Yingluck Defends Using High-Speed Trains Network For Perishable Goods

[webfact]

PM defends using high-speed trains network for perishable goods
The Nation

BANGKOK: -- Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra Friday cried foul over Facebook users' widespread ridicule of her debate on the Bt2trillion loans bill on Thursday.

Yingluck Friday posted a message on her Facebook wall to defend herself against the ridicule by social networkers, saying the transport of agriculture products by high-speed trains would be part of the country's economic development.

On Thursday, netizens paraphrased Yingluc's speech to the House to ridicule her. They said high-speed trains were supposed to transport passengers but the prime minister said the trains would be needed to transport fresh vegetables to prevent them from rotting.

Defending the Bt2trilllion loans bill on Thursday, Yingluck said in part: "If the government invests in the high-speed train system, development will be distributed to remote areas and the people's quality of life will increase, bringing them more convenience. Bangkok will be linked to major rural towns to facilitate faster transportation of raw materials from the source to distribution points. If the goods are foodstuffs, they will be fresher and the loss will be minimised and this will reduce the cost to farmers while the consumers will get fresher foods."

Several Facebook users posted messages, saying that Yingluck's speech showed that she was not smart as she wanted to build high-speed trains to transport fresh vegetables.

In her Facebook post Friday, Yingluck said her statement was distorted for political impact and those who made fun of the issue was also looking down on farmers. She said the ridicule was not constructive.

She said the transport of goods by a high-speed train system would add value to agricultural products, especially those that need fast transport to retain the quality of goods.

"The goods will sell at good prices and consumers will get fresh and non-rotten goods," Yingluck said in the post.

"In foreign countries, it is normal to use high-speed transportation to ship goods. For example, flowers are shipped by plane (and this practice has been carried out in Thailand for a long time.). And in Europe, the Euro Carex has been developed to use high-speed trains to transport goods only. So, I am not daydreaming. This has become true in several countries and it allows farmers there to export agricultural goods that require high standard, including vegetables and flowers."


-- The Nation 2013-03-29

[LuckyLew]

I think a high speed rail link to Chang Mai is a great idea

Then when farmers start burning the fields and the smoke and polution

get unbearable the citizens can leave quickly on the high speed trains

Only issue is it sounds like Mr Potato Head might have reserved all the seats

[AleG]

Great idea, I'm bored of eating canned food here in Bangkok.

Thanks to this project I will be able to eat a salad and it would only cost 5 trillion or so to make it true.

[bigbamboo]

The old maxim that women should be seen but not heard could have been written for Yingluck!

[jamhar]

OK, I'm not a Y supporter, but I've tried to give her some room, as being the PM in TL can be a difficult job.

But my god! The phrase "open mouth, insert foot" comes to mind.

OK you misspoke. It happens.

So get your advisers together, talk it over, plan your damage control, and come back by saying something like "altho a low percentage of the usage for high speed rail and air, High speed transportation is used to transport high end produce and perishable goods."

Instead she opened her mouth wider and inserted her other foot! Now with no feet to stand on, she looks really REALLY stupid.

TL deserves so much better than this.

Edited March 29, 2013 by jamhar

[hansnl]

Remember that she could had got these trains for free !

It would then just be some Chinese companies who would run them, fee´s would properly be the same !

But with Chinese management they would run on time !!!

So borrow money for something you could had got for free !!!!

What an IDIOT !

Remenber very wel, the Chinese NEVER give anything for free!

Everything they do, well mostly, is a kind of one-way traffic.

[tragickingdom]

It's a good idea anyhow to transport goods. Yingluck must have realized that you can only fight stupidity with more stupidity. The wait is for a few unelected senators who are momentarily eating, sleeping and visiting brothels on the taxpayers expense for an impeachment procedure, they will claim that not high speed trains should be used but donkeys.

[geriatrickid]

1. Trains are recognized and accepted as a much more efficient form of cargo transport.

The amount of cargo that a train can move compared to a truck makes the train more energy efficient. This also means less pollution and a lower per unit use of a fossil fuel which must be imported into Thailand.

2. The cargo carriers have a vested interest in protecting their lucrative trucking business.

3. Per tonne of cargo shipped, there is reportedly less spoilage and less stock shrinkage with rail , resulting in a higher delivery rate of the produce shipped. A lower loss of cargo means that fewer losses are passed on to the consumer.

4. Much of the perishable cargo is shipped into large cities to feed consumers. It is rather obvious, that anything that can be done to reduce traffic congestion and reduce the number of big trucks on the roads into the big cities is both practical and responsible.

It seems to me that the people ridiculing the use of high speed trains for perishables may fall into one of the following categories;

1. Have a vested interest in the trucking industry,

2. Haven't the slightest clue as to the benefits of high speed rail,

3. The usual group of losers that have an obsession with denigrating the PM and insulting the government.

I am surprised some of the farang critics aren't falling over themselves with joy as rail transport of perishables is a cornerstone of perishable cargo transport in North America. How do these geniuses consider the option in Thailand bad, but are oblivious to the use of the rail mode in North America.

[AleG]

Right... she's playing stupid as cunning strategy.

This forum deserves a better kind of apologists.

[Ricardo]

I stand in awe (or is it something else ?) at her sound understanding of how business works !

Amazing Thailand, Incredible P.M. !

[pomchop]

1. Trains are recognized and accepted as a much more efficient form of cargo transport.

The amount of cargo that a train can move compared to a truck makes the train more energy efficient. This also means less pollution and a lower per unit use of a fossil fuel which must be imported into Thailand.

2. The cargo carriers have a vested interest in protecting their lucrative trucking business.

3. Per tonne of cargo shipped, there is reportedly less spoilage and less stock shrinkage with rail , resulting in a higher delivery rate of the produce shipped. A lower loss of cargo means that fewer losses are passed on to the consumer.

4. Much of the perishable cargo is shipped into large cities to feed consumers. It is rather obvious, that anything that can be done to reduce traffic congestion and reduce the number of big trucks on the roads into the big cities is both practical and responsible.

It seems to me that the people ridiculing the use of high speed trains for perishables may fall into one of the following categories;

1. Have a vested interest in the trucking industry,

2. Haven't the slightest clue as to the benefits of high speed rail,

3. The usual group of losers that have an obsession with denigrating the PM and insulting the government.

I am surprised some of the farang critics aren't falling over themselves with joy as rail transport of perishables is a cornerstone of perishable cargo transport in North America. How do these geniuses consider the option in Thailand bad, but are oblivious to the use of the rail mode in North America.

Number 3 pretty well covers it.....if she announced free beer and free barfines for all farangs the TV keyboard nattering nabobs of negativity would find something to bitch about.

[spud67]

In my very short time of watching Thai politics from afar I have seen many odd things. However, this is not one of them. I think most transportation systems make the bulk of their money from cargo. While the PM may be stretching the impact on farming communities, she is not wrong in my view. Not this time.

[slapout]

kid" Even if you include small grains your comment about railroads being the cornerstone of perishable shipping in the US may be somewhat out of date. In fact many miles of track has been taken out of service in the past few decades with the highway and air being chosen quickest for door to door delivery.

[MikeOboe57]

1. Trains are recognized and accepted as a much more efficient form of cargo transport.

The amount of cargo that a train can move compared to a truck makes the train more energy efficient. This also means less pollution and a lower per unit use of a fossil fuel which must be imported into Thailand.

2. The cargo carriers have a vested interest in protecting their lucrative trucking business.

3. Per tonne of cargo shipped, there is reportedly less spoilage and less stock shrinkage with rail , resulting in a higher delivery rate of the produce shipped. A lower loss of cargo means that fewer losses are passed on to the consumer.

4. Much of the perishable cargo is shipped into large cities to feed consumers. It is rather obvious, that anything that can be done to reduce traffic congestion and reduce the number of big trucks on the roads into the big cities is both practical and responsible.

It seems to me that the people ridiculing the use of high speed trains for perishables may fall into one of the following categories;

1. Have a vested interest in the trucking industry,

2. Haven't the slightest clue as to the benefits of high speed rail,

3. The usual group of losers that have an obsession with denigrating the PM and insulting the government.

I am surprised some of the farang critics aren't falling over themselves with joy as rail transport of perishables is a cornerstone of perishable cargo transport in North America. How do these geniuses consider the option in Thailand bad, but are oblivious to the use of the rail mode in North America.

Let's have a closer look at your attempt to make Little Sister look less stupid than she actually is.

1. No country with high speed trains uses them to transport perishable goods. Germany uses the ICE tracks between midnight and morning for slow freight trains.

2. High speed trains are expensive to build and expensive to run, so apart from taking people quickly from one place to the other they are not competitive for freight.

3. There are no freight trains capable of high speed. A high speed boxcar would be too expensive for the profit it can make with bulk cargo.

4. Any time saving enroute will be eaten up by loading and unloading. And you need additional cargo terminals with road access.

5. Putting slow freight trains on high speed tracks will clog them reducing the average speed of passenger travel and will damage the tracks so a constant smoothing out of the dents is required. Ask the Germans.

6. Yingluck doesn't have the slightest clue and is a constant source of embarrassment. And this is politely put. She is unfit for this job and it shows daily.

edit: typo

Edited March 29, 2013 by MikeOboe57

[rfukata]

"The goods will sell at good prices and consumers will get fresh and non-rotten goods," Yingluck said in the post."

So what are you going to do with the rotten rice stock , wouldn't rice be first on the country's agenda?

[AleG]

1. Trains are recognized and accepted as a much more efficient form of cargo transport.

The amount of cargo that a train can move compared to a truck makes the train more energy efficient. This also means less pollution and a lower per unit use of a fossil fuel which must be imported into Thailand.

2. The cargo carriers have a vested interest in protecting their lucrative trucking business.

3. Per tonne of cargo shipped, there is reportedly less spoilage and less stock shrinkage with rail , resulting in a higher delivery rate of the produce shipped. A lower loss of cargo means that fewer losses are passed on to the consumer.

4. Much of the perishable cargo is shipped into large cities to feed consumers. It is rather obvious, that anything that can be done to reduce traffic congestion and reduce the number of big trucks on the roads into the big cities is both practical and responsible.

It seems to me that the people ridiculing the use of high speed trains for perishables may fall into one of the following categories;

1. Have a vested interest in the trucking industry,

2. Haven't the slightest clue as to the benefits of high speed rail,

3. The usual group of losers that have an obsession with denigrating the PM and insulting the government.

I am surprised some of the farang critics aren't falling over themselves with joy as rail transport of perishables is a cornerstone of perishable cargo transport in North America. How do these geniuses consider the option in Thailand bad, but are oblivious to the use of the rail mode in North America.

That would be a compelling argument... if you wouldn't have, conveniently, let out the "High speed" part out, of course fixing that little thing would make your entire post invalid.

Or do the japanese use the Shinkansen for delivering farm produce? I don't even know of any High Speed train system in North America.

Edited March 29, 2013 by AleG

[djjamie]

YS said something... At least we know skype is working between Dubai and Bangkok.

[Payboy]

Yingluck defends using high-speed trains network for perishable goods

Oh, I get it! They're gonna fill those trains with the rice stockpile and drive in circles anti clockwise. Sort of going back in time to keep it from rotting.

[Pimay1]

1. Trains are recognized and accepted as a much more efficient form of cargo transport.

The amount of cargo that a train can move compared to a truck makes the train more energy efficient. This also means less pollution and a lower per unit use of a fossil fuel which must be imported into Thailand.

2. The cargo carriers have a vested interest in protecting their lucrative trucking business.

3. Per tonne of cargo shipped, there is reportedly less spoilage and less stock shrinkage with rail , resulting in a higher delivery rate of the produce shipped. A lower loss of cargo means that fewer losses are passed on to the consumer.

4. Much of the perishable cargo is shipped into large cities to feed consumers. It is rather obvious, that anything that can be done to reduce traffic congestion and reduce the number of big trucks on the roads into the big cities is both practical and responsible.

It seems to me that the people ridiculing the use of high speed trains for perishables may fall into one of the following categories;

1. Have a vested interest in the trucking industry,

2. Haven't the slightest clue as to the benefits of high speed rail,

3. The usual group of losers that have an obsession with denigrating the PM and insulting the government.

I am surprised some of the farang critics aren't falling over themselves with joy as rail transport of perishables is a cornerstone of perishable cargo transport in North America. How do these geniuses consider the option in Thailand bad, but are oblivious to the use of the rail mode in North America.

That would be a compelling argument... if you wouldn't have, conveniently, let out the "High speed" part out, of course fixing that little thing would make your entire post invalid.

Or do the japanese use the Shinkansen for delivering farm produce? I don't even know of any High Speed train system in North America.

Amtrak is the only so called high speed train in NA. It averages 160kph or 100mph. It is an exclusive passenger service. No freight or veggies.

[Rorri]

Someone should point out, to the good lady, that Australia is much bigger than Thailand, but does NOT use a high speed train, to transport goods. I put this project in the same basket as Thailand's obsession with calling all regional airports "International,' it makes them feel more important, but in reality they are a joke.

[americaninbangkok]

Hi-speed trains only hit true "hi-speed" over longer distances, i.e., they don't just start at 300 km/h... they gradually rev up to this speed. Thailand is a small country. Therefore, there will be a very limited # of routes where the benefits of hi-speed trains will be realized.

And now little sister wants to have produce markets at the terminii of these routes? Idiot!

Why not just hi-speed every citizen to the farm and back?

Stupid? Yes!

Stupider than little sis' idea? Open to debate.

[siampolee]

Might be as well to point out to Madam Puppet Prime Minister that about 80% of Thailand's farmers are nowhere near a rail link of any sort,

I am an avid railway fan, however when one looks at the European model perishable good are transported by road , much the same in America and Canada too. One still needs , nay must have a road transport link from producer to distributor and a carrier from railhead to warehouse or point of sale premises

Has Madam Puppet Prime Minister ever noticed those big trucks that the large logistics companies use here in Thailand to act as distributors for Tesco's, Big C Makro etc etc?

Much the same system as the countries Ive already mentioned.

As an aside it might well be a great idea to have high speed rail link from Madam Puppet Prime Minister Yinglucks house to Parliament so as she could actually participate in the day to day parliamentary process though.

[jamhar]

1. Trains are recognized and accepted as a much more efficient form of cargo transport.

The amount of cargo that a train can move compared to a truck makes the train more energy efficient. This also means less pollution and a lower per unit use of a fossil fuel which must be imported into Thailand.

2. The cargo carriers have a vested interest in protecting their lucrative trucking business.

3. Per tonne of cargo shipped, there is reportedly less spoilage and less stock shrinkage with rail , resulting in a higher delivery rate of the produce shipped. A lower loss of cargo means that fewer losses are passed on to the consumer.

4. Much of the perishable cargo is shipped into large cities to feed consumers. It is rather obvious, that anything that can be done to reduce traffic congestion and reduce the number of big trucks on the roads into the big cities is both practical and responsible.

It seems to me that the people ridiculing the use of high speed trains for perishables may fall into one of the following categories;

1. Have a vested interest in the trucking industry,

2. Haven't the slightest clue as to the benefits of high speed rail,

3. The usual group of losers that have an obsession with denigrating the PM and insulting the government.

I am surprised some of the farang critics aren't falling over themselves with joy as rail transport of perishables is a cornerstone of perishable cargo transport in North America. How do these geniuses consider the option in Thailand bad, but are oblivious to the use of the rail mode in North America.

That would be a compelling argument... if you wouldn't have, conveniently, let out the "High speed" part out, of course fixing that little thing would make your entire post invalid.

Or do the japanese use the Shinkansen for delivering farm produce? I don't even know of any High Speed train system in North America.

Amtrak is the only so called high speed train in NA. It averages 160kph or 100mph. It is an exclusive passenger service. No freight or veggies.

As a holder of a Amtrak monthly pass for decades, i can confirm.

PS, Dudes,

if you're going to bring out the troops to support Y,

do it in a little more subtle, informed and competent manor.

I personally have nothing against Y. but she needs an upgrade in her advisers QUICKLY

She cant know everything, but her advisers (the ones she's chosen to keep her informed on domestic and foreign matters) should be working day and night to vet these bits of information. They have surely failed her. And failed TL in the process. If you're not up to the task, step aside for someone that is.

My 2 cents.

Edited March 29, 2013 by jamhar

[ZhouZhou]

1. Trains are recognized and accepted as a much more efficient form of cargo transport.

The amount of cargo that a train can move compared to a truck makes the train more energy efficient. This also means less pollution and a lower per unit use of a fossil fuel which must be imported into Thailand.

2. The cargo carriers have a vested interest in protecting their lucrative trucking business.

3. Per tonne of cargo shipped, there is reportedly less spoilage and less stock shrinkage with rail , resulting in a higher delivery rate of the produce shipped. A lower loss of cargo means that fewer losses are passed on to the consumer.

4. Much of the perishable cargo is shipped into large cities to feed consumers. It is rather obvious, that anything that can be done to reduce traffic congestion and reduce the number of big trucks on the roads into the big cities is both practical and responsible.

It seems to me that the people ridiculing the use of high speed trains for perishables may fall into one of the following categories;

1. Have a vested interest in the trucking industry,

2. Haven't the slightest clue as to the benefits of high speed rail,

3. The usual group of losers that have an obsession with denigrating the PM and insulting the government.

I am surprised some of the farang critics aren't falling over themselves with joy as rail transport of perishables is a cornerstone of perishable cargo transport in North America. How do these geniuses consider the option in Thailand bad, but are oblivious to the use of the rail mode in North America.

Let's have a closer look at your attempt to make Little Sister look less stupid than she actually is.

1. No country with high speed trains uses them to transport perishable goods. Germany uses the ICE tracks between midnight and morning for slow freight trains.

2. High speed trains are expensive to build and expensive to run, so apart from taking people quickly from one place to the other they are not competitive for freight.

3. There are no freight trains capable of high speed. A high speed boxcar would be too expensive for the profit it can make with bulk cargo.

4. Any time saving enroute will be eaten up by loading and unloading. And you need additional cargo terminals with road access.

5. Putting slow freight trains on high speed tracks will clog them reducing the average speed of passenger travel and will damage the tracks so a constant smoothing out of the dents is required. Ask the Germans.

6. Yingluck doesn't have the slightest clue and is a constant source of embarrassment. And this is politely put. She is unfit for this job and it shows daily.

edit: typo

your story sounded good until i asked the German cargo expert in our company and his answer was:

Euro Carex

[zydeco]

1. Trains are recognized and accepted as a much more efficient form of cargo transport.

The amount of cargo that a train can move compared to a truck makes the train more energy efficient. This also means less pollution and a lower per unit use of a fossil fuel which must be imported into Thailand.

2. The cargo carriers have a vested interest in protecting their lucrative trucking business.

3. Per tonne of cargo shipped, there is reportedly less spoilage and less stock shrinkage with rail , resulting in a higher delivery rate of the produce shipped. A lower loss of cargo means that fewer losses are passed on to the consumer.

4. Much of the perishable cargo is shipped into large cities to feed consumers. It is rather obvious, that anything that can be done to reduce traffic congestion and reduce the number of big trucks on the roads into the big cities is both practical and responsible.

It seems to me that the people ridiculing the use of high speed trains for perishables may fall into one of the following categories;

1. Have a vested interest in the trucking industry,

2. Haven't the slightest clue as to the benefits of high speed rail,

3. The usual group of losers that have an obsession with denigrating the PM and insulting the government.

I am surprised some of the farang critics aren't falling over themselves with joy as rail transport of perishables is a cornerstone of perishable cargo transport in North America. How do these geniuses consider the option in Thailand bad, but are oblivious to the use of the rail mode in North America.

Let's have a closer look at your attempt to make Little Sister look less stupid than she actually is.

1. No country with high speed trains uses them to transport perishable goods. Germany uses the ICE tracks between midnight and morning for slow freight trains.

2. High speed trains are expensive to build and expensive to run, so apart from taking people quickly from one place to the other they are not competitive for freight.

3. There are no freight trains capable of high speed. A high speed boxcar would be too expensive for the profit it can make with bulk cargo.

4. Any time saving enroute will be eaten up by loading and unloading. And you need additional cargo terminals with road access.

5. Putting slow freight trains on high speed tracks will clog them reducing the average speed of passenger travel and will damage the tracks so a constant smoothing out of the dents is required. Ask the Germans.

6. Yingluck doesn't have the slightest clue and is a constant source of embarrassment. And this is politely put. She is unfit for this job and it shows daily.

edit: typo

your story sounded good until i asked the German cargo expert in our company and his answer was:

Euro Carex

If Europeans are sending their cabbage by high speed rail to their destination, no wonder the EU is going broke.

[MikeOboe57]

1. Trains are recognized and accepted as a much more efficient form of cargo transport.

The amount of cargo that a train can move compared to a truck makes the train more energy efficient. This also means less pollution and a lower per unit use of a fossil fuel which must be imported into Thailand.

2. The cargo carriers have a vested interest in protecting their lucrative trucking business.

3. Per tonne of cargo shipped, there is reportedly less spoilage and less stock shrinkage with rail , resulting in a higher delivery rate of the produce shipped. A lower loss of cargo means that fewer losses are passed on to the consumer.

4. Much of the perishable cargo is shipped into large cities to feed consumers. It is rather obvious, that anything that can be done to reduce traffic congestion and reduce the number of big trucks on the roads into the big cities is both practical and responsible.

It seems to me that the people ridiculing the use of high speed trains for perishables may fall into one of the following categories;

1. Have a vested interest in the trucking industry,

2. Haven't the slightest clue as to the benefits of high speed rail,

3. The usual group of losers that have an obsession with denigrating the PM and insulting the government.

I am surprised some of the farang critics aren't falling over themselves with joy as rail transport of perishables is a cornerstone of perishable cargo transport in North America. How do these geniuses consider the option in Thailand bad, but are oblivious to the use of the rail mode in North America.

Let's have a closer look at your attempt to make Little Sister look less stupid than she actually is.

1. No country with high speed trains uses them to transport perishable goods. Germany uses the ICE tracks between midnight and morning for slow freight trains.

2. High speed trains are expensive to build and expensive to run, so apart from taking people quickly from one place to the other they are not competitive for freight.

3. There are no freight trains capable of high speed. A high speed boxcar would be too expensive for the profit it can make with bulk cargo.

4. Any time saving enroute will be eaten up by loading and unloading. And you need additional cargo terminals with road access.

5. Putting slow freight trains on high speed tracks will clog them reducing the average speed of passenger travel and will damage the tracks so a constant smoothing out of the dents is required. Ask the Germans.

6. Yingluck doesn't have the slightest clue and is a constant source of embarrassment. And this is politely put. She is unfit for this job and it shows daily.

edit: typo

your story sounded good until i asked the German cargo expert in our company and his answer was:

Euro Carex

Euro Carex is a project that did not mature beyond one test train in early 2012. France is the only nation doing high speed cargo with 7 TGV postale for mail delivery which are no freight trains but just TGVs.

So far Euro Carex is only existing in computer simulations. The costs are impressive- one train is estimated to cost around 25 Mio EUR (2012) - it is safe to assume the full package will be more around 50 - 80 Mio EUR. It will - from 2017 on if Europe can afford it - transport high value cargo prepacked in airplane containers that is so far still flown by cargo planes which face increased night flying restrictions over Europe. It remains to be seen whether this concept is economically sound as these 320 km/h heavyweights will put extreme stress on the high speed tracks which will result in skyrocketing maintenance costs.

Certainly they won't transport Yingluck's cabbage heads and salads.

[khunken]

Some info on EURO CAREX:

http://www.rff.fr/en/gestion-page-d-accueil-en/news/euro-carex-a-european-high-speed-freight-project

EURO CAREX aims to create, by 2017, a rail service allowing for a modal
shift away from truck transport and short-haul and medium-haul flights
towards the existing rail network for the transporting of goods (in
containers and air pallets).

This service is intended for distances of between 300 and 800 km. It will also make it possible to limit carbon emissions.

This project involves the creation of air and rail terminals connected
to high-speed rail lines, and in constant contact with airport
installations, and the conception of a service adapted to the particular
logistics chain and transport plan.

A couple of points: One it is still in the set-up phase & is about 4 years away from completion.

It's for at least distances of 300km & will be using the existing high-speed rails but is very much secondary to passenger traffic.

A final point:

It is pie-in-the-sky for Thailand.

[473geo]

There is a big push to lower the transport costs of produce out of the far east into Europe, one such method is the movement of freight by rail, less expensive than air, quicker than sea, Thailand deserves to be linked into a network that offers these choices. By the way you don't need to go to wiki to verify my statement the train freight transit method is already being marketed.

[thunder30101]

As a former long term employee of BNSF railway in america I think I can debunk most of this bs about high speed rail for commodities. First of all rail freight is never high speed due to the costs involved, trains schedules are categorized due to shipping priority,coal and grain are low on the scale while consumer and industrial goods rate higher. The fastest trains (not talking speed, but delivery time) are intermodal, truck trailers on rail cars. Rail is mainly used for bulk commodity shipments that trucks cannot haul long distance cost effectively. Thailand is too small a country and economy to spend this kind of money on high speed rail (even for passengers). The money would be much better spent upgrading the rail system and equipment, allowing economic growth along with lower transportation costs.

[473geo]

Anybody worked out that the strong baht could make investment and foreign purchase rather attractive at the moment.

Edited March 29, 2013 by 473geo