Official

Use

Kazakhstan
Ex-post Monitoring of Completed ODA Loan Project“Railway Transport Capacity Development Project”
External Evaluator: Naomi Murayama(OPMAC Corporation)
Field Survey: Sep.-Oct., 20091.

Project Description

Map of the project area

Almaty Passenger Coach Repair Plant

1.1 Project Objective
The objective of this project was 1) to rehabilitate the track on the Aktogay – Druzhba
route, which links the Kazakhstan and China railway systems, as well as to change the route, 2)
to increase the trans-shipment capacity of Druzhba Station on the Kazakh – China border, and 3)
to build a new railway-carriage repair plant at Almaty. This was to be achieved by a) increasingtransport capacity and improving safety on the route, 2) responding to an increased demand forpassenger transport, and 3) strengthening the deficient rolling stock repair and maintenancecapacity, enhancing safety, and thereby contributing to the trade promotion and to economic
development in Kazakhstan.
1.2 Outline of the Loan Agreement
Loan Amount/Disbursed Amount

7,236 million yen / 7,157 million yen

Loan Agreement/Final Disbursement Date

Dec.1995 / May 2001

Ex-post Evaluation
Executing Agency

FY 2003
Republic of Kazakhstan /Kazakhstan Temir
Zholy (KTZ)

Main Contractor

Chori (Japan)

Main Consultant

Japan Railway Technical Service (Japan)

1

Only

1.3 Background of Ex-post Monitoring
At the time of the ex-post evaluation, passenger turnover was at a lower level than that at
the commencement of the project. The operation rate of the Almaty Passenger Coach Repair
Plant, hereafter ACRP, also remained low, with repair performance falling far short of design
capacity, especially in respect of depot repairs. Thus, issues related to effectiveness could beclearly seen. There were also concerns that some of the equipment procured under the project
were in a poor state, having neither guarantees nor instruction manuals, and that the policies of
the Kazakhstan government had the potential to impact on the sustainability of the project byseparating the most profitable cargo traffic division from the secondary passenger traffic
division under railway sector restructuring.
Therefore, this project was selected for ex-post monitoring and each criterion was reviewed
with the findings from the field survey and other research activities. The conclusion was thendrawn.

2.

Monitoring Results

2.1 Effectiveness (Impact)
Passenger turnover, which had remained at a lower level than at the commencement of the
project, increased little by little until it recovered the same level as at commencement. ACRP,
which was failing to meet performance targets, remained much below design capacity. However,a number of relatively major repairs have been reported, while it had no record of major repairs
at the time of the ex-post evaluation.
2.1.1 Current Facilities Operating Conditions and Effectiveness(1) Strengthening Rail Transport Capacity
Figure 1 shows passenger turnover on the Almaty-Aktogay-Druzhba route (the former Almaty
route) between 1995 and 2008; cargo turnover for the same period is presented in Figure 2.

2

Unit: billion man - km
6
5
4
3
2
1
0

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

Passenger turnover 5.12

5.57

5.25

4.37

3.48

4.03

4.14

4.08

4.03

4.48

4.53

4.98

5.20

5.26

(billion man-km)

Source: KTZ

Figure 1: Passenger turnover on the former Almaty route
Unit: billion ton - km
60
50
40
30
20
10
0

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

Cargo Turnover 31.5

30.3

26.1

25.0

22.7

29.9

33.2

34.1

39.6

43.5

43.6

49.0

53.3

55.7

(billion ton-km)

Source: KTZ

Figure 2: Cargo turnover on the former Almaty route
Passenger turnover was lowest in 1999 and at the time of the ex-post evaluation itremained at around 4 billion man-kilometers level. Since 2003, however, it has gradually
increased recovering the same level as at commencement. Cargo turnover has increased
considerably, due to the activization of trade between Kazakhstan and China.

3

Table 1: Passenger and Cargo Trains on the Aktogay-Druzhba route 1 (2003-2008)
Unit: train/week

Number of passenger services

2

Number of cargo services

2003

16

58

2004

16

119

2005

16

145

2006

16

169

2007

16

156

2008

18

170

Source: KTZ

The number of passenger train services and the number of cargo train services are shown in.
Table 1. The former has been stable since the time of the ex-post evaluation, 2003 to 2007, but a
new service between Astana and Urumqi started on May 27, 2008. Since then, the number has
become eighteen per week. On the other hand, the number of cargo train services has been
increasing year after year together with the activization of trade between Kazakhstan and China.
Table 2: Journey Times on the Aktogay-Druzhba 3
Unit: hour: minute

Aktogay-Druzhba route
Regular services

Express services

Cargo services

2003

8:24

6:18

8:02

2004

8:24

6:12

8:28

2005

8:24

6:01

8:45

2006

8:20

6:01

8:12

2007

7:20

6:01

8:00

2008

6:00

5:41

7:57

Source: KTZ

Following the ex-post evaluation, the required time of passenger services (regular services
and express services) as well as cargo services has reduced year to year (Table 2). For instance,
the required time for regular passenger services in 2008 had reduced by 26 % from that in 2003.
According to a person in charge at KTZ, the top speed of cargo rail services has improved from60 km/h to 80 km/h through re-routing and the improvement of communication equipment
under the project as well as by track rehabilitation carried out by their separate funds in 2007.
1

The number of railway services includes both the number of services from Aktogay to Druzhba and from Druzhba
to Aktogay.
2Services between Aktogay and Druzhba have been provided by JSC Passenger Transportation since 2007. JSC
Passenger Transportation is a sister company established in 2002 as a division of the national railway of Kazakhstan.
3
As the data provided by KTZ is significantly different to the data at the time of the ex-post evaluation, there is nocomparison with figures predating the ex-post evaluation in this report. The data in this table illustrates the required
time shown in the timetable and it is not necessarily consistent with the actual service time.

4

Table 3: Number of accidents on the Almaty Railway Route (2003-2008) 4
Unit: caseNumber ofderailments

Number of
fatalities

Number of
breakdowns

Total number ofaccidents

2003

6

0

0

115

2004

3

2

0

101

2005

4

0

1

103

2006

3

1

0

77

2007

6

0

0

67

2008

2

1

0

73

Source: KTZ

The total number of accidents has continuously decreased. KTZ highly appreciates the
improvement of safety of train services through re-routing. From the number of derailments andfatalities seen in Table 3, however, a causal link between the improvement in safety and theimplementation of the project cannot be confirmed.
Unit: train
Delayed Train 4,000
3,500
3,000
2,500
2,000
1,500
1,000
500
0

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

Almaty route total

1,367

3,209

3,393

2,165

2,716

2,939

1,429

1,264

625

1,567

Almaty －Druzhba

216

408

510

387

498

416

242

206

128

247

Source: KTZ

Figure 3: Number of delayed trains
According to KTZ, there was no record of cancellations on any of the Almaty Railway
Routes or on the Almaty-Aktogay-Druzhba route between 1999 and 2008. Figures for delays areshown in Figure 3. However, a causal linkage between the number of delays and orcancellations and the implementation of the project cannot be confirmed.
4

The total number of accidents at the time of the ex-post evaluation included derailments, fatalities, breakdowns andthefts. However, the data provided by KTZ included 31 kinds of accidents including derailments, breakdowns,
accidents during maintenance etc. (it did not include fatalities and thefts.)

5

(2) Trans-shipment Capacity of Druzhba Station
Table 4 shows the annual trans-shipment performance of workshops No. 2 and No. 3 at
Druzhba Station where forklifts procured by the project are located together with trans-shipment
times per cargo train.
Table 4: Forklift Trans-shipment capacity and performance at Druzhba Station (2003-2008) 5
Annual trans-shipments

Trans-shipment time per cargo train(Unit: thousand ton)

(Unit: hour: minute)

2003

220.7

32:09

2004

295.8

24:03

2005

371.8

19:05

2006

762.1

9:19

2007

1,292.8

5:29

2008

1,399.1

5:05

Source: KTZ

The annual trans-shipment performance at Druzhba station has increased since 2003
together with the activization of trade between Kazakhstan and China, as shown in Figure 2.
Trans-shipment time per cargo train has decreased substantially since 2003. According to KTZ,
trans-shipment time was reduced by less than one sixth, despite a 6.3 times increase in cargovolume. This was because it was no longer necessary to do the work manually thanks to theintroduction of forklifts procured under the project. From this standpoint, the efficiency of the
project can be confirmed.
(3) Improved Railway Carriage Repair Capacity
Table 5 illustrates the repair performance of ACRP from 2003 to 2008 and Figure 4 shows
a comparison of the design capacity 6 with repair performance during the same period.
At the ex-post evaluation, the KR-1 rate was 10-69 % and KR-2 rate was 0% incomparison with the planned design capacity at the time of appraisal (KR-1: 300 carriages per
year, KR-2: 70 carriages per year). Since 2003, the plant has had a better record, for example theKR-2 rate is 0-21 carriages. Moreover, there are records of major repairs such as Capital Repairs
with Lifespan Expansion (KRPS) and Capital Repairs and Renewal (KVR) for the last three
years. However, orders for dept repairs and KR-1 have been decreasing for the last several
years.
5

The trans-shipment performance in this table includes performance not only of forklifts procured under the project
but also of other forklifts procured by KTZ out of their own funds, together with manual works. As the data provided
by KTZ is significantly different to the data at the time of the ex-post evaluation and it can be considered to haveadopted different base, there is no comparison with figures pre-dating the ex-post evaluation in this report. For
example, the annual trans-shipments performance in 2002 was 800 thousands ton and the trans-shipment time percargo train in the same year was 9 hours in the ex-post evaluation report.
6
There is a plan for the plant to start to assemble new coaches from 2010 and at the time of the ex-post monitoring,
this is in a preparatory stage. However, the design capacity shown in Figure 4 is consistently the design capacity atcompletion of the project.

6

Table 5: Repair Performance of ACRP (2003-2008)
Unit: carriage

Depot Repair
KR1 (scheduled repairs per 5 years)
KR2 (scheduled repairs in 20 years)
KRPS 7 (Capital repairs with lifespan expansion)
KVR 8 (Capital repairs and renewal)
Total

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
606
444
313
393
443
334
73
125
162
70
45
62
5
17
0
0
16
21
0
14
0
25
0
15
4
0
0
5
30
8
688
600
475
493
534
440

Source: KTZ

Depot Repairs

Total
1,000

1,200
900

606

800

688

600

600

493

475

534

440

400

300

200

0

0
Performance

Design Capacity

125

150
100

Design Capacity

40
70

45

30

62

20

50

10

0

0
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
Performance

334

50

162

73

443

KR-2

KR-1
200

393

313

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 20082003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
Performance

444

600

17
5

16
0

21

0

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

Design Capacity

Performance

Design Capacity

KRE/KVR
50
40
30
14

20
10
0

30

25

15
5

4

8

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

KRE Performance

KVR Performance

Design Capacity

Source: Based on documents provided by KTZ

Figure 4: Comparison of Design Capacity and Repair Performance
7

KPRS (Capital Repairs with Extension of Lifespan) is executed in volumes of KR-1 or KR-2 depending on thetechnical conditions of the carriages. These are undertaken 28 years after coach construction.
8
KVR (Capital Repair and Renewal) is repair of carriages using restored existing parts of the body and wheels, therehabilitation of internal equipment, the improvement of interiors and scheduled repairs executed in accordance withthe requirements of technological normative documents. These are undertaken not earlier than 20 years after
construction.

7

2.1.2 Results of Economic Internal Rate of Return
Due to the fact that the EIRR was not calculated and the benefit was not clearly set at thetime of appraisal and the ex-post evaluation, a comparison cannot be made.
2.1.3 Impact(1) Expanded Kazakhstan-China Trade and Rail Traffic Volumes
Figure 5 shows trade values between Kazakhstan and China from 2002 to 2008. Figure 6
illustrates trade volumes between Kazakhstan and China via Druzhba Station during the same
period.
Unit: billion USD
20

15

10

5

0
Trade Values

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

1.96

3.29

4.50

6.80

8.36

12.00

17.50

Source: KTZ

Figure 5: Trade Values between Kazakhstan and China
Unit: million ton
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
Trade Volumes

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

5.8

7.5

9.3

11.1

13.1

12.0

12.6

Source: KTZ

Figure 6: Trade Volumes between Kazakhstan and China (via Druzhba Station)8

Trade values have been steadily rising since 2002. The volume in 2008 had increased 1.68
times compared to the volume at the time of the ex-post evaluation in 2003, although there had
been stagnation since 2006. According to staff at Druzhba station, the trade volume from China
had decreased especially after 2008 due to the world economic crisis. Meanwhile, the“Transport Strategy of the Republic of Kazakhstan to 2015”(approved in 2006) aims to expand
transit trade as Kazakhstan is located at a key trading junction between Asia and Europe. Since
the only gateway for Asian railway trade is Druzhba station and as the railway cargo turnover
greatly exceeds the road cargo turnover (as indicated in Figure 7), the strategy is to develop
railway transportation and Druzhba station in order to attain the goal of expanded transit trade.
The target volume of trade through Druzhba station for 2015 is 25 million tons.
Unit: billion ton-km
250
200
150
100
50
0

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

Railway

149.62

164.69174.62194.62206.30217.42

Road

40.20

43.90

47.10

53.80

61.50

63.50

Source: KTZ

Figure 7: Rail and Road Cargo Turnover (nationwide)

Unit: million people
20
15
10
5
0

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

KTZ

14.9

13.9

13.9

14.3

17.7

14.1

13.5

Former Almaty route

4.1

3.8

4.2

4.3

4.5

4.5

4.5

Source: KTZ

Figure 8: Number of passengers using KTZ and Almaty Railway routes

9Unit: thousand people
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Passengers
from Druzhba St.

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

22.30

20.30

26.00

26.00

20.30

17.50

17.70

Source: KTZ

Figure 9: Number of Passengers using Druzhba Station on the Kazakh-China border

The number of passengers, as shown in Figure 8, has remained stagnant. While the numberof passengers using Druzhba station 9 increased temporarily in 2004 and 2005, there is now a
declining trend.
(2) Environmental and Social Impact
At the time of the ex-post evaluation, no problems had been reported in connection withthe land acquisition and involuntary resettlement components of this project. According to KTZ,
there is also no negative environmental impact. KTZ agreed that the construction of the detour
around Lake Alakol has contributed to the alleviation of pollution risks which would be present
when the train passed over the lake.
2.2 Sustainability
At the time of the ex-post evaluation, there was inadequate management of someequipment procured under the project because some guarantees and instruction manuals were
missing. This problem has now been solved by requesting them from suppliers. There wereconcerns that the policy of the Kazakhstan government had the potential to impact on thesustainability of the project through the separation of the most profitable cargo traffic divisionfrom the secondary passenger traffic division under railway sector restructuring. In fact, this has
had no effect on sustainability from the view point of operation and maintenance since KTZ
subsidizes the passenger traffic division.
2.2.1 Operation and Maintenance Agency
9

At the time of the ex-post monitoring, the number of users at Druzhba station was the total number of passengers
boarding a train at the station.

10

2.2.1.1 Structural aspects of Operation and Maintenance
The organization of operation and maintenance is as follows:
1) Tracks in the project area: KTZ Department of Mainline Network
2) Communication equipment: KTZ Department of Communication
3) Trans-shipment workshop at Druzhba station: KTZ Directorate of Transportation
Process, Kaztransservice 104) Trans-shipment work: Kaztransservice、Kedentransservice 115) Almaty Passenger Coach Repair Plant: Almaty Passenger Coach Repair Plant 12
Trans-shipment work has been contracted out to the above two companies since 2005 andforklifts procured under the project have been also leased out to Kedentransservice for the longterm.
2.2.1.2 Technical aspects of Operation and MaintenanceAt the time of the ex-post evaluation, the following three problems with operation andmaintenance were indicated; 1) inadequate management of some equipment, 2) lack of skilled
engineers, and 3) delays in the supply of spare parts. These problems were confirmed at ACRP
in the site survey.
Regarding missing guarantees and instruction manuals, ACRP requested that they beprovided from suppliers. This has been achieved and now there are no problems with equipment
operation.
As for the lack of skilled engineers, ACRP has made efforts to enhance external training 13
and training courses at the plant and to improve the work environment for engineers and otherspecialists who take training courses. ACRP provides the following kinds of training courses:
four months intensive training targeting people who did not graduate from vocational school;
training courses for new recruits; annual or quarterly training programs for specialists; lecture
courses called “Academic Hours” held every Friday, and basic training courses through on the
job training (OJT). At the end of annual or quarterly training programs for specialists, tests are
implemented by the Examination Committee, and the results of these are reflected in staff
grades and salaries. There is therefore an incentive for specialists to improve their skills. As a10

A KTZ sister company responsible for trans-shipment.
A private company providing similar services to Kaztransservice.
12
KTZ has owned 100% of the shares of ACRP since September, 2009. Before that, KTZ and JSC Passenger
Transportation owned a 50 % share each. According representatives of the plant, KTZ took 100 % ownership in orderto strengthen repair capacity.
13
Staff have participated in the following training courses held in the Ukraine, Russia, Egypt and elsewhere since
2006:
2006: Courses for managers of metallurgical services (responsible for measurements) 2007: Principles of functioning
and improvement of integrated enterprise management systems; Introduction to and understanding of ISO compliant
quality management systems; Development of Enterprise QMS, the European experience of improvement;,
Regulation of state procurement; Labor protection and labor safety 2008: Labor protection and labor safety;
Regulation of state procurement; Technology for the assembly of passenger coaches
1111result of the implementation of systematic and continuous training courses like those describedabove, problems with the technical aspects of repair works have been solved. However,according to a skilled engineer who is in charge of lectures, at present there is only one chiefengineer who can teach repair techniques. From the view point of sustainability therefore,
training for trainers is an urgent issue.
The number of staff at ACRP is shown in Table 6 14 .
Table 6: Number of staff at ACRP
Unit: person

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

Executives

4

4

4

4

4

4

Administration

29

27

31

30

30

30

Engineers

129

95

83

86

88

91

Other specialists

892

731

544

597

645

698

1,054

857

662

717

767

823

Total
Source: KTZ

The problem of delays in spare parts supply has been solved since 2005 through by-passing
the complicated procurement process. An electric inventory system has also been introduced,
which not only reviews stock every three months, but also procures in accordance with anannual schedule for use.
2.2.1.3 Financial aspects of Operation and Maintenance
KTZ has compiled consolidated financial statements based on international accounting
standards since 2002 (Table 7、Table 9). Besides these, separate financial statements (Table 8、Table 10) have been compiled since 2004.
Table 7: consolidated income statements

Table 8: KTZ separate income statements

Unit: million USD
Revenue
Operatingincome/loss
Net income/loss

2004
1,886

2005
2,140

2006
3,034

2007
3,466

2008
4,021

-92

-62

368

367

405

-93

-129

178

209

531

Unit: million USD
Revenue
Operatingincome/loss
Net income/loss

Source: KTZ

2004
1,720

2005
1,879

2006
2,644

2007
2,993

2008
3,543

-65

380

291

221

225

-79

-66

142

116

347

Source: KTZ

Table 9: consolidated balance sheets

Table 10: KTZ separate balance sheets

14

The number of engineers and other specialists in 2008 was less than in 2003. According to ACRP, this was theresult of layoffs in response to order decrees.

12Fixed assets
Current assets
Total assets
Long-term
debts
Current
liabilities
Total
liabilities
Total liabilities
and equity

Unit: million USD

Unit: million USD

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
4,210 4,412 5,076 5,772 6,452
763
609 1,231 1,346 1,224
4,974 5,021 6,307 7,118 7,676

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
3,170 3,264 3,552 3,953 4,288
1,697 1,660 2,485 2,716 2,548
4,868 4,924 6,037 6,669 6,836
283
333
899
962
792

409

407

1,437

1597

1,463

457

760

549

678

882

866

1,167

1,986

2,275

2,345

4,974

5,021

6,307

7,118

7,676

Fixed assets
Current assets
Total assets
Long-term
debts
Current
liabilities
Total
liabilities
Total liabilities
and equity

Source: KTZ

442

632

715

840

866

725

965

1,614

1,802

1,657

4,868

4,924

6,037

6,669

6,836

Source: KTZ

Table 11: Analysis of consolidated financial
statements

Table 12: Analysis of KTZ separate financial
statements

Unit: ％

Unit: ％

ROA

2004
-1.87

2005
-2.57

2006
2.82

2007
2.94

2008
6.92

ROA

Liability ratio

17.41

23.24

31.49

31.96

30.55

Liability ratio

Current ratio 166.96

2004
-1.62

2005
-1.34

2006
2.35

2007
1.74

2008
5.08

14.89 19.60 26.74 27.02 24.24
Current ratio 383.94 262.66 347.55 323.33 294.23

80.13 224.23 198.53 138.78

Source: KTZ

Source: KTZ

At the time of the ex-post evaluation, it was concluded that KTZ had been posting steadyincreases in operating income and profits and, on the basis of analysis of the financial
statements from 1999 to 2002, was a financially viable operation. According to analysis of theconsolidated and separate financial statements for the last five years, Return on Assets (ROA)
has been improving and the liability ratio (total liabilities/ total assets) and the current ratio(current assets/ current liabilities) are sound. No problems have been observed in profit
performance and financial stability.
At the time of the ex-post evaluation, it was pointed out that the policy of the Kazakhstan
government had the potential to impact on the sustainability of the project and thus it would benecessary to keep a close eye on the direction taken by reforms. According to KTZ however,there has been no effect on sustainability from the view point of operation and maintenance as
KTZ subsidize the passenger traffic division.
2.2.2 Current status of Operation and MaintenanceDuring the ex-post monitoring, a site survey was conducted around Lake Alakol (thedetour route), Aktogay station (for communication equipment), Druzhba station (trans-shipment
equipment) and ACRP. The current status of facilities and equipment procured under the project
was verified there.
The detour route is maintained well without inundation and no problems have been
observed.
Under the project, commutation cables between Aktogay and Druzhba were improved. The

13

department of communication at Aktogay station is responsible for operation and maintenancefor these and according to the department, operation and maintenance is carried out using
special equipment procured by the project. There are no major problems or breakdowns.
Communication equipment has been replaced with optical fiber communication cables from thisOctober and consequently equipment procured under the project will be used as back-up.
Eighteen forklifts were procured for Druzhba station. However, at the completion of the
project, as the trans-shipment volume at the station was lower than originally thought, some ofthose equipments were transferred to other stations 15 . There are currently eight forklifts (of 1.5
tones) and one forklift (of 40 tones) at Druzhba station. These forklifts are leased out to
Kedentransservis following a revision of the KTZ scope of work in 2005. According to
Kedentransservis, the leased forklifts are presently not in use due to heavy use in the past andbecause 10 years has passed since procurement 16 .
With respect to ACRP, at present, all problems have been solved and there is no problem
with operation and maintenance.

3.

Conclusion, Lessons Learned and Recommendations

3.1 Conclusion
Passenger turnover, although at a lower level at the time of the ex-post evaluation than atcommencement, has increased little by little and has now reached the same level as thecommencement level. The delays in spare parts supply at ACRP have been solved through direct
procurement.

ACRP engineer capacity is no longer a problem due to the implementation ofsystematic training for engineers and other specialists.
The trade volume between Kazakhstan and China increased up to 2008. In accordance with
this, cargo volume also increased considerably. It can be seen that the project has contributed tothe trade promotion by the increase in the volume of trans-shipments at Druzhba station and the
reduction in trans-shipment time. It is, however, necessary to pay special attention to changes intrade volume, especially decreases, due to the influence of the world economic crisis.
3.2 Lessons Learned
None.

3.3 Recommendations
15

Stations where forklifts procured under the project are located: (not including Druzhba station) :1.5 ton forklifts: Pavlodar station, Aktybinsk station, Zhinishke station, Astana station (1 each), Almaty station (3)20 ton forklifts: Chimkent station (2)16KTZ does not plan to repair the forklifts as it is considered more reasonable to purchase new ones than to fix thepresent ones.

14

[To the Executing Agency]
・ Some data collected in the site survey contained different figures and definitions to thatcollected at the time of the ex-post evaluation. For example, data on trans-shipment
performance and times at Druzhba station is required for monitoring the effectiveness ofthe project. Therefore, it is desirable that a system is established whereby records are
kept using the same definitions, not only for monitoring the effectiveness of the project
but also for utilizing the data in daily operations.
・ At the ex-post evaluation, problems were found in the technical level of engineers at
ACRP. However, thanks to systematic and continuous training,, the level of engineers
and other specialists has been raised. Nevertheless, a lack of engineers to train successors
remains a problem. From the view point of sustainability, training for trainers is anurgent issue. It is desirable to train trainers for full sustainability after the projectcompletion.
End

15

Comparison of the Original and Actual Scope
Item
1. Project Outputs- Track rehabilitation(Replacement of rails/sleepers,etc.)- Construction of alternate route

Original
Beskol – Druzhba: 150km
Concrete sleepers

ActualAs planned
Wooden sleepers

Lake Alakol area:
Lake Alakol area: 26.98km
approx. 22km

- Communications equipment
Aktogay-Druzhba:
As planned
improvements
approx.300km(Installation of undergroundcables, replacement of
telephone switching equipment,etc.)- Procurement of forklift trucks & Druzhba Station
other cargo transit equipment
1.5-ton forklift trucks: 15
30-ton forklift trucks: 3
0.5-ton cranes: 2

Druzhba Station
1.5-ton forklift trucks: 15
30-ton forklift trucks: 2
40-ton forklift trucks: 1

Annual transit capacity:- Construction of railway-carriage Annual transit capacity:
1.025 mill. tons
repair plant
1.135 mill. tons
Almaty railway-carriage
repair plant (20,000m 2 )- Consulting services

As planned

Foreign consultants: 30M/M Foreign consultants: 20M/M
Local consultants: 318M/M Local consultants: 400M/M

2. Project Period
Track rehabilitation

July 1996- June 2000

June 1997- Dec.1999

Alternate route construction

July 1996- June 2000

June 1997- Dec.1999

Communications equipment
improvements

July 1996- Jan. 1998

June 1997- Dec.1999

Trans-shipment equipment
procurement

July 1996- Jan. 1998

June 1997- Jan. 1998

Construction of new
railway-carriage repair plant

July 1996- June 2000

June 1997- Dec. 2001

Consulting services

Jan. 1996- June 2000

Mar. 1996- Apr. 2001

Foreign currency

4,313 million yen

7,157 million yen

Local currency

5,336 million yen

2,388 million yen

Total

9,649 million yen

9,545 million yen

Japanese ODA loan portion

7,236 million yen

7,157 million yen

USD 1＝ 106.25 yen

KZT 1 ＝ 1.61 yen(March 1994)(December 1996)

3. Project Cost

Exchange rate

16