. Possible locations for this
transhipment facility have been suggested at Ishurdi, Joydebpur, Tongi, Dhaka (or in the
longer term) Chittagong. The construction cost for a container transhipment facility was
estimated at US$ 5.0 million.
133
9.1.2 China
Investment by the Government of China in the development of the Trans-Asian Railway on
its territory has so far been concentrated on the construction of the new 213 km line linking
Guangtong (about 100 km west of Kunming) with the city of Dali in western Yunnan Province.
This line, which will form part of TAR Link Ch.1 and of the main intercontinental route TAR-S1, is
understood to be nearing completion. A 1994 estimate of its construction cost was 2 billion yuan
(approximately US$ 242 million), but the final cost is likely to be substantially in excess of this
estimate.1
9.1.3 India
Indian Railways development programmes affecting nominated TAR links are of two types,
the first involving initiatives at the system-wide level and the second involving initiatives which
have a specific focus on individual TAR links.
At the system-wide level, the railway is committed to a programme of upgrading the

carrying capacity of both its rolling stock and its routes. The first is being achieved by adopting
more efficient wagon designs which optimize payload in relation to tare weight, while the second
is being achieved through progressive upgrading of main line track to accept an increase in
maximum permissible axle loads, from 20.32 tonnes at present to 22.1 tonnes in future, thereby
allowing the use of higher horsepower locomotives and increased train trailing loads . These
initiatives can be expected to augment capacity on several trunk routes which have already
reached saturation. Routes expected to benefit most from these programmes are the trunk
routes of the so-called AGolden Quadrilateral@, linking New Delhi, Calcutta, Chennai (Madras)
and Mumbai (Bombay). These correspond with TAR links In.1, In.2 and In.3.
At the level of individual TAR links, through its AUnigauge@ programme, the Indian Railways
has succeeded in reducing the pressure on its saturated trunk lines by converting parallel metre
gauge lines to broad gauge, allowing them to be used as alternative routes for the former.
Additionally, the conversion of metre gauge TAR links to broad gauge provides them with
greater capacity owing to the higher speed and axle load limits applying to broad gauge track.
Since the AUnigauge@ project began in 1992, some 7,000 km of metre gauge trackage has been
converted to broad gauge, including more than 700 km on TAR Link In.5a (from Guwahati to
Lekhapani) and approximately 140 km on TAR Link In.4 (Muzaffarpur to Raxaul). The capital
works budget of the Indian Railways allows for the gauge conversion of 198 km of metre gauge
main line between Lumding and Silchar on TAR Link In.5b, at an estimated cost equivalent to
US$ 155 million (approximately US$ 783,000 per km).2 It is expected that this project will
commence within the next two years.
Also at the level of individual TAR links, the on-going programme for electrification of high
density routes and for the construction of additional container handling facilities may also be
expected to have a significant impact on capacity enhancement within the nominated TAR
network in India.
Other projects being undertaken to increase route capacity on the nominated TAR links
include:
1
Yunnan Railway General Corporation: A Brief Introduction of the Guanton-Dali Railway, Yunnan PRC -
Specialized Data for Raising Capital, December 1994.
2
Based on information provided by the Indian Railways Board during the ESCAP mission to India in April 1998.
134
(a) On TAR Link In.1, additional line construction and signalling improvements. The provision
of a third running track between Sonnagar and Mulghalsarai (124 km), Manpur and Gaya
(169 km), and Kanpur and Panki (about 160 km) are examples of capacity expansion
projects already underway on this link, as is installation of automatic signalling between
Ghaziabad and Aligarh (106 km).
(b) On TAR Link In.2, provision of automatic signaling and new line construction. Installation
of automatic signalling, underway between Arakkonam and Jolarpettai (204 km) will
provide relief for the heavily congested Madras - Erode section at the southern end of this
link.
(c) On TAR Link In.3, construction of new crossing/passing loops and extension of existing
loops. This involves additional loop construction between Virar and Vadodara and loop
extension at Piplod, in order to augment capacity on the Ratlam and Vadaodara section of
this busy Delhi-Mumbai trunk line, on which train density currently represents about 131%
of measured capacity.
In addition, the Indian Railways has longer term plans for the construction of new broad
gauge lines in the northeast, between Diphan and Imphal and between Kumarghat and
Argartala (119 km). These lines will link the capital cities of Manipur and Tripura states,
respectively, to the Indian rail network and, on completion of the gauge conversion of the
existing northeast metre gauges system, can be expected to feed traffic into the TAR network.
The construction cost of the Kumarghat-Agatala line, excluding the cost of bridges and tunnels,
is estimated at the equivalent of US$ 138 million (or about US$ 1.16 million per km). This project
is targeted for commencement in 2002.3
Not included in current plans are capacity expansion works on Link In.2, between Bina and
Itarsi (230 km) and between Vardha and Kazipet (366 km), both sections having reached
greater than 100 per cent capacity saturation and perhaps requiring attention in the near future.
In addition, there may be some justification for investigating possible capacity relief
measures for two critical sections of Link In.4, where the use of alternative routes may not be a
practical possibility. Within one of these sections, the link crosses the River Ganges near
Barauni.

The Iranian Islamic Republic Railways have a programme of track duplication underway on
TAR Link Ir.4 between Fariman and Tehran (a distance of 890 km) and on TAR Link Ir.1
between Tehran and Qom (a distance of about 100 km), in order to augment capacity on these
apparently congested lines. It is understood that the Tehran-Qom project either has been
completed or is nearing completion, and that duplication on approximately 400 km of the
Fariman-Tehran line has now been completed. No indication of the capital cost of these projects
was provided.
3
Indian Railways Board (1998).
135
Another major development project now underway on the nominated TAR network in the
Islamic Republic of Iran is the construction of a new standard gauge line within Link Ir.1 to close
the 545 km gap between Kerman and Zahedan in the southeastern region of the country. This
project, which is described in detail in Chapter 4 of this report, is estimated to cost
approximately US$ 1.2 million per km to construct, giving an overall cost of about US$ 654
million.4 At the time of writing, formation and bridge works had been completed on about 100
km of the new line, construction of which commenced in 1996 and (subject to the availability of
funds) is scheduled for completion during 2000/01.
Funding limitations have so far delayed a start on a second major new line construction
project, involving the building of a direct north-south connection between Fariman and Bafq, with
a length of about 790 km. No cost estimates were provided for this project but, as is the case
with the Kerman-Zahedan project, it depends wholly on government funding, although part of
the funding is being provided from fuel tax revenues and from a levy on rail freight customers.
When complete, the new Fariman-Bafq line will cut the distance and trip time from Central Asia
to Bandar Abbas by 800 km and 3.5 days respectively.
9.1.5 Myanmar
TAR development priorities for Myanmar are likely to be focussed on:
(a) Expansion of structure dimensions and strengthening of track on Link My.1 (between
Yangon and Mandalay and Yangon and Moktama), in order to satisfy TAR structure gauge
and axle load standards. Estimated cost: US$ 41 million.5
(b) Crossing loop construction and signalling system improvement between Thazi and
Mandalay on Link My.1, in order to provide sufficient line capacity for increased container
movement. Estimated cost: US$ 21 million.6
(c) Locomotive and rolling stock purchases to support projected growth in container traffic on
nominated TAR links in Myanmar. Estimated cost: US$ 11 million.7
(d) Reconstruction of the entire Mandalay-Lashio line section (313 km) on Link My.2b in order
to correct poor track alignment and to meet TAR track design standards for the
conveyance of containers. Estimated cost: US$ 704 million.8
(e) Construction of a new line of 135 km length between Kalay and Tamu on Link My.3a, to
complete a link to the border with India. Estimated cost: US$ 236 million.9
4
Information provided by the Iranian Islamic Republic of Iran Railways during ESCAP mission to Tehran, May
1998.
5
ESCAP (1996), op cit, Volume 3, page 74.
6
ESCAP (1996), op cit, Volume 3, page 88.
7
ESCAP (1996), op cit, Volume 3, pages 92-94.
8
It is estimated that the cost of reconstructing this line would not be significantly different from that associated
with new line construction, bearing in mind that complete realignment on a new formation would be required. In line
with the per km cost of new line construction in Chapter 4, a cost of US$ 2.25 million was used to estimate the cost of
reconstructing this line.
9
See Chapter 4.
136
In summary, total funding of the order US$ 1.01 billion would be required to satisfy TAR
development requirements in Myanmar up until the year 2017.
9.1.6 Pakistan
The current system development programme of the Pakistan Railways includes a number
of projects which affect the nominated TAR links in Pakistan. Details of these projects are as
follows:
(a) Track and track component renewals, in order to maintain existing speed and axle load
standards. During 1997/98 complete track renewal was in progress on a total of 34 km on
Links Pk.1, Pk.2 and Pk.3. Within the same period, sleeper renewal was in progress on a
total of 35 km on Links Pk.1 and Pk.3 and rail renewal was in progress on a total of 58 km
on Links Pk.1 and Pk.5. Costs were not provided.
(b) Locomotive procurement. Procurement of 30 new 3,000 HP diesel electric locomotives

was in progress during 1997/98. The haulage capacity of these locomotives for single unit
operation is 2,200 tonnes at 75 km per hour. In addition, 101 locomotives were being
upgraded to permit single unit haulage of 2,000 tonnes at 65 km per hour or dual unit
haulage of 2,000 tonnes at 85 km per hour, and approximately US$ 17 million was
expended on procurement and rehabilitation of traction motors.
(c) Wagon upgrading, in order to increase operating speeds and expand line capacity. This
project includes: air brake conversion of 550 oil tanker wagons to permit operation in train
loads of 2,250 tonnes (up from 2,000 tonnes) at a speed of 70 km per hour (up from 55 km
per hour), costing US$ 10.53 million; and, re-equipment of 8,000 freight wagons with roller
bearings at an estimated cost of US$ 155.98 million.
(d) Signalling improvement. Improvements to signalling systems in progress in 1997/98

included: track circuiting of a total of 94 stations on Links Pk.1, Pk.3 and Pk.4 with the aim
of enhancing safety of through train operation and an estimated cost of US$ 1.8 million;
provision of tokenless block working between Lodhran and Khanewal on Link Pk.1 and
between Khanewal and Faisalabad on Link Pk.5, with a cost of US$ 0.8 million; provision
of colour light signalling between Raiwind and Lahore on Link Pk.1, at a cost of US$ 2.0
million; and installation of improved signalling between Port Qasim and Mating on Link
Pk.3 and between Shahdara and Shorkot on Link Pk.5, at a cost of 2.1 million.
Future development works programmed for the 9th five year railway development plan
include:
(e) Further track rehabilitation. Track renewals on a total of 28 km on Links Pk.1, Pk.3 and
Pk.5 will be undertaken in 1998/99, at an estimated cost of US$ 0.94 million. Major
rehabilitation works are to be undertaken during 1998-2003 on several major sections on
Links Pk.1, Pk.3, Pk.4 and Pk.5, at an estimated cost of US$ 144.23 million.
(f) Track duplication. An amount of US$ 36.54 million has been allocated for track duplication
of 121 route km between Lodhran and Khanewal (via Multan) on Link Pk.5. In addition,
US$ 15.39 million has been allocated for duplication of 44 route km between Sangla Hill
and Faisalabad on Link Pk.5.
(g) Track upgrading between Spezand and Koh-i-Taftan on Link Pk.1. As part of a
Memorandum of Understanding of 15 September 1991 between the Governments of
Pakistan and the Islamic Republic of Iran, the Pakistan Railways will undertake major
upgrading work within the tenure of the 9th plan, involving reconstruction of the worst
137
sections of track, replacement of dips with proper bridges and reballasting, with the aim of
lifting operating speeds from 40 km per hour to 65 km per hour. The estimated cost of this
project is US$ 34.62 million. The Memorandum of Understanding requires the Government
of the Islamic Republic of Iran to execute similar improvements to the Mirjaveh - Zahedan
section.
(h) Bridge rehabilitation. Life expired bridges within the Karachi-Peshawar corridor (TAR
Links Pk.1, Pk.3 and Pk.4 will be rehabilitated at a cost of US$ 3.06 million.
(i) Telecommunications systems upgrading. This project involves extension of microwave

communications links to the Lahore-Khanewal and Rawalpindi-Peshawar sections of Links
Pk.1 and Pk.4 respectively. The estimated cost of the project is US$ 11.54.
(j) Further signalling works. Two projects with a combined cost of US$ 1.69 million will be
undertaken, to replace kerosene lit with electrically lit signals and to rehabilitate
mechanical signalling on various parts of the system, including the Lodhran-Raiwaind,
Shahdura-Lalamusa and Sangh Hill-Khanewal sections on Links Pk.1, Pk.4 and Pk.5,
respectively.
(k) Upgrading of terminals. A sum of US$ 2 million has been allocated for upgrading various
station and terminal facilities throughout the entire system.
(l) Electrification of Khanewal-Samsatta section. The 286 km long Lahore-Khanewal

electrification on TAR link Pk.1, completed in 1968/69, will be extended by 119 km to
Samasutta, at an estimated cost of US$ 40 million.
(m) Further procurement and replacement of locomotives. An additional 176 locomotives will
be required within the tenure of the 9th plan to accommodate projected increases in the
system-wide traffic task, at a cost of about US$ 387 million (US$ 2.2 million per
locomotive. In addition, the 29 electric locomotives in service since 1969 will need to be
replaced, at an estimated cost of US$ 102 million and the 36 diesel electric locomotives of
3000 HP in service for the past 28 years will need to be rehabilitated, at an estimated cost
of US$ 70 million.
(n) Wagon fleet upgrading. Three projects will be commenced, with the aim of achieving a
significant upgrading of the freight wagon fleet. Priority will be given to the air brake
conversion of an additional 534 oil tanker wagons and to the conversion of an additional
5,850 wagons of various types to roller bearings. Further, as 83 per cent of the existing
fleet consists of low payload capacity 4 wheel wagons, the Pakistan Railways plans to
introduce 700 new bogie wagons of efficient design, at an estimated cost of US$ 75.38
million.
(o) RECO Emergency Investment Plan. In preparation for the first open track access
contracts with private Rail Equipment Companies (RECO=s) for the movement of
petroleum products from Karachi into the hinterland, it is proposed to undertake further
track renewal, signalling improvement and yard capacity expansion on Links Pk.1, Pk.3
and part of Pk.4, at an estimated cost of US$ 58.4 million. These improvements are
expected to benefit these TAR links, by reducing the need for imposition of temporary
speed restrictions owing to poor track and bridge condition.
9.1.7 Sri Lanka

Future developmental works are expected to be concentrated on the restoration of the 106
km long line section from Medawachchiya to Talaimannar Pier on TAR Link Sl.2. This section
138
was completely destroyed during the period of insurgency in northern Sri Lanka. In addition,
provision of container transhipment facilities at Talaimannar will be necessary. The estimated
total cost of these works is US$ 40 million. A continuation of the insurgency problems will in all
probability prevent a start on the necessary works before 2000.
9.1.8 Thailand
It is likely that substantial rehabilitation will be required on the Kanchanaburi-Nam Tok
section of Link Th.1, in order to strengthen the track for freight operations. This section contains
several timber trestle bridges, which are unlikely to be able to withstand the track loadings under
sustained freight operation. However, no estimate of the likely nature, scale and cost of the
necessary rehabilitation works has yet been undertaken.
The current forward works plan of the State Railway of Thailand allows for track duplication
on the 28 km section between Talingchan Junction and Nakhon Pathom on TAR Link Th.1, with
the objective of relieving traffic congestion on this section which is also heavily used for
Bangkok rail commuter services and for long distance rail services on the main South trunk line.
The estimated cost of this project is approximately US$ 74 million (US$ 2.6 million per
kilometre). The proposed rehabilitation of 18 km of main line track between Bang Sue and
Talingchan as part of a system-wide Track Rehabilitation programme being financed by the
Japanese Government is also expected to contribute significantly to the expansion of line
capacity on Link Th.1. This latter project involves replacement of life expired 70 lb rail laid on
timber sleepers with new 100 lb rail laid on concrete sleepers, together with formation
improvements and ballast augmentation and is estimated to cost approximately US$ 20.2 million
(or US$ 1.1 million per km).
9.1.9 Turkey
Several large system modernization projects are planned for implementation within the
near future by the Turkish State Railways. Most of these projects can be expected to have a
major impact on the future development and operational enhancement of the TAR network in
Turkey. Projects of significance to the TAR network (listed in the priority order in which they
appear in the Turkish plans) include:
(a) New line construction between Kars and Aktas. This new line of 92 km length forms the
major part of a 124 km rail connection between Kars, located on TAR Link Tk.2, and the
Georgian capital of Tbilisi. Connection of the railway networks of these two countries will
facilitate railway transportation between Europe, the Caucusus, and the countries of
Central Asia, by the shortest route. The proposal is for construction of an electrified ,
single track railway through mountainous terrain to the border with Georgia at Aktas. The
cost of the Turkish portion of this project has been estimated at US$ 400 million (or US$
4.3 million per km). Tenders for the project closed in April 1998 and the bids are now
under evaluation. Construction time has been estimated at 4 years and it is expected that
the project would commence during 1999.
(b) Electrification, re-signalling and rehabilitation of the 578 km long Kars-Dívrí í railway line.
This project has been proposed in parallel with the Kars-Aktas project, to provide matching
capacity on the remainder of TAR Link Tk.2 to accommodate the 8 million tonnes per
annum of transit freight traffic forecast to be generated by the latter. Completion of this
project is expected to result in a 50% increase in line capacity on this section. The
estimated cost of the project is US$ 160 million (or approximately US$ 277,000 per km)
and construction time has also been estimated at four years.
(c) Construction of Balli ih-Yozgat-Yildizelí railway line. This electrified line of 306 km length
would provide a shortcut alternative to the existing 488 km Ankara-Kayserí-Sivas section
139
on TAR Link Tk.1 and eliminate what is at present a major bottleneck on the primary
transcontinental route to Europe. The construction cost of the new line has been
estimated at US$ 950 million (or US$ 3.10 million per km).
(d) Rehabilitation of the 567 km Ankara-Istanbul line. This project has been proposed
primarily to halve the running times of passenger trains between Ankara and Gebze by
realigning the sections containing the sharpest curves in order to accommodate maximum
passenger speeds of 200 km per hour. The project should also permit an increase in
freight train speeds (and hence in line capacity) on what is a busy section of TAR Link
Tk.1. Its construction has been estimated at US$ 237 million (or US$ 418,000 per km).
(e) Construction of the Bosphorus Strait tunnel crossing. The 4.5 km ferry crossing of
Bosphorus Strait between Haydarpasa Station on the Anatolian side and Sirkeci Station
on the European side undoubtedly creates delays which are disproportionate to its length,
given that two hours are required to marshal and re-marshal trains either side of the strait.
A tunnel crossing of the strait has been mooted for many years, but the scale of the works
and associated costs has been considered prohibitive by successive governments. The
latest cost estimate for a twin track tunnel and associated above ground connecting lines
of 13.3 km length is US$ 766 million (or US$ 57.6 million per kilometre). At the time of
writing, the project was under study for syndicated funding by the private sector.
(f) Construction of the Lake Van northern by-pass line. With the proposed Bosphorus
Tunnel, completion of a new line of 237 km length around the northern side of Lake Van
would provide a continuous TAR rail route within Turkey (along Link Tk.1). The current
ferry crossing of Lake Van typically imposes delays to through trains of up to 9 hours (5
hours for the ferry trip and 2 hours at either side of the lake for train
assembly/disassembly). When the number of rail vehicles arriving at the ferry terminals
exceeds 80 (the number which can be accommodated on the ferry deck), goods are sent
by road. The cost of this project has been estimated at US$ 500 million (or US$ 2.1 million
per km) and the time needed for construction has been estimated at 5 years.
Not included in the existing development plans of the Turkish Railways are projects
designed to relieve capacity shortages on Link Tk.1 between Malatya and Bostankaya (where
capacity utilization currently stands at 94-103 per cent), on Links Tk.3 and Tk.4 (where capacity
utilization is also now about 94-103 per cent) and on Link Tk.5 where the current train density
absorbs about 93 per cent of capacity.
(g) Construction of a 419-km long new line from Cetinkaya to Iskenderun. This project for
which a feasibility study is currently in progress aims to overcome the capacity problems on
the existing Divrigi-Iskenderun electrified line. The project would have beneficial effects on
the capacity of Links Tk.1, Tk.3 and Tk.4.
(h) Electrification and Signalling Project on the Mersin-Adana-Toprakkale section. In addition

to the above-mentioned new line, capacity on Link Tk.4 will also benefit by this project
which has already been included in the investment plans of the Turkish State Railways for
which a feasibility study is in progress.
(i) Development of intermodal operations. With a view to accompanying the recent growth in
container throughputs in Turkish ports, especially Haydarpasa and Mersin which are both
located on TAR corridors, the Turkish State Railways has developed plans to increase the
number of rail-carried containers from the ports to hinterland places in the country as well
as to destinations in Central Asia. The plans include the development of several Inland
Container Terminals, especially in Ankara and Kayseri, both on Link Tk.1.
140
(j) Operational Management Information System (OMIS). In order to reduce operating costs
and offer better real-time information to customers, the Turkish State Railways is
developing the OMIS project aimed at tracking train movements via a computerized system
including components for train-scheduling and rolling-stock maintenance.
141
10. TRANSPORT FACILITATION ISSUES
This chapter reviews the arrangements currently in place and required in future in order to
minimize delays and to facilitate a smoother flow of international rail traffic across national
borders within the southern corridor of the Trans-Asian Railway.
It is a valid observation, frequently made, that an absence of adequate and harmonized

administrative arrangements governing the passage of traffic across borders has sometimes
frustrated the efforts of some railway organizations of the region to develop international
container traffic despite their often heavy investments in handling equipment and servicing
facilities at borders.
The three 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;

$ Delays due to the necessity to tranship freight and containers or to exchange wagon
bogies at border beak-of-gauge stations; and
$ Delays due to railway operational procedures, such as train inspection, brake testing,
checking of wagons and their equipment, recording of wagon and consignment details,
etc;
The delay to trains at borders can often be much greater than en-route operational delays,
and unless the relevant arrangements between neighbouring countries and railway systems can
contribute to the minimization, rather than to the prolongation, of these delays, there is little
hope that railways can offer the transit time performance which freight, and especially container,
customers require before directing their business to rail.
Administrative rules governing border crossing traffic can operate at three different levels.
At the top level, neighbouring countries can be signatories to multilateral agreements and
international conventions which guarantee observance of standard procedures for customs
clearance and movement of freight consignments across borders. At the middle level, these
procedures can be embodied in bilateral agreements between neighbouring governments.
Finally, at the level of individual railway organizations, there can be arrangements between
neighbouring railways for their joint operation of border stations and associated facilities, for the
exchange of rolling stock, and for the sharing of costs, revenues and liabilities associated with
border crossing rail vehicles and freight consignments. It is essential that neighbouring countries
operate at each of these levels and further that agreements concluded at each level work to
support the operation of agreements concluded at every other level.
10.1 Current status of administrative arrangements for border

crossing rail traffic within the countries of the TAR Southern
Corridor
Within the TAR southern corridor freight vehicles currently cross 10 borders, not including
the border between Turkey and Bulgaria. Six of these borders (India/Bangladesh,
Bangladesh/India, India/Pakistan, Pakistan/Islamic Republic of Iran, Turkmenistan/Islamic
Republic of Iran, and Islamic Republic of Iran/Turkey) are open for railway traffic. Owing to
political factors and to the failure of the relevant governments to agree on satisfactory
administrative procedures, none of these borders is realizing anything like its full railway traffic
142
potential. This is a situation which can and must change if the TAR network is to become an
effective conduit for intra and inter-regional trade.
The current status of agreements governing transport operations across each of these
borders is reviewed below.
10.1.1 International transit agreements and conventions

Since 1992, ESCAP has had an active role in demonstrating the benefits of accession by the
countries of the region to seven international transit conventions. The main vehicle for ESCAP=s
role is Resolution 48/11 of the 48th Commission Session held in Beijing in April 1992. The
seven international conventions covered by Resolution 48/11 are listed in Table 10.1, which also
indicates the status of each country with respect to accession.
Of the seven conventions, two are of relevance to rail transit. These are the Customs
Convention on Containers (1972) and the International Convention on the Harmonization of
Frontier Control of Goods (1982). Both of these conventions are of great potential benefit to
signatory nations, since they codify rules for rapid customs inspection of containers at land
borders. The principal feature of these rules is that they confine border customs formalities to a
quick inspection of container seals and of documentation (only for the purpose of establishing
that they are intact and complete). If adopted and put into effect by the countries of the region,
they are likely to result in a marked reduction in border crossing delays and dwell time, which
can only serve to benefit rail freight customers.
Of the countries within the TAR Southern Corridor, only China has so far been a party to the
relevant conventions, and then only to one - the Customs Convention on Containers.
Related to the issue of international transit conventions and agreements are the workshops
on land transport facilitation being conducted by ESCAP at the subregional and national level.
Flowing from these workshops is a key resolution for the participating countries to establish
National Transport Facilitation Committees, on which the railway, highways, customs, and
border control agencies as well as the major trade/shipping associations of the country are
represented. The primary objective of these committees will be to liaise with governments
concerning any desired legislative changes in relation to land transport facilitation.
10.1.2 International rail transit agreements

Many countries in Europe and some in Asia (for example, the Islamic Republic of Iran) are
parties to the Convention Concerning the International Transport of Goods by Rail (COTIF),
Berne 1980, which replaces the traditional national customs document with the International
Consignment Note (CIM) established under COTIF. However, the member countries of the
Organization for Railways Cooperation (OSShD), including such countries as China, the
Democratic People=s Republic of Korea, Kazakhstan, Mongolia, the Russian Federation and
Viet Nam, have developed and are using the system known as the Agreement on International
Railway Freight Communications (SGMS) for the same purpose.
A draft ECE convention on international customs transit procedures for the carriage of goods
by rail has been developed and is being finalized in consultation with OSShD and other
interested organizations in order to harmonize the approach to customs requirements. Once the
convention is finalized, Asian countries should consider becoming a party to it.
143
Table 10.3: Border trade agreements between Myanmar and neighbouring
countries
Border between Approved border Border Trade Applicable Estimated border

checkpoint (s) Agreement transport crossing freight
concluded (date) modes volume, 1997/98
(tonnes) 1
Myanmar/China Mu-se, Ruili } Road }

Bhamo, Jayhok } August 1994 Road, IWT } 568,000
Kyukok, } Road }
Wandingzhen
Myanmar/Thailand Tachilek, Mae Sai } Road }

Myawaddy, Mae Sot } March 1996 Road } 80,000
Kawthaung, Ranong } IWT }
Myanmar/India Tamu, Mori January 1994 Road 28,000
Myanmar/Bangladesh Maungdaw, Teknaf May 1994 IWT 12,000
Source: Border Trade Department, Myanmar
Notes: 1. Estimates of border crossing freight volumes were based on data supplied in respect of
the number of loaded road vehicles and boats crossing the indicated borders. For the
purposes of conversion, average payloads of 6.2 tonnes per loaded road vehicle and 20
tonnes per loaded boat were assumed.
10.2 Resolving the deficiencies of current border

crossing procedures
It has become apparent that the operation of some of the bilateral border
agreements listed in Table 10.2 far from encouraging increased flows of goods
and vehicles across national borders, actually works against increased efficiency in
the application of border controls and as a result discourages increased border
crossing traffic. It is more likely to be the case that the problem lies in the manner in
which the agreements are interpreted and applied than in any deficiencies in the
agreements themselves. In some cases, it is also true that discord at the political
level almost renders inoperable the bilateral agreements between neighbouring
countries. In such cases, it would be unrealistic to expect any substantial
improvement in border processes until there was first a marked improvement in
government to government relations.
Nevertheless, there are a number of serious impediments to increased

utilization of the existing TAR links for international freight (and especially
container) traffic which must be addressed in the context of the need to improve
both the content and application of bilateral rail agreements. These impediments
are described in the following sub-sections.
10.2.1 Excessive border crossing delays

Excessive border dwell times have been reported in respect of some of the
national borders within the TAR Southern Corridor.
149
For example, the average wagon cycle time between Lahore (Pakistan) and Amritsar
(India), only 61 km apart, is as much as 5-6 days when the rail traffic interchange rules in
force between these two countries allow only 30 hours free time at Attari and Lahore for
unloading and customs inspection. Thus, a wagon crossing this border is detained on
average for between 2-3 days, when strict observance of the rules would suggest that it
should be detained for no longer than one and a quarter days. Such a border crossing
performance is clearly incompatible with an objective of increasing the volume of border
crossing trade between the two countries. The inadequacy of terminal capacity at Lahore is
among the reasons which have been advanced for this poor performance, but it is probable
that it may also be explained by factors internal to the bilateral agreement, such as the
specified level of wagon detention charges applicable when the number of wagons of one
system on the territory of the other is imbalanced (see Section 10.2.2 for further details).
Excessive border dwell times have also been reported in respect of the
India/Bangladesh border at Gede/Darsana, with the average being of the order of two days.
By contrast, between the Islamic Republic of Iran and Turkey which also share a common
track gauge, the average border dwell time is reported as only two hours! It is perhaps
instructive to identify the factors which have been responsible for the Islamic Republic of
Iran and Turkey reaching agreement on border inspection procedures which minimize the
detention of wagons engaged in bilateral or transit trade.
10.2.2 Operational inefficiencies

In some cases, bilateral agreements embody rules which could lead to operational
inefficiencies. An example of such a rule is the requirement in the India-Pakistan bilateral
rail interchange agreement for both sides to achieve a Azero balance@ in their exchange of
wagons at the end of each ten day accounting period. In practice, this means that the
number of wagons of each system on the territory of the other should be exactly equal at
the end of each accounting period, even when there is directional imbalance in the freight
tonnages moving between the two countries. Failure to meet the zero balance requirement
will involve the system with a surplus of foreign wagons on its territory making hire
payments to the other system, and if the surplus exceeds a specified maximum number,
these hire charges will be payable at penalty rates 10 per cent above normal rates.
However, depending upon the level of these charges, it may pay one of the railway systems
to detain wagons owned by the other system and to pay punitive hire charges on them until
it has accumulated sufficient loading to be able to despatch them loaded to the owning
system. This could result in significantly longer wagon cycle times, poorer wagon utilization
and customer alienation. Alternatively, if wagon hire charges are set at too high a level, the
system with a surplus of foreign wagons on its territory will have a strong incentive to return
those wagons, whether empty or loaded, immediately to the owning system, possibly
leading to increased empty haulage and reduced wagon earnings.
Another example of operational inefficiencies happens in the cross-border exchange of

wagons between India and Bangladesh with lengthy detention of Indian wagons on the
Bangladeshi side of the border.
10.2.3 Tariff setting inefficiencies

A majority of the bilateral rail agreements in force within the TAR Southern Corridor
specify that each rail system shall apply its own tariff rates up to the border with the
neighbouring country. This results in the application of an additive, non-competitive tariff to
a consignment=s journey from origin to ultimate destination, when competing transport
150
operators (especially road operators) have total flexibility to price their traffic over the entire
journey between origin and destination in accordance with prevailing market conditions.
Invariably these competitors will apply a sliding scale tariff with unit rates reducing
proportionately to increasing distance over the entire journey. By comparison, since
separate rail tariffs will be applied on each participating system=s own territory, rail unit
charges will be permitted to reduce over much shorter distances and for the complete
journey will be considerably higher than those of rail=s competitors.
10.2.4 Railway adoption of EDI systems

The adoption of systems for the interchange of customs and trade documentation and
data by electronic means (EDI) is one area where the railway organizations lag behind their
competitors, particularly ship operators. The ability for consignees and customs authorities
at borders to have access to vital customs and trade documentation and consignment
status/location data well in advance of the arrival of consignments at borders or at ultimate
destinations can only serve to reduce delays in the transportation chain, particularly if the
EDI systems adopted are linked to wagon tracking systems of the type developed by
UNCTAD and now being implemented in Bangladesh.
151

Tarsc-Fulltext 1980

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Tarsc-Fulltext 1980

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Tarsc-Fulltext 1980

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMISSION FOR ASIA AND THE PACIFIC

This publication has been issued without formal editing.

2. NETWORK IDENTIFICATION ............................................................................................3

3. ROUTE CHOICES FOR USERS OF TAR SERVICES .....................................................38

4. CLOSING THE GAPS IN THE NETWORK .......................................................................46

5. TRAFFIC DEMAND ..........................................................................................................64

6. TECHNICAL REQUIREMENTS ........................................................................................80

7. OPERATIONAL REQUIREMENTS .................................................................................100

9. DEVELOPMENT PLANS ................................................................................................132

10. TRANSPORT FACILITATION ISSUES ..........................................................................142

11. MAIN CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ....................................................152

Table 3.1 Rail distance matrix, TAR Southern Corridor

Table 6.1 Dimensions and maximum weights of most commonly used

OZINK I UL A N UDE K A R IMS K A Y A

The southern corridor of the Trans-Asian Railway is intended to provide, ultimately, a

i. capital-to-capital links (for international traffic);

i. routes of international significance, which will facilitate uninterrupted transportation

2.1 Routes of international significance

TAR ROUTES OF INTERNATIONAL SIGNIFICANCE (EXISTING)

TAR ROUTES OF SUBREGIONAL SIGNIFICANCE (EXISTING) GALLE

TAR ROUTES OF SUBREGIONAL SIGNIFICANCE (FUTURE)

2.1.2 Route TAR-S2

Route component Route length (Km) % of total route length

Total route 11,705 100.0

Non-electrified, single track 6,170 63.0

Total Route (existing) 7 0

Total Route (future) 7 5*

** When route is continuous

Route component Route length (Km) % of total route length

Ferry links 4 0.3

2.1.3 Route TAR-S3

Route component Route length (Km) % of total route length

2.2 Routes of subregional significance

2.3 Description of TAR links within participating countries

TRANS-ASIAN RAILWAY SOUTHERN CORRIDOR

CASPIAN SEA TURKMENISTAN N

INDIA Bn.4 QOM

TAR link designation The boundaries and names

Shahbazpur- 1,000 277 277 0.5

Joydebpur- Dual 99 99 0.5

Sub-total Bn.1 522 442 80

Tongi- Akhaura** 1,000 98 65 33 0.5

Akhaura- 1,000 201 132 69 0.5

Chittagong - 1,000 47 47 0.5

Dohazari-border 1,000 145 145

Sub-total Bn.2a 192 192

Ishurdii-Parbatipur Dual 174 174 0.5

Parbatipur- 1,000 31 31 0.5

Dinajpur-Kanchan 1,000 3 3 0.5

Kanchan - Birol 1,000 11 11 0.5

Sub-total Bn.3 219 219

Abdulpur-Rajshabi 1,676 41 41 0.5

Rajshabi- 1,676 63 63 0.5

Sub-total Bn.4 104 104

A third link, designated Bn.2a, is an extension of Bn.2 which terminates in Chittagong.

2.3.2 TAR (Southern Corridor) in China

Fargcheng used on this map do not imply

Kunming-Xiaguan 1,435 365 365 1.2 775

Xiaguan-Ruili 1,435 626 626 1.2 775