Land bridge pitfalls
Re: “Land bridge petition seeks House’s help”, ( BP, March 7).
Recently, the Thai government introduced an alternative to the Kra Canal known as the Thailand Land Bridge Project. This land bridge concept involves unloading from a cargo ship, transferring the cargo from one port to the opposite port by train, and reloading all containers onto a different ship.
By having to transport the containers by train, only container ships would be able to use this land bridge. This method cannot be used by other vessel types, such as crude oil and liquid chemical tankers, LNG carriers, passenger ships, sensitive cargo, or military vessels. In simple terms, only container ships will be the only customers for passage along this route. With approximately 5,500 container ships, constituting roughly 5.5% of the entire ocean-going fleet, the land bridge’s utility is limited to this fraction, leaving the remaining 95% of vessel types unable to use this land bridge.
Further, the unloading and loading of the containers would add at least one day at each end for an average container ship. Many container ships today can carry upward of 10,000 TEUs (Twentyfoot Equivalent Units). Using the average of a minute per container and four gantry cranes, the time to unload/load these 10,000 containers is 41 hours at each end, adding 3.5 days for using the land bridge. Waiting time to dock at each end would further add to the unproductive time of these costly container ships.
Transportation by train further complicates the process. With 100-150 as the maximum for flat rail cars per trip, it would take 75-100 train trips to transfer containers from these large ships. Even for a small 5,000 TEU ship, it would take 50 train trips. In as much as the most efficient load/unload method for these containers would be to take or place them directly onto the flat cars, this process would not only reduce the efficiency of the rail transport but also cause a train scheduling nightmare.
Container ships operate most efficiently when the time spent at the dock is minimised. Introducing unnecessary loading and unloading steps to today’s large TEU ships would only serve to increase time and costs, thereby offsetting any potential benefits of the land bridge. As approximately 50% of incidents occur within the port and terminal boundary, including at berth or using facilities, waiting at anchorage, and during harbour transit, additional cargo handling poses heightened risks for accidents, necessitating added insurance coverage.
Furthermore, shipping companies are inherently disinclined to transfer their cargo to other shipping lines, as it disrupts logistical efficiency and control over their shipments. To utilise the land bridge, a shipping company would essentially require a duplicate capacity ship waiting at the opposite end. It’s improbable that shipping companies would expand their fleets solely to accommodate the Thailand land bridge.
In trying to push the land bridge concept, numerous inefficiencies have also been glossed over by the government. One such factor is the unavoidable delay inherent in using ship locks to raise or lower vessels to match the water levels of each ocean. This delay has been highlighted as one reason for abandoning the construction of the Kra Canal. The fact is the Panama Canal utilises three ship locks, with approximately 20 minutes spent in each lock, resulting in a total time of one hour.
The prime minister has actively promoted the land bridge concept on his roadshows. However, it’s doubtful that investors will miss the elementary shortcomings highlighted above, leading them to decline involvement. Consequently, there may be underlying agendas at play beyond the surface-level arguments presented in support of the land bridge project over the Kra Canal project.
ML SAKSIRI KRIDAKORN