Why there won’t be a high-speed railway from Singapore to China, and how Thailand and Malaysia have set back a truly unified system by years.
The Singapore-Kunming Rail Link (SKRL) is a planned network of railways to create a unified line from Kunming to Singapore. This is part of the Pan-Asian Railway, which envisions three routes connecting Kunming to Southeast Asia:
– Western route via Myanmar
– Central route via Laos, Thailand, Malaysia and Singapore
– Eastern route via Vietnam and Cambodia
This article covers the central route from Kunming to Singapore, connecting China, Laos, Thailand, Malaysia, and Singapore.
The SKRL is planned for passenger and freight services. There is talk of extending a high-speed railway all the way to China, and freight trains will be able to travel on a single line without having to transfer containers to another railway system.
The problem with the high-speed rail dream is that there is no way for a high-speed railway to be built on the entire line.
The problem with the freight line is that Thailand and Malaysia have wasted time and money by rehabilitating their metre-gauge railway when they should have built out a standard-gauge railway.
Railway segments
Here are the current and under-construction railways in the Kunming-Singapore corridor.
| Country | Line | Corridor | Speed | Length | Gauge |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| China | Yuxi–Mohan | Yuxi–Mohan | 160 | 507 | Standard |
| Laos | Boten–Vientiane | Boten–Vientiane | 160 | 422 | Standard |
| Laos | Vientiane–Nong Khai | Vientiane–Nong Khai | ~100 | 14 | Metre |
| Laos | Northeastern HSR | Vientiane–Nong Khai | 250 | 16 | Standard |
| Thailand | Northeastern Line | Nong Khai - Bangkok | ~100 | 627 | Metre |
| Thailand | Northeastern HSR | Nong Khai - Bangkok | 250 | 609 | Standard |
| Thailand | Southern Line | Bangkok-Padang Besar | ~100 | 974 | Metre |
| Malaysia | West Coast Railway Line | Padang Besar-Johor Bahru | 140 | 1,151 | Metre |
| Malaysia | Shuttle Tebrau | Johor Bahru-Woodlands | ~100 | 4 | Metre |
| Malaysia | KL-Singapore HSR | Kuala Lumpur-Singapore | 320 | 335 | Standard |
(The Northeastern HSR is under construction, and the KL-Singapore HSR is proposed.)
Why there won’t be a high-speed railway from Singapore to Kunming
Not to be a downer on the high-speed dream, but unless China wants to rebuild/retrofit the line from Kunming to Vientiane, this is never going to happen. There is also the problem of Thailand and Malaysia upgrading their antiquated metre-gauge railways when they should have been upgrading to a standard gauge..
Defining high-speed rail
The definition of high-speed railway has some variations from country to country. For the Pan-Asia Railway it’s best to use the definition as set by China. The Wiki page for high-speed rail in China has this definition from Chinese sources:
“High-speed rail in China is officially defined as “newly-built passenger-dedicated rail lines designed for electrical multiple unit (EMU) train sets traveling at not less than 250 km/h (155 mph) (including lines with reserved capacity for upgrade to the 250 km/h (155 mph) standard) on which initial service operate at not less than 200 km/h (124 mph).” EMU train sets have no more than 16 railcars with axle load not greater than 17 tonnes and a headway of three minutes or less.”
The Laos-China semi-high-speed railway
The Laos-China Railway (comprised of Yuxi–Mohan and Boten–Vientiane) has an operating speed of 160 km/h. This is a semi-high-speed railway, and not a high-speed railway (as some media outlets persist in calling it).
[160 km/h top speed of Laos-China Railway.]
A semi-high-speed railway is still an impressive system, and it’s an ideal speed for a country the size of Laos. This is what functional intercity railways in Europe look like, and it’s great for connecting cities at a medium distance.
[Laos-China Railway at Luang Prabang.]
As we can see from the high-speed railway definition from China, this is not a high-speed railway and it has not been built to be upgraded as one in the future. The media can now stop saying there will eventually be a high-speed railway from Singapore to Kunming.
The need for a unified gauge and operating system
There doesn’t need to be a unified high-speed railway from Singapore to Kunming. Passengers have to leave the train with their bags at border crossings, so there is no extra friction by switching over to another train at the border.
What would have been better is for a unified gauge across the region so freight trains can travel without a break of gauge.
Thailand’s mixed-gauge mess
Thailand is currently building a high-speed railway from Bangkok to Nong Khai, which will be extended to Vientiane. This is a standard-gauge railway with an operating speed of 250 kh/h. It could be debated if it should have been 350 instead of 250, but this very much a high-speed railway.
Thailand is also rebuilding their metre-gauge railway in the same corridor, so there will be a metre-gauge line and standard-gauge line from Bangkok to Vientiane.
I have written in detail about how Thailand is building out a railway network with two gauges.
This dual-gauge system is also a possibility for the Southern Line (Bangkok to Padang Besar). The current single-track railway is being upgraded to a double-track railway, though it is not electrified. There are also proposals to build a high-speed railway to the south, in the same corridor as the line that is being double-tracked.
[Double-tracking of the metre-gauge line near Hua Hin.]
What Thailand should have done was to rebuild the system as a standard-gauge electric railway. Freight could then travel to Laos and China without having to be transferred to another train. The debatable point would have been if the passenger railways should have been semi-high-speed (up to 200 km/h) of high-speed (250-350 km/h).
Malaysia’s mixed-gauge mess
To complicate matters further, Malaysia is about to join the mixed-gauge club with Thailand.
The main railway in Malaysia is the West Coast Line, from Padang Besar on the Thailand border to Johor Bahru on the Singapore border. This was formerly a single-track metre-gauge railway with diesel trains. Malaysia has been upgrading this railway to a double-tracked metre-gauge electric railway.
[New metre-gauge electrified line between Gemas and Johor Bahru.]
Most of the upgrade is now complete, with Gemas to Johor Bahru being the only section that isn’t finished. I took a ride a on the Gemas to JB section in May 2024 to experience this railway before its gone.
[Transferring from the Electric Train Service (ETS) to the old diesel train at Gemas Station.]
While the double-tracking electrification project has been an improvement for Malaysia’s railways, they should have moved to the standard gauge. The old single-track metre gauge was completely rebuilt to a modern double-track line. They also replaced the trains from the old diesel locomotives to the fancy-looking EMU’s. The tracks, overhead electrical systems, and trains are all new, so they should have just moved to standard gauge instead of staying on a metre gauge.
Malaysia spent time and money on what is really a completely new system, for a railway with an operating speed of 140 km/h. This is one of the fastest metre-gauge railways in the world (the record appears to be 163 km/h), but it’s still slower than the Laos-China Railway.
[The ETS is one of the fastest metre-gauge railways in the world.]
Defenders of this upgrade say that Malaysia is a metre-gauge country. However, Malaysia is now building the East Coast Rail Line, which will be a standard-gauge electric railway. The railway is being built in partnership with China, and the railway shares similarities with the Laos-China Railway. It’s a standard-gauge railway with an operating speed of 160 km/h, and it runs on a single track.
The railway of the ECRL is what they should have built on the West Coast Line (though double-tracked), with an operating speed of up to 200 km/h.
The KL-Singapore high-speed railway plan
Malaysia is now planning to build a high-speed railway to Singapore. This line almost went ahead with construction until it was cancelled in 2021. The proposal has been revived, with the government now looking for investors.
Malaysia and Thailand’s high-speed railway plan
In addition to the KL-Singapore HSR, there have been other proposals for the high-speed railway to continue to the Thailand border. This presents the same problem that Thailand created for itself, where they would be building a standard-gauge high-speed railway in the same corridor as the recently-renovated metre-gauge railway.
If Thailand went ahead with the Southern high-speed railway, that would enable a Bangkok – Kuala Lumpur high-speed railway.
A long-term plan with without a plan for gauge unification
Plans of railway links from Southeast Asia to China go back to colonial times, and the current SKRL vision was formulated in 2000. The original plan was to go via Vietnam, because no one was expected that the Laos-China Railway would get built.
Considering how long this plan has been known, there should have been a consensus on gauge unification. China should have been the adult in the room and ensured that future railways be built on a standard gauge.
At the very least, the railways are getting faster in Southeast Asia and there are news lines where there were previously none.
I will cover China and Vietnam in a future article. Vietnam has been a laggard in building new railways (they haven’t built any long-distance railways in modern times), but this might work in their favour now as they are now considering building three rail links to China and a 350 km’h high-speed railway.
Subscribe to the newsletter to get updates on new articles.
I think this whole thing is akin to a dogs dinner. Zero co-operation and planing each country doing it’s own thing and even then when you look at Thailand they don’t even appear to have a strategy for their railways being undecided if the want meter or standard guage .
I get the idea of a 350klm per hour railway I would disagree that this is what Thailand should aim for simply because of the extra expense of construction and what they should have done is go straight to a new standard gauge railway and not wasted huge sums on upgrading the meter guage
Yes 350 km/h would have been overkill for Thailand. After seeing what a 160 km/h train can do for Laos, it would have been good for most of Thailand as well.
Hi James,
100% agree with you ongoing sentiments regarding the mixed gauge mess. We can’t even get a network wide ticketing system running here in Bangkok. On the positive side, at least we will get a passenger HSR line to Korat up and running. I am supplying materials to this project. And next year the 3 Airports line will start construction. I have close contacts in project management at Asia Era One.
Thanks Ken. Yes I think I will have to move on from the mixed-gauge gripe and appreciate some of the good things. I’m actually hopeful af Bangkok’s urban railways being nationalised and thus having a unified ticket system. I think the Northeast HSR will be a great boost for tourism to Isaan as well.
I saw the discussion around nationalizing the metro lines under one umbrella. Im not sure how they would achieve that without either years of litigation. However a middle ground where the MRT, BEM and SRT/Asia Era One are forced to adhere to connectivity rules an integrated payment system. It is surely not difficult to do (cough, cough). They managed to get M-Pass and Esy-Pass to work together. I (for my business and personal reasons) really just want to get the Orange Line East finished as it only requires power systems, signalling and rolling stock. So I scratch my head around the time frame of 2028 to complete. On the NE HSR, I can’t wait, firstly will use to get to Pak Chong for Khao Yai. But it will indeed be a game changer for Isaan tourism.
Interesting to read about all the mix of gauges. I am from Malaysia, but I am not sure why they retained the metre gauge during the upgrade; it could have possibly been because the choice of the train size (although that is the case of tail wagging the dog) or it could have been that has the least impact/cost in terms of construction since the tunnels and bridges would be smaller. Gauge aside, the speed is not that important I think, because even with the current speed of 140 km/h, the capacity is still more than enough. I think the double track is even under-utilised, with headways 15 minutes or more (not sure about this, but the last time I took it, the trains are roughly within this timetable). What I’m saying is, there is no need for more speed, for now or distant future.
Regarding the whole standardised gauge from China to Singapore, I think it is a bit too much to expect that, given that there is no direct economic incentive for the countries to do that, hence, developing within their own interest (and different timeline), the countries chose the ones most ‘suitable’ to their needs. With sea freight widely available, why would freight by train be advantageous? If users need it faster, air freight is available. Freight by train seems to be neither here nor there for South East Asia, at least in my opinion. Would be interested to read if there are other study on it though.
Thanks Faris. Yes I think that now there is a double-track from KL to Padang Besar it would be good to see more services. I from from KL to Penang by train every time I visit, and it is always sold out.
It seems to me, from the new build raised bits i have seen (Khon Kaen, Ban Phai, Hua Hin) and new build raised platforms, that the infrastructure is capable of switching from metre to standard gauge in the future. I do not understand any capacity requirement for parallel running of metre and standard gauge between Bangkok and Nong Khai. There is excess capacity now in the single line section between Khon Kaen and Nong Khai, given there are only 2 night trains, 1 day train, 3 local services, and maybe 4 container trains. If SRT got it’s act together and built the lines to Mukdahan and Loei, and put on a decent service level, there might be use of double track capacity. To me, the railways make a wonderful travel experience, and a useful link to those few places served, but seem an irrelevance compared to long distance bus services and road freight. A command economy may be able to mandate rail freight for containers between large cities, but unless there are drastic limits imposed on road traffic, and compensating increase in passenger train frequency, I can’t see the rail situation changing