The Airport Express is a Dud!

[Guest fountainhall]

I have been reading some not very complimentary comments in the press about the Airport Express train. Although I travel quite a bit, I decided a long time ago I just would not use it. Frankly, for most travelers, I cannot see that it makes much sense

[Guest kjun12]

The selection of Makkasan as the depot station appears to be one gross mistake. Why put it in a place that is already a traffic horror. From where I live I must travel through that area every time I want to go downtown and dread it. And, why not a better connection to the BTS from the station. Was this just another Thai political deal of some sort?

[Guest fountainhall]

I totally agree. I suspect it was selected because it was one of the few available sites within the city large enough to accommodate a major station without considerable demolition. I have no problem with the location as such. Much more of an issue is the usual lack of any kind of detailed planning. Where are the flyovers with proper entry and exit roads, the pedestrian and moving walkways, the escalators, easy links between the BTS and MRT, and so forth? But then, this is Thailand! (when will people run out of that as an acceptable excuse, I wonder?)

[macaroni21]

The selection of Makkasan as the depot station appears to be one gross mistake. Why put it in a place that is already a traffic horror. From where I live I must travel through that area every time I want to go downtown and dread it. And, why not a better connection to the BTS from the station. Was this just another Thai political deal of some sort?

 

It's very typical in Thailand for big decisions to be made not so much from first principles, but conditioned by existing realities or tactical imperatives. Indeed, in many other cities a project like this would, at the drawing board stage, adopt a more holistic perspective.

 

In this case, the project was given to the State Railway of Thailand (SRT). Once that decision was made, it collapsed a lot of other decisions. The SRT did not have a lot of land in the central areas of Bangkok, and I suppose acquiring land was way beyond its means, beyond what was absolutely needed for its viaducts and Phaya Thai station. The only large area that SRT had outside of Hua Lamphong Station and yet within the city was the old siding yard at Makkasan. Being close to Petchburi MRT Station must have been the clincher.

 

I don't think anyone seriously evaluated or modelled other possibilities.

 

Yet, from what I can see, despite its proximity to Petchaburi Station, the SRT put Makkasan Station on the opposite site of the existing ground-level railway tracks. I do not see any plans to provide smooth pedestrian connectivity, with shelter from sun and rain, between Makkasan and Petchaburi.

[pong]

Mksn was choses, because it is on RAILway land-thus avoiding any costly purchase. The intent is to extend this line further above the old rialtracks-via the 3 way junction Yommarat over the northern line , past Don Muang till Rangsit. It will then also pass Bang Sue (MRT ends-to be extended, works in place), fairly near to the giant Mochit2 Busterminal (good for many an upcountry link), to be joined as a big all of BKK transportation terminal.

Coming FROM the airport, the cheaper cityrail is not much of a hindrance for those taking big luggage-for obvious reason. And this route connects easily into the BTS=sktyrain, which does not have that cumbersome luggagecheck the MRT=metro does. But it might be crammed going to airport in the PM-rush-but for most intercontinental flights, these leave at other times anyway.

Most of those in the know expect the express to dwindle pretty soon (average of 10-12 pax/ride) to maybe 30 mins, and trains changed to cityrail-and boosting this,to ev. 10 or 7,5 mins. as it obviously has enormous potential.

Since 4/1 Mksn now has check-in privilege, but for TG=THAI and LH only, up to 3 hrs before departure. Prices for cityrail are now by distance-like BTS, 45 bt for whole way. (35 bt for Airpt->Mksn). The BMTA=citybus intends to reroute more buslines to link into it.

[Guest]

I believe the airport rail link is run by State Railways of Thailand (SRT). Thailand has some good public transport operators, however SRT are not amongst them. They should not be operating the rail link.

 

On arrival at the airport, at present one cannot buy a ticket & it's not clear if you are getting on an express or commuter line. The commuter line is preferable if you want to connect with the skytrain. If you get on the express line, it stops at Makasan & there's a long walk downstairs to pay the fare & back up again to catch a commuter train to the skytrain connection.

 

They could do this so much better, with common ticketing with the BTS, clear indications of what runs when & possibly even running ALL the trains through to the BTS line. Also, they need clearer signposting of the route to the MRT.

 

However, I don't particularly like the Bangkok taxis so if travelling to somewhere served by a BTS line, the airport rail link is a good option.

 

 

Actually, I think they have done a better job than KL. There, the monorail station ends a couple of hundred metres from "KL Sentral" railway station & you need to hike across a piece of wasteland to reach the railway station. Then when catching the airport train, it only runs to the lovely main terminal and you need to get on a bus to get to the dreadful LCCT.

All this is one good incentive to use BKK & not KL as your hub airport.

[Guest fountainhall]

Actually, I think they have done a better job than KL. There, the monorail station ends a couple of hundred metres from "KL Sentral" railway station & you need to hike across a piece of wasteland to reach the railway station. Then when catching the airport train, it only runs to the lovely main terminal and you need to get on a bus to get to the dreadful LCCT.

All this is one good incentive to use BKK & not KL as your hub airport.

 

KL's rather piddling little monorail cannot be compared to the much more extensive MRT and BST systems in Bangkok. They are as alike as chalk and cheese. Yes, it's a hike to get from the KUL airport railway station to the monorail, but then the vast majority of passengers are not going to the monorail. They are taking the relatively cheap taxis to their homes or hotels, few of which are close enough to the monorail, especially if you have luggage. On my various visits to KL, I hardly ever see anyone on the monorail carrying anything more than a rucksack or a small trolley bag.

 

Also, the KL airport rail link was planned and opened before the LCC terminal was thought of. I expect in the fullness of time, BKK will have its own LCC hub. Will the airport train serve that as well? Only after a gap of 5 or 10 years, in my view

[macaroni21]

Whatever happened to the Airport bus service? From Don Muang, there were 3 or 4 express bus services, to Silom hotels, Sukhumvit hotels etc. When Suvarnabhumi opened, I vaguely recall there was the same bus service, but have they been discontinued?

 

Eons ago, I used the service once - it took forever to reach the hotel I was in, having to wind its way through several hotels before mine - and never used it again.

 

But I used to see the airport buses coming down Silom Road or Sukhumvit once in a while.

 

I guess the service has stopped?

[macaroni21]

Actually, I think they have done a better job than KL. There, the monorail station ends a couple of hundred metres from "KL Sentral" railway station & you need to hike across a piece of wasteland to reach the railway station.

 

It's gotten worse than that. The wasteland has since been sold and is now a huge construction site all boarded up. So commuters arriving at KL Sentral on the airport express and wanting to get to the monorail (why?) have to take a long detour around the perimeter of the construction site. Going across the wasteland as in the old days, on hindsight, seems so much better!

[macaroni21]

In the major Chinese cities and in Singapore (I'm not so sure about Hong Kong), the state funds the construction of mass transportation systems, though the actual day-to-day operations are the responsibility of a corporation. The result is that the state has control of master-planning and connectivity, and through arm-twisting bus companies, have implemented common ticketing systems.

 

While I haven't fully understood the systems in Bangkok, Manila and Kuala Lumpur, just by looking at how things are run, one suspects that the model being applied is vastly different. In these three cities, it looks like the state awarded projects completely to commercial parties to build, operate and run (but doesn't the govt of Thailand have a stake in BTS and MRT?) and these commercial entities did their own route planning and construction. Rather than working synergistically with each other and bus companies, they compete against each other, unlike in the more authoritarian states where through the "guiding hand" or "master planner" that is the state, they work synergistically.

 

I know that in Manila it was a huge scandal when the company awarded the right to build and run the MRT-3 line went bankrupt. The company had to bear all the cost of construction and operations, but the government (to please its voters) controlled ticket prices. When the company went belly up, there was a real risk that the trains would simply stop running, and so the government had to nationalise the company and take over all its debt. Needless to say, the now-govt-owned MRT-3 line loses money every minute a train runs. The stations are filthy, the ticket-dispensing machines don't work, the queues in front of ticket windows stretch 50 persons long during off-peak hours, and the trains rattle your bones throughout the journey.

 

Bangkok, KL and Manila are characterised by the absence of good connectivity and lack of through-ticket systems. It is the result of a political decision to put as little government money as possible into urban rail projects; which in turn means the government has little planning control and little leverage when it comes to getting all the companies to work together.

[Guest fountainhall]

I'm not so sure about Hong Kong

Hong Kong is private sector driven. Re rail links, the city authorities decide what they want and then set up supervisory board which call for tenders. The city may provide some initial funding, but it expects to claw it all back and more - and in my experience always does! The MTR subway system also has leases for the land, and makes major profits from all the commercial and private housing skyscrapers built above the stations.

[Guest]

1 If KL builds a monorail system, it should integrate with other public transport systems. The monorail should terminate INSIDE KL sentral. Capacity could easily be increased by improving frequency & increasing train length to slightly longer than the platforms.

Bangkok seems to be ahead of KL on public transport, despite Malaysia being the wealthier country.

 

2 Japan has an almost entirely privately operated rail system. Quite a lot of the lines were built by the private sector and have always been run like that. JR is now privatised (either fully or partially). In Tokyo you can proceed from one private train company to another, then onto the underground & it's only necessary to wave your PASMO card at the barrier an the fare is deducted from your account. That's how to integrate ticketing.

[Guest fountainhall]

In Tokyo you can proceed from one private train company to another, then onto the underground & it's only necessary to wave your PASMO card at the barrier an the fare is deducted from your account. That's how to integrate ticketing.

Japan's rail system is just amazing. In Tokyo, you rarely need to go near a taxi, for the JR or subway lines get you extremely close to almost anywhere. One pass ticketing is great, too, but this was not originated in Japan. The Japanese have never been great innovators. Traditionally they have taken technology from other countries and then developed and greatly refined it. Hong Kong was way ahead of Japan in integrated ticketing, and I suspect there may have been other countries ahead of Hong Kong.

 

But it is, I suggest, wrong to compare the development of rail systems in Japan with other Asian countries. Much of urban Japan was bombed to total destruction in World War 2. When you start with a clean slate, it is far easier to carve railway lines wherever you want them. That's another reason why Germany has such a fantastic rail system and Britain is stuck with ageing infrastructure and entrenched land owning interests with no interest in new rail lines going through their property.

[KhorTose]

Much of urban Japan was bombed to total destruction in World War 2. When you start with a clean slate, it is far easier to carve railway lines wherever you want them. That's another reason why Germany has such a fantastic rail system and Britain is stuck with ageing infrastructure and entrenched land owning interests with no interest in new rail lines going through their property.

 

Also why the USA is stuck with almost no rail and even fewer high speed lines that any other developed country in the world. Of course the auto industry did its best to kill the public transportation we did have. In the East public transportation was able to hang on, but in the West most cities still lack any kind of adequate rail or subway systems.

[Guest]

But it is, I suggest, wrong to compare the development of rail systems in Japan with other Asian countries. Much of urban Japan was bombed to total destruction in World War 2. When you start with a clean slate, it is far easier to carve railway lines wherever you want them. That's another reason why Germany has such a fantastic rail system and Britain is stuck with ageing infrastructure and entrenched land owning interests with no interest in new rail lines going through their property.

 

Bombing in wars should not affect the introduction of integrated ticketing/charging systems.

 

As for the actual routes, quite a few of of the lines I know in Japan were certainly built pre-war, with the exception of the Shinkansen, built from the 1960s onwards. The Shinkansen routes are sometimes compromised, rather than built with a clean slate. In Tokyo, you start off at a snails pace on a shared line, then the Shinkansen terminal for Yokohama is at the edge of town for example.

I guess they may have had some advantages in urban rail planning.

[Guest fountainhall]

Bombing in wars should not affect the introduction of integrated ticketing/charging systems.

Indeed not. I was merely making a more general point about urban transport systems

 

As for the actual routes, quite a few of of the lines I know in Japan were certainly built pre-war, with the exception of the Shinkansen, built from the 1960s onwards. The Shinkansen routes are sometimes compromised, rather than built with a clean slate. In Tokyo, you start off at a snails pace on a shared line, then the Shinkansen terminal for Yokohama is at the edge of town for example.

Outside the urban areas, I am sure much of the track survived the air raids. But within the main cities, most overland track was destroyed, thereby giving the planners a much easier task.

 

But I think you are not correct about the main Shinkansen lines being compromised. These all run on dedicated lines not shared with any other trains. SInce there are so many trains departing one after another (from Tokyo to Osaka, one every 6 - 8 minutes or so) , it would be quite difficult for any sharing. In many cities, the Shinkansen stations are also new and situated apart from the main JR stations. Within Tokyo, however, the Shinkansen operate from within the existing Tokyo, Shnagawa and Ueno stations. That may give rise to confusion about the track.

[Guest]

But I think you are not correct about the main Shinkansen lines being compromised. These all run on dedicated lines not shared with any other trains.

 

I was merely stating some of the Shinkansen lines are compromised. The long slow crawl out of Tokyo is one major compromise. Even within Tokyo I'm not sure if the Shinkansen line is strictly shared, as Shinkansen have a different gauge to other Japanese trains. However, they are certainly running alongside the older tracks in Tokyo at slow speeds, which is a compromise.

 

Outside of Tokyo, of course the main Sinkansen are not shared. However, there is sometimes a compromise in station locations. Yokohama is one obvious example, where Shin Yokohama is nowhere near the centre of the city. Of course many other cities do not suffer this problem.

 

Moving away from Shinkansen towards the original topic, the Narita Express is one very slow airport train. I know Narita airport is a long way out, but can they not run a faster train to the airport? I suspect the Thai train is running much faster, despite the shorter distance to the airport.

[Guest fountainhall]

In the sense that the shinkansen have to slow down in terminus cities, then they are compromised. I suspect that is essentially a safety issue, given the large number of lines converging into one of the country's main stations.

 

I agree about the Narita Express. I suspect any train travelling on existing lines, especially if it has to slow down to pass through existing stations (like Chiba on the Narita Express line) will always lose out time-wise over airport trains with dedicated track like Bangkok - although the Heathrow Express in London does a pretty good job. I was on one of the first Narita Express trains 20 years ago and it seemed pretty fast compared to the limousine bus service! But it has actually slowed down by a few minutes since then, whereas the bus service from many hotels has actually speeded up due to a new route.

 

The old Skyliner airport train has recently been revamped and is now advertised as faster than the Narita Express. It can take as little as 36 minutes, but there are catches. 36 minutes is the fastest time from Narita to Nippori station on the Yamanote (circle) line). It takes another 5 minutes to reach Ueno station. Plus not all the trains go at that speed, and Nippori station presently has no escalators. But if you are travelling to the northern part of Tokyo, or want an easy connection to some circle line stations in that area, I guess it's an option worth considering. It's also a bit cheaper!

 

http://www.keisei.co.jp/keisei/tetudou/skyliner/us/skyliner.html

[Guest fountainhall]

There is an article in today

[Guest]

Although I prefer it to taxis, the rail service has been launched badly.

This is no surprise, as it's run by Thai Railways, rather than one of the more customer focussed transport companies in Thailand.

 

As for checking in your luggage, why would anyone even think about using the service at this stage? After all, if you can get your luggage to the rail terminal, you can get it to the airport. The alternative is risking losing the luggage with a totally unproven service.

No let someone else prove the service first!

[Guest gwm4sian]

I wonder how the luggage check-in facility compares with that of, say, Hong Kong?

 

There you can check in your luggage up to 24 hours before flight departure. Imediately the luggage is scanned by computer and tracked in the airport luggage system just the same as checking it in at the airport. It travels to the airport in specially sealed and locked compartments on the airport train, not accessible to the general public.

 

So for instance if you have a 1am or similar departure to Europe you can check out of the hotel in the morning, take the luggage to the airport express station and check-in and then spend the rest of day sight seeing or whatever withour encumbrance. Because you have your boarding pass and seat assignment you only have to be at the departure gate 40 minutes before take off, so don't have to travel to the airport 3 hours before departure.

[Guest fountainhall]

As for checking in your luggage, why would anyone even think about using the service at this stage?

I have used in-town check-ins wherever possible and, as gwm4asian says, I find them exceptionally useful, especially if I have a late night flight. I agree that the Makkasan terminal has a lot of problems at present, but if there was even the slightest concern about safety of baggage, the pilots unions at THAI and Bangkok Airways, to say nothing of IATA officials, would be shouting it from the rooftops.

 

Re Hong Kong, I think the luggage actually goes by road in specially sealed vans. I only know this because in 2008 there was a massive rain storm which for the first time ever partially flooded the airport road, and a lot of bags were left behind.

[Guest gwm4sian]

double post by accident

[Guest gwm4sian]

 

 

Re Hong Kong, I think the luggage actually goes by road in specially sealed vans.

 

Not so. If you look at pictures of the Airport express you will see that the leading power car in one direction only (The HK end) is not a normal passenger car, but a specially sealed baggage car.

 

 

[pong]

it is just a copycat of HKG-or Lon/Paddington (for a while)-the checked luggages are to be sent in a sealed apartment of the expresstrains. Rain may simple also fall when they transfer it from that car to the luggage-cellars in Changi.

The word ''up to'' is a bit misleading (maybe for those not having english as 1st and like to have travel-industry watertight wording)

Check in is ONLY posssible on the same day as your flight is due and UP to=last time, 3 hrs before your scheduled dep. This means that as at Swampy the cut-off time is 1 hr or even less and the ride takes just 16/17 mins, you may have to check in at airport if you arrive a little late-as indeed is confirmed by various reports in week 1.

I do not know the exact time of opening opf the Makkasan check-in facility.

When for short while TG=THAI moved many of its domestic Thai flights to old Don Muang (dont sweat-this is finshed again!) they also had an in-town check-in at the Lard Prao MRT stop and a free bus from there. Noone knew about it and about noone, even if they knew, had any reason to use it.