The Ministry of Transportation and Communications has once again brought up the idea of a rail system between Kaohsiung City, Kaohsiung County and Pingtung County that would integrate the Taiwan High Speed Rail (THSR) and the Taiwan Railway Administration (TRA), thereby allowing THSR trains to go to Pingtung. Experts expressed doubts about the plan early on. But the ministry did not listen, and insists on pushing for a plan that will take a crippled high speed train into Pingtung.
The ministry has said that other countries have such a system. But if ministry officials believe this is relevant to Taiwan's rail system, they have a distorted view of the situation. Taiwan has dallied with common rail: The Taiwan Sugar Railways and the TRA used to use the same rails, so it is technically possible.
But the ministry completely ignores the reasons for and background of the construction of the common rails in other countries . It is also ignoring the real needs of the public. The ministry is only trying to create the impression -- a false one -- that the government cares about improving infrastructure in the south.
In other countries railway systems with different track gauges have been integrated with each other so that the functions of the different systems are combined to create the highest possible efficiency. Countries with a similar system do not take a common rail as a development goal in itself.
The ministry has used the Mini-Shinkansen in Japan -- which extended the Shinkansen line to Akita and Yamagata prefectures -- as an example of a common rail system. However, these prefectures are both rural areas that had few train services to begin with. The existing rails were widened to accommodate the new train, keeping only about 10km of common rail. This portion of common rail has shrunk further in recent years because of the difficulty in operating both fast and slow trains on the rail.
The common rail is a bottleneck in the transport system. Also, when rails are made wider to adhere to the standard, existing lines are sacrificed because of incompatibility. Even though Akita and Yamagata prefectures didn't have an extensive rail service, and now have only a short length of common rail, the ministry still cited Japan as an example to imitate for the network between Kaohsiung city and county and Pingtung County.
The ministry also highlighted different kinds of rails in use in Germany's metro system, most importantly the tram system in Stuttgart.
From 1981, Stuttgart started to broaden its tram track gauge. The common rail system is now only temporary. Conversion of the entire system is to be completed next year, with a portion of the common rail to become an exhibit in a museum.
To use the renewal of an urban tram system as a model for an intercity train is ridiculous.
The Kaohsiung and Pingtung region is really a metropolitan area incompatible with the ministry's plans. Remember that all the foreign examples cited by the ministry are actually being replaced because of the inherent problems of combining vastly different systems.
Another problem is that the train carriages of the TRA and the THSR are not the same width, so platforms at train stations could not be used for both systems. The THSR trains would have to slow down considerably and be led onto another track when coming into a station.
The difference between the two systems is just too big -- one a long-distance service, one a regular train service. To combine them would create a lose-lose situation.
In addition to the high costs and the possibility of crippling the high-speed railway, the ministry's plan would also destroy the TRA's achievements in making its system more like a mass rapid transit system. This is completely wrong. What are the benefits for the people living in the south? How is this a wise choice for expenditure of our tax money?
Ku Ting-wei is editor-in-chief of Rail News magazine.
Translated by Anna Stiggelbout
Saudi Arabian largesse is flooding Egypt’s cultural scene, but the reception is mixed. Some welcome new “cooperation” between two regional powerhouses, while others fear a hostile takeover by Riyadh. In Cairo, historically the cultural capital of the Arab world, Egyptian Minister of Culture Nevine al-Kilany recently hosted Saudi Arabian General Entertainment Authority chairman Turki al-Sheikh. The deep-pocketed al-Sheikh has emerged as a Medici-like patron for Egypt’s cultural elite, courted by Cairo’s top talent to produce a slew of forthcoming films. A new three-way agreement between al-Sheikh, Kilany and United Media Services — a multi-media conglomerate linked to state intelligence that owns much of
The US and other countries should take concrete steps to confront the threats from Beijing to avoid war, US Representative Mario Diaz-Balart said in an interview with Voice of America on March 13. The US should use “every diplomatic economic tool at our disposal to treat China as what it is... to avoid war,” Diaz-Balart said. Giving an example of what the US could do, he said that it has to be more aggressive in its military sales to Taiwan. Actions by cross-party US lawmakers in the past few years such as meeting with Taiwanese officials in Washington and Taipei, and
Denmark’s “one China” policy more and more resembles Beijing’s “one China” principle. At least, this is how things appear. In recent interactions with the Danish state, such as applying for residency permits, a Taiwanese’s nationality would be listed as “China.” That designation occurs for a Taiwanese student coming to Denmark or a Danish citizen arriving in Denmark with, for example, their Taiwanese partner. Details of this were published on Sunday in an article in the Danish daily Berlingske written by Alexander Sjoberg and Tobias Reinwald. The pretext for this new practice is that Denmark does not recognize Taiwan as a state under
The Republic of China (ROC) on Taiwan has no official diplomatic allies in the EU. With the exception of the Vatican, it has no official allies in Europe at all. This does not prevent the ROC — Taiwan — from having close relations with EU member states and other European countries. The exact nature of the relationship does bear revisiting, if only to clarify what is a very complicated and sensitive idea, the details of which leave considerable room for misunderstanding, misrepresentation and disagreement. Only this week, President Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) received members of the European Parliament’s Delegation for Relations