I refer to Z Ibrahim's letter entitled RM9 bil double-tracking project makes no sense . I'm somewhat perplexed that Z Ibrahim built his argument on the basis of the standard rail versus the meter rail gauge.

Although having wider gauge may give better weight-capacity and arguably speed advantages (as noted by George Stephenson, the father of railways and the one who proposed the standard gauge in the 19th century) the most important aspect in a railway system is uniformity in the gauge. The fact that Malaysia, Singapore, Thailand and Vietnam have the same meter-gauge railway system will enable an efficient rail transportation between these countries.

The railway track is a dynamic system consisting of subgrade, ballast, sleeper/tie and rail. One can invest in premium concrete sleepers and better track geometry with less curves to increase the overall train speed with the meter gauge. If the track is built to a heavy-duty standard, a performance almost as good as a standard gauge line is possible as illustrated by some systems in South Africa and Australia.

Double-tracking our existing rail network offers a more practical solution to increase the system's capacity as compared to changing to wide gauge with the need to replace or retrofit the whole rolling stock fleets. Depending on forecasted capacity demand, a cheaper approach would be to build numerous sidings for trains to take over slower ones, but you need a sophisticated train dispatching system.

The project should be looked in a context of a more sustainable national transportation system. Setting the politics aside, the project actually make sense to reduce highway congestion (one train can replace up to 50 trucks on the road) and not to mention air pollution (trains have higher tones-km per liter of fuel).

Now, don't get me started on the economic stimulation benefits based on Keynesian economics.