This sounds the right idea:

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601080&sid=a9ZiKtUA8Zbo
Afghanistan is building its first rail link with the help of the Asian 
Development Bank in a bid to improve trade and aid and undermine highway 
bandits helping to fund insurgents, including the Taliban.


-- 
Arthur Figgis               Surrey, UK

Arthur Figgis wrote:
> This sounds the right idea:
> 
> http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601080&sid=a9ZiKtUA8Zbo
> Afghanistan is building its first rail link with the help of the Asian 
> Development Bank in a bid to improve trade and aid and undermine highway 
> bandits helping to fund insurgents, including the Taliban.

Rail lines are probably easier for bandits to interdict than roads.

Jesse wrote:
> Arthur Figgis wrote:
>> This sounds the right idea:
>>
>> http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601080&sid=a9ZiKtUA8Zbo
>> Afghanistan is building its first rail link with the help of the Asian 
>> Development Bank in a bid to improve trade and aid and undermine 
>> highway bandits helping to fund insurgents, including the Taliban.
> 
> Rail lines are probably easier for bandits to interdict than roads.

While you can break railways, it is a lot harder to nick a train than a 
lorry.

-- 
Arthur Figgis               Surrey, UK

Arthur Figgis <afiggis@example.com.invalid> wrote in 
news:WKGdnYJyQKz91XTXnZ2dnUVZ7sNi4p2d@brightview.co.uk:

[Snips]
> While you can break railways, it is a lot harder to nick a train than a 
> lorry.

SIR ARTHUR: I'd like to make one thing quite clear at the outset -- when 
you speak of a train robbery, this in fact involved no loss of train. It's 
merely what I like to call the contents of the train which were pilfered -- 
we haven't lost a train since 1946, I think it was, the year of the great 
snows, we mislaid a small one. They're very hard to lose, you see, being so 
bulky -- a train is an enormous thing compared for example to a small 
jewel, a tiny pearl for example might fall off a lady's neck and disappear 
into the grass, or the gravel, or wherever she was standing -- in the sea, 
even, and disappear underwater -- whereas an enormous train, with its huge 
size, is a totally different kettle of fish ...

INTERVIEWER: I think you've made that point rather well, Sir Arthur ... who 
do you think may have perpetrated this awful crime?

SIR ARTHUR: We believe this to be the work of thieves.

All the best,

John.
-- 
In what method shall we implement the matrix of this government display 
picnic?
-- Bill Bailey

John D Salt wrote:
> Arthur Figgis <afiggis@example.com.invalid> wrote in 
> news:WKGdnYJyQKz91XTXnZ2dnUVZ7sNi4p2d@brightview.co.uk:
> 
> [Snips]
>> While you can break railways, it is a lot harder to nick a train than a 
>> lorry.
> 
> SIR ARTHUR: I'd like to make one thing quite clear at the outset -- when 
> you speak of a train robbery, this in fact involved no loss of train. 

Although it does happen occasionally - generally as a case of people 
selling trains they don't actually own.

They sometimes get found again, often waiting to be loaded onto ships 
heading for scrap yards in dodgier parts of the world. There is case in 
Romania at the moment where someone is accused of nicked steam locos - 
though it seems to be dispute about export permits, rather than putting 
them in a bag marked "swag".

However it is hard to hijack a train and cart it off somewhere else, as 
sometimes happens to road fuel tankers and the like.

-- 
Arthur Figgis               Surrey, UK

"Arthur Figgis" <afiggis@example.com.invalid> wrote ...

> However it is hard to hijack a train and cart it off somewhere else, as 
> sometimes happens to road fuel tankers and the like.

From a quick Google search it seems bridges are far more likely to get 
stolen than trains. No tunnels appear to have gone missing yet ;-)

This seems particlularly impresive ...

http://www.nowpublic.com/strange/russian-orthodox-church-stolen-brick-brick

Arthur Figgis wrote:
> Jesse wrote:
>> Arthur Figgis wrote:
>>> This sounds the right idea:
>>>
>>> http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601080&sid=a9ZiKtUA8Zbo
>>> Afghanistan is building its first rail link with the help of the 
>>> Asian Development Bank in a bid to improve trade and aid and 
>>> undermine highway bandits helping to fund insurgents, including the 
>>> Taliban.
>>
>> Rail lines are probably easier for bandits to interdict than roads.
> 
> While you can break railways, it is a lot harder to nick a train than a 
> lorry.

I don't think bandits in Afghanistan will worry much about the train.
They'll derail it, kill any survivors as needed, and pilfer whatever 
contents they can haul away.

The whole line will likely have to be heavily guarded, and advance 
patrols preceding every train, to check for breaks and potential ambushes.
Doesn't sound like the "right idea" to me, perhaps time will tell.

Jesse wrote:
> Arthur Figgis wrote:
>> Jesse wrote:
>>> Arthur Figgis wrote:
>>>> This sounds the right idea:
>>>>
>>>> http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601080&sid=a9ZiKtUA8Zbo
>>>> Afghanistan is building its first rail link with the help of the 
>>>> Asian Development Bank in a bid to improve trade and aid and 
>>>> undermine highway bandits helping to fund insurgents, including the 
>>>> Taliban.
>>>
>>> Rail lines are probably easier for bandits to interdict than roads.
>>
>> While you can break railways, it is a lot harder to nick a train than 
>> a lorry.
> 
> I don't think bandits in Afghanistan will worry much about the train.
> They'll derail it, kill any survivors as needed,

Derailment of a low speed train in the middle of nowhere is unlikely to 
kill anyone.

> and pilfer whatever contents they can haul away.

With road transport you don't even need to worry about hauling it away, 
you just take the whole lorry.

> The whole line will likely have to be heavily guarded, and advance 
> patrols preceding every train, to check for breaks and potential ambushes.
> Doesn't sound like the "right idea" to me, perhaps time will tell.

But would people do that in friendly (by Afghan standards) territory? 
The people putting up the cash seem to think security isn't going to be 
too much of a problem. This is in contrast to the south, where bad 
things keep happening to the military supply chain from Pakistan. 
Supplies already go in through the north, and the Germans hang out at 
the destination.

Even if it needs an escort, a handful of easily controlled trains would 
replace a whole lot of individual lorries.

The Khyber Pass is a far dodgier area, but the railway there more or 
less survived from the 1920s until getting washed out.

-- 
Arthur Figgis               Surrey, UK

Arthur Figgis wrote:
> Jesse wrote:
>> Arthur Figgis wrote:
>>> Jesse wrote:
>>>> Arthur Figgis wrote:
>>>>> This sounds the right idea:
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601080&sid=a9ZiKtUA8Zbo
>>>>> Afghanistan is building its first rail link with the help of the 
>>>>> Asian Development Bank in a bid to improve trade and aid and 
>>>>> undermine highway bandits helping to fund insurgents, including the 
>>>>> Taliban.
>>>>
>>>> Rail lines are probably easier for bandits to interdict than roads.
>>>
>>> While you can break railways, it is a lot harder to nick a train than 
>>> a lorry.
>>
>> I don't think bandits in Afghanistan will worry much about the train.
>> They'll derail it, kill any survivors as needed,
> 
> Derailment of a low speed train in the middle of nowhere is unlikely to 
> kill anyone.

Not sure what speed it will be traveling, any derailment is going to be 
hazardous for anyone in the train - Not to mention the varied terrain of 
the country, which might involve a roll down an embankment.

>> and pilfer whatever contents they can haul away.
> 
> With road transport you don't even need to worry about hauling it away, 
> you just take the whole lorry.

True, I think the goal would be more to wreak havoc & general disruption 
than booty ,, But it can be assured that they will pilfer what they can, 
and kill/kidnap anyone they can get their hands on.
The train itself, along with its contents, would then be destroyed ,,, 
How many lorries do you think that would be worth ?

> 
>> The whole line will likely have to be heavily guarded, and advance 
>> patrols preceding every train, to check for breaks and potential 
>> ambushes.
>> Doesn't sound like the "right idea" to me, perhaps time will tell.
> 
> But would people do that in friendly (by Afghan standards) territory? 
> The people putting up the cash seem to think security isn't going to be 
> too much of a problem. This is in contrast to the south, where bad 
> things keep happening to the military supply chain from Pakistan. 
> Supplies already go in through the north, and the Germans hang out at 
> the destination.
> 
> Even if it needs an escort, a handful of easily controlled trains would 
> replace a whole lot of individual lorries.
> 
> The Khyber Pass is a far dodgier area, but the railway there more or 
> less survived from the 1920s until getting washed out.

Might be viable in a relatively pacified area, it is inevitable that the 
effort will receive a high priority challenge, and depending on whether 
that challenge is met effectively or not, it will then be known if the 
effort was worth it.
I'm inclined to think no, but obviously there are many relevant factors 
which neither you or I are aware of, which might increase, or dispel, my 
reservations if I knew them.

Jesse wrote:
> Arthur Figgis wrote:
>> Jesse wrote:
>>> Arthur Figgis wrote:
>>>> Jesse wrote:
>>>>> Arthur Figgis wrote:
>>>>>> This sounds the right idea:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601080&sid=a9ZiKtUA8Zbo
>>>>>> Afghanistan is building its first rail link with the help of the 
>>>>>> Asian Development Bank in a bid to improve trade and aid and 
>>>>>> undermine highway bandits helping to fund insurgents, including 
>>>>>> the Taliban.
>>>>>
>>>>> Rail lines are probably easier for bandits to interdict than roads.
>>>>
>>>> While you can break railways, it is a lot harder to nick a train 
>>>> than a lorry.
>>>
>>> I don't think bandits in Afghanistan will worry much about the train.
>>> They'll derail it, kill any survivors as needed,
>>
>> Derailment of a low speed train in the middle of nowhere is unlikely 
>> to kill anyone.
> 
> Not sure what speed it will be traveling,

I did see a figure, but can't find it again. Not especially fast, anyway.

> any derailment is going to be 
> hazardous for anyone in the train - Not to mention the varied terrain of 
> the country, which might involve a roll down an embankment.

Only if they get Hollywood in to do it.

>>> and pilfer whatever contents they can haul away.
>>
>> With road transport you don't even need to worry about hauling it 
>> away, you just take the whole lorry.
> 
> True, I think the goal would be more to wreak havoc & general disruption 
> than booty ,, But it can be assured that they will pilfer what they can, 
> and kill/kidnap anyone they can get their hands on.

So the same as before, except it is now it would be harder.

> The train itself, along with its contents, would then be destroyed ,,, 
> How many lorries do you think that would be worth ?

Can't find a figure, but they are talking double-stack containers, so 
lots of lorry loads. But harder to nick.

>>
>>> The whole line will likely have to be heavily guarded, and advance 
>>> patrols preceding every train, to check for breaks and potential 
>>> ambushes.
>>> Doesn't sound like the "right idea" to me, perhaps time will tell.
>>
>> But would people do that in friendly (by Afghan standards) territory? 
>> The people putting up the cash seem to think security isn't going to 
>> be too much of a problem. This is in contrast to the south, where bad 
>> things keep happening to the military supply chain from Pakistan. 
>> Supplies already go in through the north, and the Germans hang out at 
>> the destination.
>>
>> Even if it needs an escort, a handful of easily controlled trains 
>> would replace a whole lot of individual lorries.
>>
>> The Khyber Pass is a far dodgier area, but the railway there more or 
>> less survived from the 1920s until getting washed out.
> 
> Might be viable in a relatively pacified area, it is inevitable that the 
> effort will receive a high priority challenge, and depending on whether 
> that challenge is met effectively or not, it will then be known if the 
> effort was worth it.
> I'm inclined to think no, but obviously there are many relevant factors 
> which neither you or I are aware of, which might increase, or dispel, my 
> reservations if I knew them.

"Pacified"? Is the US so friendless it can't even cope with the concept 
of people being on the same side? (or at least having a common enemy!)

I'm sure the people on the ground know a lot more than we do.
-- 
Arthur Figgis               Surrey, UK

Arthur Figgis wrote:
> Jesse wrote:
>> Arthur Figgis wrote:
>>> Jesse wrote:
>>>> Arthur Figgis wrote:
>>>>> Jesse wrote:
>>>>>> Arthur Figgis wrote:
>>>>>>> This sounds the right idea:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601080&sid=a9ZiKtUA8Zbo
>>>>>>> Afghanistan is building its first rail link with the help of the 
>>>>>>> Asian Development Bank in a bid to improve trade and aid and 
>>>>>>> undermine highway bandits helping to fund insurgents, including 
>>>>>>> the Taliban.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Rail lines are probably easier for bandits to interdict than roads.
>>>>>
>>>>> While you can break railways, it is a lot harder to nick a train 
>>>>> than a lorry.
>>>>
>>>> I don't think bandits in Afghanistan will worry much about the train.
>>>> They'll derail it, kill any survivors as needed,
>>>
>>> Derailment of a low speed train in the middle of nowhere is unlikely 
>>> to kill anyone.
>>
>> Not sure what speed it will be traveling,
> 
> I did see a figure, but can't find it again. Not especially fast, anyway.
> 
>> any derailment is going to be hazardous for anyone in the train - Not 
>> to mention the varied terrain of the country, which might involve a 
>> roll down an embankment.
> 
> Only if they get Hollywood in to do it.

Could probably be arraigned ,,, But really, you are imagining a 50 mile 
stretch of railroad track in Afghanistan that is all flat as a board for 
miles around ?
It is very likely that ambush spots will be chosen due to the 
surrounding terrains ability
to wreck the train with the trains own momentum once it is derailed.

>>>> and pilfer whatever contents they can haul away.
>>>
>>> With road transport you don't even need to worry about hauling it 
>>> away, you just take the whole lorry.
>>
>> True, I think the goal would be more to wreak havoc & general 
>> disruption than booty ,, But it can be assured that they will pilfer 
>> what they can, and kill/kidnap anyone they can get their hands on.
> 
> So the same as before, except it is now it would be harder.

Hasn't changed a bit, I was merely further explaining that these actions 
are going to be done for the purpose of disruption - And pilfering will 
be secondary.
You are the one who brought up hauling away large loads, that will 
obviously be impracticable for the escaping bandits ,,, Who will most 
likely have airstrikes & helicopter borne rapid response troops to fully 
occupy their attention.

>> The train itself, along with its contents, would then be destroyed ,,, 
>> How many lorries do you think that would be worth ?
> 
> Can't find a figure, but they are talking double-stack containers, so 
> lots of lorry loads. But harder to nick.

Not familiar with this "nick" term, I presume that is to steal/plunder ?

> 
>>>
>>>> The whole line will likely have to be heavily guarded, and advance 
>>>> patrols preceding every train, to check for breaks and potential 
>>>> ambushes.
>>>> Doesn't sound like the "right idea" to me, perhaps time will tell.
>>>
>>> But would people do that in friendly (by Afghan standards) territory? 
>>> The people putting up the cash seem to think security isn't going to 
>>> be too much of a problem. This is in contrast to the south, where bad 
>>> things keep happening to the military supply chain from Pakistan. 
>>> Supplies already go in through the north, and the Germans hang out at 
>>> the destination.
>>>
>>> Even if it needs an escort, a handful of easily controlled trains 
>>> would replace a whole lot of individual lorries.
>>>
>>> The Khyber Pass is a far dodgier area, but the railway there more or 
>>> less survived from the 1920s until getting washed out.
>>
>> Might be viable in a relatively pacified area, it is inevitable that 
>> the effort will receive a high priority challenge, and depending on 
>> whether that challenge is met effectively or not, it will then be 
>> known if the effort was worth it.
>> I'm inclined to think no, but obviously there are many relevant 
>> factors which neither you or I are aware of, which might increase, or 
>> dispel, my reservations if I knew them.
> 
> "Pacified"? Is the US so friendless it can't even cope with the concept 
> of people being on the same side? (or at least having a common enemy!)

You were being realistic saying "friendly (by Afghan standards) 
territory", that is the same as "relatively pacified".

> I'm sure the people on the ground know a lot more than we do.

Exactly the point of my last sentences.
No doubt these complexities & challenges, and more, have been duly 
considered.
Provisions will be made to meet them, contingency plans laid out to 
handle unlikely, but possible, events ,, And we'll wait and see what 
happens after the 1st train derailment.
Blink, you might miss it, probably won't get much press coverage, if any.

Jesse wrote:
> Arthur Figgis wrote:
>> Jesse wrote:
>>> Arthur Figgis wrote:
>>>> Jesse wrote:
>>>>> Arthur Figgis wrote:
>>>>>> Jesse wrote:
>>>>>>> Arthur Figgis wrote:
>>>>>>>> This sounds the right idea:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601080&sid=a9ZiKtUA8Zbo
>>>>>>>> Afghanistan is building its first rail link with the help of the 
>>>>>>>> Asian Development Bank in a bid to improve trade and aid and 
>>>>>>>> undermine highway bandits helping to fund insurgents, including 
>>>>>>>> the Taliban.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Rail lines are probably easier for bandits to interdict than roads.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> While you can break railways, it is a lot harder to nick a train 
>>>>>> than a lorry.
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't think bandits in Afghanistan will worry much about the train.
>>>>> They'll derail it, kill any survivors as needed,
>>>>
>>>> Derailment of a low speed train in the middle of nowhere is unlikely 
>>>> to kill anyone.
>>>
>>> Not sure what speed it will be traveling,
>>
>> I did see a figure, but can't find it again. Not especially fast, anyway.
>>
>>> any derailment is going to be hazardous for anyone in the train - Not 
>>> to mention the varied terrain of the country, which might involve a 
>>> roll down an embankment.
>>
>> Only if they get Hollywood in to do it.
> 
> Could probably be arraigned ,,, But really, you are imagining a 50 mile 
> stretch of railroad track in Afghanistan that is all flat as a board for 
> miles around ?

That is my understanding, though I've not been to have a look (can't get 
there - no trains yet!). Google Earth shows the roads as straight which 
is generally a sign of flatness. 75 km of railway for $170m rather 
suggests it's not going to require much in the way of impressive 
engineering.

> It is very likely that ambush spots will be chosen due to the 
> surrounding terrains ability
> to wreck the train with the trains own momentum once it is derailed.

They tend to sink into the ballast and stop.

>>>>> and pilfer whatever contents they can haul away.
>>>>
>>>> With road transport you don't even need to worry about hauling it 
>>>> away, you just take the whole lorry.
>>>
>>> True, I think the goal would be more to wreak havoc & general 
>>> disruption than booty ,, But it can be assured that they will pilfer 
>>> what they can, and kill/kidnap anyone they can get their hands on.
>>
>> So the same as before, except it is now it would be harder.
> 
> Hasn't changed a bit, I was merely further explaining that these actions 
> are going to be done for the purpose of disruption - And pilfering will 
> be secondary.
> You are the one who brought up hauling away large loads, that will 
> obviously be impracticable for the escaping bandits ,,, Who will most 
> likely have airstrikes & helicopter borne rapid response troops to fully 
> occupy their attention.

Like when they pinched a road tanker of fuel a few weeks ago? Not a good 
PR move for anyone, that one.

>>> The train itself, along with its contents, would then be destroyed 
>>> ,,, How many lorries do you think that would be worth ?
>>
>> Can't find a figure, but they are talking double-stack containers, so 
>> lots of lorry loads. But harder to nick.
> 
> Not familiar with this "nick" term, I presume that is to steal/plunder ?

Yes.

>>
>>>>
>>>>> The whole line will likely have to be heavily guarded, and advance 
>>>>> patrols preceding every train, to check for breaks and potential 
>>>>> ambushes.
>>>>> Doesn't sound like the "right idea" to me, perhaps time will tell.
>>>>
>>>> But would people do that in friendly (by Afghan standards) 
>>>> territory? The people putting up the cash seem to think security 
>>>> isn't going to be too much of a problem. This is in contrast to the 
>>>> south, where bad things keep happening to the military supply chain 
>>>> from Pakistan. Supplies already go in through the north, and the 
>>>> Germans hang out at the destination.
>>>>
>>>> Even if it needs an escort, a handful of easily controlled trains 
>>>> would replace a whole lot of individual lorries.
>>>>
>>>> The Khyber Pass is a far dodgier area, but the railway there more or 
>>>> less survived from the 1920s until getting washed out.
>>>
>>> Might be viable in a relatively pacified area, it is inevitable that 
>>> the effort will receive a high priority challenge, and depending on 
>>> whether that challenge is met effectively or not, it will then be 
>>> known if the effort was worth it.
>>> I'm inclined to think no, but obviously there are many relevant 
>>> factors which neither you or I are aware of, which might increase, or 
>>> dispel, my reservations if I knew them.
>>
>> "Pacified"? Is the US so friendless it can't even cope with the 
>> concept of people being on the same side? (or at least having a common 
>> enemy!)
> 
> You were being realistic saying "friendly (by Afghan standards) 
> territory", that is the same as "relatively pacified".

I thought pacified generally implies the use or threat of force.  	

>> I'm sure the people on the ground know a lot more than we do.
> 
> Exactly the point of my last sentences.
> No doubt these complexities & challenges, and more, have been duly 
> considered.
> Provisions will be made to meet them, contingency plans laid out to 
> handle unlikely, but possible, events ,, And we'll wait and see what 
> happens after the 1st train derailment.

The maintenance team put it back on again. Happens all over the world 
every day on freight railways.

> Blink, you might miss it, probably won't get much press coverage, if any.

With all those Britons, Americans, Germans and maybe Japanese around the 
country I'm sure there will soon be local gen lists keeping track.

-- 
Arthur Figgis               Surrey, UK

Arthur Figgis wrote:
> Jesse wrote:
>> Arthur Figgis wrote:
>>> Jesse wrote:
>>>> Arthur Figgis wrote:
>>>>> Jesse wrote:
>>>>>> Arthur Figgis wrote:
>>>>>>> Jesse wrote:
>>>>>>>> Arthur Figgis wrote:
>>>>>>>>> This sounds the right idea:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601080&sid=a9ZiKtUA8Zbo
>>>>>>>>> Afghanistan is building its first rail link with the help of 
>>>>>>>>> the Asian Development Bank in a bid to improve trade and aid 
>>>>>>>>> and undermine highway bandits helping to fund insurgents, 
>>>>>>>>> including the Taliban.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Rail lines are probably easier for bandits to interdict than roads.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> While you can break railways, it is a lot harder to nick a train 
>>>>>>> than a lorry.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I don't think bandits in Afghanistan will worry much about the train.
>>>>>> They'll derail it, kill any survivors as needed,
>>>>>
>>>>> Derailment of a low speed train in the middle of nowhere is 
>>>>> unlikely to kill anyone.
>>>>
>>>> Not sure what speed it will be traveling,
>>>
>>> I did see a figure, but can't find it again. Not especially fast, 
>>> anyway.
>>>
>>>> any derailment is going to be hazardous for anyone in the train - 
>>>> Not to mention the varied terrain of the country, which might 
>>>> involve a roll down an embankment.
>>>
>>> Only if they get Hollywood in to do it.
>>
>> Could probably be arraigned ,,, But really, you are imagining a 50 
>> mile stretch of railroad track in Afghanistan that is all flat as a 
>> board for miles around ?
> 
> That is my understanding, though I've not been to have a look (can't get 
> there - no trains yet!). Google Earth shows the roads as straight which 
> is generally a sign of flatness. 75 km of railway for $170m rather 
> suggests it's not going to require much in the way of impressive 
> engineering.
> 
>> It is very likely that ambush spots will be chosen due to the 
>> surrounding terrains ability
>> to wreck the train with the trains own momentum once it is derailed.
> 
> They tend to sink into the ballast and stop.
> 
>>>>>> and pilfer whatever contents they can haul away.
>>>>>
>>>>> With road transport you don't even need to worry about hauling it 
>>>>> away, you just take the whole lorry.
>>>>
>>>> True, I think the goal would be more to wreak havoc & general 
>>>> disruption than booty ,, But it can be assured that they will pilfer 
>>>> what they can, and kill/kidnap anyone they can get their hands on.
>>>
>>> So the same as before, except it is now it would be harder.
>>
>> Hasn't changed a bit, I was merely further explaining that these 
>> actions are going to be done for the purpose of disruption - And 
>> pilfering will be secondary.
>> You are the one who brought up hauling away large loads, that will 
>> obviously be impracticable for the escaping bandits ,,, Who will most 
>> likely have airstrikes & helicopter borne rapid response troops to 
>> fully occupy their attention.
> 
> Like when they pinched a road tanker of fuel a few weeks ago? Not a good 
> PR move for anyone, that one.
> 
>>>> The train itself, along with its contents, would then be destroyed 
>>>> ,,, How many lorries do you think that would be worth ?
>>>
>>> Can't find a figure, but they are talking double-stack containers, so 
>>> lots of lorry loads. But harder to nick.
>>
>> Not familiar with this "nick" term, I presume that is to steal/plunder ?
> 
> Yes.
> 
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> The whole line will likely have to be heavily guarded, and advance 
>>>>>> patrols preceding every train, to check for breaks and potential 
>>>>>> ambushes.
>>>>>> Doesn't sound like the "right idea" to me, perhaps time will tell.
>>>>>
>>>>> But would people do that in friendly (by Afghan standards) 
>>>>> territory? The people putting up the cash seem to think security 
>>>>> isn't going to be too much of a problem. This is in contrast to the 
>>>>> south, where bad things keep happening to the military supply chain 
>>>>> from Pakistan. Supplies already go in through the north, and the 
>>>>> Germans hang out at the destination.
>>>>>
>>>>> Even if it needs an escort, a handful of easily controlled trains 
>>>>> would replace a whole lot of individual lorries.
>>>>>
>>>>> The Khyber Pass is a far dodgier area, but the railway there more 
>>>>> or less survived from the 1920s until getting washed out.
>>>>
>>>> Might be viable in a relatively pacified area, it is inevitable that 
>>>> the effort will receive a high priority challenge, and depending on 
>>>> whether that challenge is met effectively or not, it will then be 
>>>> known if the effort was worth it.
>>>> I'm inclined to think no, but obviously there are many relevant 
>>>> factors which neither you or I are aware of, which might increase, 
>>>> or dispel, my reservations if I knew them.
>>>
>>> "Pacified"? Is the US so friendless it can't even cope with the 
>>> concept of people being on the same side? (or at least having a 
>>> common enemy!)
>>
>> You were being realistic saying "friendly (by Afghan standards) 
>> territory", that is the same as "relatively pacified".
> 
> I thought pacified generally implies the use or threat of force.     
> 
>>> I'm sure the people on the ground know a lot more than we do.
>>
>> Exactly the point of my last sentences.
>> No doubt these complexities & challenges, and more, have been duly 
>> considered.
>> Provisions will be made to meet them, contingency plans laid out to 
>> handle unlikely, but possible, events ,, And we'll wait and see what 
>> happens after the 1st train derailment.
> 
> The maintenance team put it back on again. Happens all over the world 
> every day on freight railways.
> 
>> Blink, you might miss it, probably won't get much press coverage, if any.
> 
> With all those Britons, Americans, Germans and maybe Japanese around the 
> country I'm sure there will soon be local gen lists keeping track.
> 

Lets put it this way - WHO CARES ?

Jesse wrote:

> Lets put it this way - WHO CARES ?

People with nowt better to do than reply five days later?

-- 
Arthur Figgis               Surrey, UK