Those countries that successfully implemented HSR, they do it after they exhausted the road and regular rail capacity.

Indonesia yet to properly fix their roads, doesn't even work on improving the commuter rail and jump straight to HSR.

In China with 1.3billion population, only 5 lines shows profit, the rest bleeding oso.

In Japan, ridership can't even sustain basic operations and maintenence. Their business model is rental of the stations and property along the lines, which is why stations are huge complex with lots of F&B, hotels, offices and supermarkets.

Outside Japan & China, the population is not enough & affluent enough.

Probably same, uncontested sovereignty over 9 dash line

Make it faster so that can make more trips in a day....hahaha

rooftop seat 50% off

TBF, where got public transport make money one? As long as gov collect enough tax to cover, don't make too much loses, its ok. Just like any other public service like hospital, fireman, police etc.

So gomen should have increased the tax kaw kaw to cover?

How much is "not too much losses"?

The problem is they haven’t even resolved their own employment issues yet they still need to send maids and construction workers here to work while we rarely go there for manual labor.

So najibistas still think it is a good deal?

You need to bear with losses and expand to more lines. However, if those lines don’t bring development, then there will be no benefits.

In Japan and China, their lines brings connectivity to less developed areas and in Japan case, they already proven that the benefits their bullet train brings outweighs the losses incurred. In China case, the impact is being seen today in the second and third tier cities. Their second tier cities already develop above KL and their third tier cities are moving towards KL type of development.

However, the question is whether the government is capable of bear the losses until the benefits start to show

infrastructure projects the payback is more on the additional economic growth for the areas the line is passing through, and not from the direct revenue.
Example ECRL is meant to improve connectivity to Port Klang and Kuantan Port. This gives opportunities for lesser towns like Mentakab or Maran to host some factories there.

Does those towns have the population to support factories in the first place?

Metakab population is only about 50k

China’s 3rd tier citiy Guilin population 5 mil

Japan city Niigata population 800,000

See the difference

Obviously you not familiar with logistics - roads vs rail.

Also HSR bukan utk freight.
Looking at Indonesia HSR - RM261 million loses in first half 2025, doesn't seems to be a good additional economic growth.

It won't be instant, but better than nothing.
Anyway ECRL is a regular rail so the cost won't be so brutal compared to HSR. Also it carries the most profitable passenger i.e. Cargos.

Was talking about ECRL. But yeah HSR was built as Jokowi's toy to impress the people. Improving rail and road connectivity to Jakarta Port doesn't sound sexy compared to HSR.

This post has been edited by Mixxomon: Oct 24 2025, 06:00 PM

maybe follow south korea, germany and UK model ?

are thier one profitable?

Everyone knows the benefits won't be an instant but in Mentakab or any of the towns case, there won't be any change at all lah. The population is just too small.

ECRL cost is about RM75 billion. The Singapore KL HSR project estimated cost will be around RM70 to RM80 billion.

ECRL is damn expensive because we need to go through mountains!

Not so brutal? I genuinely hope I am wrong but I am pretty sure it's going to be another costly project we have to bear for generations

China has a significantly larger high-speed rail (HSR) network than Japan, covering a much greater area. China's network is the largest globally, with over 48,000 km of track in 2024, connecting diverse geographical regions. Japan's HSR, or Shinkansen, has a more established but smaller network, with around 3,067 km of lines as of October 2022, primarily connecting major cities on its main islands.