South-East Asia and Australasia Read online

  TRACKING THE GAUGES

  - GAUGING THE TRACKS

  The Story of the World’s Railway Gauges, Yesterday and Today

  Part 6 – South-East Asia and Australasia

  By

  Michael Frewston

  © Copyright Frewston Books Online 2016

  CONTENTS

  CONTENTS

  PART 6 – SOUTH-EAST ASIA AND AUSTRALASIA

  MYANMAR (BURMA)

  THAILAND AND LAOS

  VIETNAM

  CAMBODIA

  BRUNEI

  MALAYSIA AND SINGAPORE

  THE PHILIPPINES

  BORNEO

  INDONESIA

  PAPUA-NEW GUINEA

  AUSTRALIA

  History Outline:

  Main History:

  Western Australia:

  South Australia and Northern Territories:

  Standard gauge lines today:

  NEW ZEALAND

  ON TO PART 7…

  PART 6 – SOUTH-EAST ASIA AND AUSTRALASIA

  Our round-the-world journey continues ever eastwards (and southwards), but we are still, at least initially, in Asia – a huge continent indeed. And like the previous parts of Asia we’ve already explored, narrow gauges predominate, while British influences are very much in evidence, at least in some aspects.

  Once we leave Asia, we head ever further south of the equator to Australia, New Zealand and Papua New Guinea – and again, we find a preponderance of gauges narrower than Standard gauge, as well as more British influences.

  But not all countries we’ll travel through in Part 6 were subject to British influences. The French were also very active in the 19th century in building railways in South East Asia, especially in Vietnam, while the Japanese were also building the odd railway here and there. Thus we find a number of metre-gauge lines.

  Probably one of the most enduring aspects of railways in this extremity of Asia is the effects on early railway development as the result of the many wars that engulfed these countries – wars not only in the 20th century (and primarily World War II), but the various Sino-Japanese conflicts in the 19th century, which were the result of Imperial Japan’s never-ceasing ambitions (until its defeat in World War II) to take over the world, or at least this part of it.

  The surprising thing about Japan’s efforts in this respect is that Japan rarely, if ever, used its own Cape gauge when invading foreign territories, in order to move troops and munitions around. For the most part, it used the prevailing gauge wherever it went – Standard gauge, for example, in China, and metre-gauge in Thailand and Burma.

  It could be said that this multiplicity of gauges is a constraining effect on enabling seamless international travel in S.E. Asia. But it isn’t really – at least it hasn’t been until now, as we will see. Many of these countries – especially Indonesia and the Philippines – are islands, and train travel between these islands is not possible anyway. Whatever gauge is used in individual countries or on individual islands will, for the most part, have little effect in neighbouring countries or islands. And those countries abutting each other as part of mainland Asia often, though not always, share the same gauge, usually 1000 mm in this particular region. China, however, may just change all that.

  It is a different story of course when we come to Australia, where the multiplicity of gauges has been – and still is – a major impediment in long-distance railway travel in that big country. In fact, as the reader who has read the Foreword at the very beginning of this series of books will already know, that impediment was the very reason for my writing this book! Will Australia ever resolve these gauge issues? That question hopefully will be answered when we get there.

  For now, though, let us start on the first countries we come across after leaving Mainland China.

  MYANMAR (BURMA)

  Many railways are famous for the part they played in wars and conflicts. But perhaps none is more famous than that in Burma – even today it is officially known as The Death Railway, in Burma as well as Thailand (the railway spans both countries), in consequence of the huge numbers of both soldiers and civilians who died in building it.

  There are few people who have not seen, or at least are not familiar with, the famous movie The Bridge On The River Kwai. Although fictional, it was based on some very real and terrible facts and events – and those events took place in Burma, as well as Thailand, during World War II. Under the direction of the Japanese invading troops in World War II, this bridge, which still exists after being rebuilt, was constructed using both allied troops and local labour, in order to provide a rail link from Thailand right through Burma to China.

  Of course railways had appeared in Burma long before World War II and the building of the Death Railway. In 1852, Britain took control of Burma during the Second Anglo-Burmese war.

  The first railway in what was then called Lower Burma was built by the British, in 1877, from Rangoon to Prome, in order to transport resources to China and onward shipping back to Britain. While this particular line was never completed, its gauge was chosen in order to enable its intended linking up with China’s metre-gauge lines in Kunming to be achieved without incurring a break of gauge. Kunming was already a focus point of narrow gauge (primarily metre-gauge) railways in China (see Part 5).

  Further links were also planned with what was then the eastern part of India (now Bangladesh), which was also predominantly metre-gauge (again, see Part 5). Thus for Burma’s railways, notwithstanding that the country was controlled by the British (at this time, Burma was considered part of British India), the gauge was set at a metric 1000 mm.

  Over the next fifty years, the railway system was expanded, culminating in a system essentially unchanged to this day. By the end of the First World War, most railway construction had stopped after the completion of the line between Thazi (on the line between Rangoon and Mandalay), and Kalaw, in the southern mountainous area that separates Burma from Thailand. At about this time, and until the outbreak of World War II, Burma had about 3300 km of route distance, all built to metre-gauge.

  The Death Railway, over 400 km long, is of course built to this same 1000 mm gauge, which was perhaps a small mercy for the approximately 200 000 troops and civilians who were forced to build this railway under the most inhumane of conditions, and of whom three-quarters died during its construction (the exact number will likely never be known). The metre-gauge would mean the rails would be lighter, and the sleepers (ties) shorter.

  During World War II, much of Burma’s railway network was destroyed, and less than one third was actually operational once hostilities ceased. Since then the system has been rebuilt. Today, Burma has about 4000 km of route distance. The link with Thailand, via the Death Railway, is no longer active, as Myanmar (as Burma now prefers to be called) until now has been increasingly shutting off contact with the rest of the world. That, however, looks to be changing.

  I mentioned the original planned, but un-built, link to the Kunming-Hekou railway in China, which is currently built to metre-gauge (and this of course being the reason for Burma choosing metre-gauge). There are tentative plans, backed by China, to now actually build this link, which would add almost 2000 km to Burma’s railways. The potential problem of course, as we saw in Part 5, is that China is planning to convert all metre-gauge railways in the Kunming area (and specifically the Kunming-Hekou railway) to 1435 mm Standard gauge! Following on from this, the official recommendation is to build this Burmese link (which would extend into Thailand) also to Standard gauge.

  With Burma’s recent stance in opening up contact with the outside world, the country is planning other rail lines to link up with China as well, and these will definitely connect wi
th China’s existing Standard gauge lines. While some reports say these new lines within Burma will maintain Burma’s metre-gauge, with breaks of gauge at the border with China, others say the links will be to Standard gauge all the way.

  It remains to be seen then how Burma will deal with this – but it looks more certain that most, if not all, these proposed links will be to Standard gauge (and thus avoiding breaks of gauge at the border). If this transpires (and there is every possibility that it will), then over one-third of the railways within Burma’s boundaries would be built to Standard gauge. Will Burma then convert the rest of its railways to Standard gauge?

  If that should happen, how will Burma then deal with the existing 1000 mm gauge links with Bangladesh to the north-west? Will the currently-defunct links with Thailand to the east and south be reinstated and re-gauged to 1435 mm? Will we in fact see dual gauge (1000/1435 mm) tracks in Burma as an interim (and perhaps long-term) solution, as we saw in Bangladesh (1000/1676 mm in that country)? Only the future can answer these questions.

  Finally, it is to be noted that there are no trams or metros in Burma.

  THAILAND AND LAOS

  I could have dealt with Thailand, as well as Laos, in the same chapter as Burma, for their railway systems were once linked by the Death Railway, described above. Notwithstanding the Death Railway, however, their histories involved somewhat different circumstances, and these differences are enough to justify treating Burma and Thailand quite separately, especially as all the previous links between the two have been currently severed.

  I have included Laos with Thailand, as Laos has virtually no railway system except for a 20-km long extension of Thailand’s North Eastern Line over the Thai-Lao Friendship Bridge (see map below) to the city of Ventiane. This line was originally built to Decauville 600 mm gauge, abandoned, then rebuilt to metre-gauge.

  There are plans for more railways in Laos (see below), but political and financial issues have inhibited further construction.

  Like Burma, railways came quite late to Thailand, then known as Siam – in fact, it wasn’t until the closing years of the 19th century that Thailand’s first railway, constituting what today is the North Eastern Line, was completed. The British contractors, Punchard and Company, on a commission by the Siamese government, built it to 1435 mm gauge. Quite why is not known, as no countries with a border with Thailand – Burma, Laos, Cambodia or Malaysia – used this gauge.

  The only possible reason is that British companies exploiting Thailand’s natural resources had their eye on a direct rail link through Burma to China, which used Standard gauge (see Part 5), and thus would allow direct rail shipment of raw materials without expensive transhipment at a break of gauge.

  Whatever the reasons, the North-Eastern Line, together with the Northern Line (no connection with London’s Underground!) to Chiang Mai, was built to Standard gauge, and opened in 1892. The following year saw the completion of the Southern Line, but this, owned by a separate entity, was built to metre-gauge, in order that it could link up with the railways in what are now Cambodia, Laos and what was then known as Malaya, to the south and east.

  Some rationalisation in the ownership of Thailand’s railways then took place. By the early 20th century, all of Thailand’s railways were controlled by what had become the Southern Authority and the Northern Authority. There was however no physical connection between the Northern Authority’s Standard gauge system and the Southern Authority’s metre-gauge system. Obviously the Northern Authority, in sticking to its Standard gauge, did not attach too much importance at the time in linking up with either the remainder of Thailand’s railways or with Burma’s metre-gauge railways to the north.

  In 1917, the two Authorities merged. While initially the lack of physical connections between the two systems’ railways meant that the gauge incompatibility was not a problem, that all changed when the Chao Phraya River was bridged, linking the two Authorities’ railways for the first time. Which gauge to choose?

  In 1920, the decision was made to convert all of the former Northern Authority’s lines to match those of the Southern Authority’s, initially to 1000/1435 mm dual gauge (completed by 1930), and then ultimately to only metre-gauge. It was a logical decision really, in the context of that particular era, when Standard gauge rail links to other more distant parts of the world were barely even thought about (and certainly had little importance), as well as the existence of metre-gauge railways to both the north (in Burma) and to the south and east in Thailand itself. Thailand’s railways thus became a fully metre-gauge system, at which they remain to this day (including the privately owned Maeklong Railway between Wongwian Yai and Samut Songkhram via Bangkok).

  But perhaps not for long. I surmised when looking at Burma’s railways above whether that country would eventually embrace Standard gauge. That possibility actually looks far more real in respect of Thailand.

  Forever extending its reach and influence throughout the world, China is backing the construction of two Standard gauge lines within Thailand, one linking Bangkok with Nong Khai, at the border with Laos, and the other going south linking Bangkok with Pedang Besar, almost at the border with Malaysia (see maps above and below). A Memorandum of Understanding was agreed between Thailand and China to build these two rail lines in 2012, followed up by a commitment in 2015 by Thailand’s ruling junta (which is looking for ever closer ties with China) to commence construction. The total cost is projected to be £13.6 billion. Additional links to Map Ta Phut (south-east of Bangkok) and Chaing Khong (in Laos) are also included. This would mean that Standard gauge rails would in effect stretch the entire length of Thailand – assuming of course that China intends to make such a conversion. The speeds being promoted – 200 km/h and above – would certainly indicate nothing less than Standard gauge.

  China may indeed be prepared to make such an investment in converting to 1435 mm Standard gauge – it would like to see, and is prepared to back, such a conversion of the whole of Thailand’s railways, including the link via Laos to the Chinese city of Kunming (see Burma above, as well as Part 5). That proposal, originally on hold, was revived in late 2014, although only the two routes noted above have so far received Thai government approval to proceed.

  But there is no doubt that this could very well be the thin edge of the Standard gauge wedge, and it will be only a matter of time before Thailand will join the 1435 mm gauge world.

  Actually, Thailand already does have some Standard gauge rails within its borders. The city of Bangkok boasts a 1435 mm gauge metro system. Consisting of a single line so far (supplied by third rail), as well as a high speed (160 km/h) airport link run by the State Railway company (overhead catenary), the total network so far extends for about 60 km. However, new lines are already under construction, many more are planned, and the total system will eventually extend to nearly 500 km – and all to Standard gauge.

  Such a network would represent over 12% of Thailand’s existing 4000-km long railway system, and, together with the Chinese endeavours noted above, will surely put ever more pressure on Thailand to convert its entire railways to 1435 mm gauge. That then begs the question – what will happen to the gauges of Thailand’s neighbours, as discussed elsewhere in this Part?

  VIETNAM

  We touched briefly upon Vietnam’s metre-gauge railways during our odyssey through China (see Part 5). In that country, we discovered what’s left of the only metre-gauge line operating there, between Kunming and Hekou, from where the line continues at this gauge over the border into Vietnam.

  It is the French whom we can thank for introducing 1000 mm gauge into Vietnam (and indeed China).

  In the 1880s, Vietnam was under French control. The first railway was built in 1881 from what was then known as Saigon (or more correctly Sai Gon) to My Tho, a distance of around 70 km. The French chose to build this railway to metre-gauge. The line was then extended to Hanoi, reaching that city in 1889. It is known in Vietnam as the Hanoi-Lao Cai Railway.

  From that
point on, little more railway development occurred, until 1936. In that year, the main North-South railway, from Ho Chi Minh City (the former Sai Gon) to Hanoi, was completed.

  Over 1700 km in length, it was built to the same metre-gauge as the Hanoi-Lao Cai railway, and today has the unenviable record as being the slowest journey in the world over such a distance, with a typical train (such as the Reunification Express) taking over 30 hours to cover the 1700 km. (‘Express’ here being of course a relative term – I have travelled this line from Hanoi to Hué, and can confirm that the duration of this segment, about 700 km, takes 13 hours. The term ‘express’ simply means that the train does not stop at every station along the way.)

  There were plans to build a Standard gauge high speed line between these two cities, but that program is currently shelved, although China’s goals for high speed railways criss-crossing Asia (see Part 5) very well look as if such plans will soon be revived. It would involve a completely new alignment over much of the distance, as the current 1000 mm line traverses some very mountainous country with tight clearances and numerous sharp curves – quite unsuitable for a Standard gauge high speed line.

  Not all of Vietnam’s railways are to 1000 mm gauge. As with Thailand, within Vietnam the Chinese are actually already making Standard gauge inroads. The first 1435 mm gauge lines were built in the late 1960s, as part of the early Vietnam war operations. Built to dual 1000/1435 mm gauge, they enabled Chinese operations to extend into Vietnam during that war. Today these dual gauge lines run between Hanoi and Dong Dang and Quan Trieu, and continue as Standard gauge into China.

  In more recent times, the Chinese have built another line within Vietnam, this time to Standard gauge only, between Kep, north-east of Hanoi, and Ha Long and Luu Xa. Links from these lines extend to Beijing.