バンコクの民営鉄道

都市鉄道化への模索と限界

抄録

This article discusses two private railways built in Thailand in the 1890s and 1900s. It analyzes the attempts of these two lines to develop into urban railways, and explains why they eventuallyfailed to do so.
The two private lines discussed are (i) the Paknam Railway, the first railway in Thailand, which opened in 1893 and connected Bangkok to the mouth of the Chao Phraya river at Paknam; and (ii) the Thachin Railway, connecting Bangkok to Thachin (Samut Sakhon), which opened in 1905 and was extended in 1907 to Maeklong (Samut Songkhram) and was thereafter named the Maeklong Railway.
Although initially both railways functioned as inter-city lines, by increasing their service frequency they soon began to serve functionally as intra-city or urban lines. The Paknam Railway introduced a motor-tramcar service within the Bangkok urban area in 1908, which was replaced in 1912 by an electric tramcar. A plan in the 1920s to electrify the entire line was discouraged by the government’s opposition to any extension of the concession period. Although the Paknam Railway was eventually electrified, its intra-city service was largely substituted by the newly extended tramline along it. The Maeklong line also began an electric tramcar service along one section to serve the Bangkok urban area, but global depression prevented it from realizing its full potential.
The Thai government, having no intention to renew the private railway concessions, instead purchased the lines outright at the end of the concession periods. However, state ownership resulted in little further investment in the lines. The Paknam line suffered in competition with road transport, and soon became a loss-making venture. The Maeklong line, in contrast, which did not suffer from direct road competition, witnessed an increase in traffic volume, but this enhanced its inter-city, rather than its intra-city, functions.
Prime Minister Sarit’s policy of ‘beauty’ brought the closure of the Paknam line in 1959. The Maeklong line also faced closure, but only one section was actually abandoned in the 1960s.
There are three reasons why these railways failed to become true urban railways. First, the government’s state-oriented railway policy exhibited excessive caution towards foreign investors. Second, the foreign investors that did exist restrained their investments, particularly in the final periods of their concessions, partly in reaction to government policy. Third, the government failed to recognize the potential of these railways to provide urban mass transport. As a result of these reasons, Bangkok failed to maintain urban railways and developed post-war along a path of automobile-dependency, a path that has brought numerous transport and environmental problems in its wake.