Speed and safety don’t go together in railways
The combination is not achievable with the existing number of trains. Commission of Railway Safety lacks the power to place a premium on safety
Consider the Tundla Junction (TDL) and Kanpur Central (CNB) stretch. Via Etawah, this is a 231km stretch and the most obvious and natural route. Of course, a train can do this stretch via Shikohabad and Farrukhabad and increase the distance to 282 km. But that alternative route will not affect the argument I will make, since there is no alternative to the Tundla-Shikohabad segment. How many trains are there between Tundla and Kanpur Central? Around 70 and almost all of them are long-distance. Indeed, more than one-third are superfast. The Indian Railways (IR) timetable says there are only two unreserved trains along this stretch — 15270 Ahmedabad-Muzaffarnagar Jan Sadharan Express and 64588 TundlaKanpur MEMU (mainline electric multiple unit). The latter covers the distance of 231 km in six hours and 20 minutes. I find this MEMU odd. Today, DEMUs (diesel electric multiple unit), EMUs (electric multiple unit) and MEMUs don’t have toilets. It doesn’t matter for EMUs and in future, new DEMUs and MEMUs might have toilets. But today, they don’t and the number is perhaps around 235 for DEMUs and 1,600 for MEMUs. As far as I understand, IR has assured the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) no train without toilets will run for more than four hours or more than 160 km. That’s the reason 64588 MEMU is odd. Of course, before NHRC, IR has also argued if a DEMU/MEMU stops somewhere between origin and destination for more than 30 minutes, a toilet isn’t necessary. The maximum halt for 64588 is six minutes, in Phaphund.
There is a chain-linked MEMU that is longer still, with 435 km and a travel time of 10 hours and 35 minutes. You do 64152 Delhi-Aligarh MEMU, followed by 64154 Aligarh-Tundla MEMU, 64158 Tundla-Etawah MEMU and 64156 Etawah-Kanpur MEMU. Timings are such that if one train is late, you might miss the next one. However, since this is a chain-linked MEMU, I suspect the subsequent train waits for passengers from the preceding one. Note that at each intermediate station, the buffer is around 30 minutes, just enough to satisfy the toilet criterion. Beginning with midnight, look at the timetable between TDL and CNB. One train after another leaving Tundla for Kanpur Central, often at the same time. I looked for a window in Tundla of at least two hours; I could find none. I picked Tundla and Kanpur Central because this is one of the busiest stretches of IR’s network, more so if you consider Delhi-TundlaKanpur. Tundla is also a technical halt and several trains change drivers and guards there. Every day, almost 120 trains halt in Tundla, eight originate and eight terminate. The number of trains that halt, pass through, originate or terminate in Kanpur Central is roughly double that in Tundla. This is an extremely congested section.
Numbers already cited convey an imperfect impression of how congested this section is, since those numbers are only about passenger trains, not goods trains. Not long ago, the Kalindi Express collided with a goods train in Tundla and derailed. Had it not been travelling at a slow speed while entering Tundla, the consequences would have been disastrous. Since goods trains aren’t timetabled, people outside the IR system don’t know how many goods trains cover the TDL-CNB stretch. Kanpur being a major freight hub, there must be several trains. Hence, that two-hour window is impossible.
A block is a part of the track (technically, a series of sections) and for preventive maintenance, a block has to remain free for two hours. I don’t see how that two hours can be found for the blocks between Tundla and Kanpur. IR recently announced, “It has also been decided that wherever margins between the trains are not adequate, the required corridor block/slot shall be provided by necessary rescheduling of trains and a minimum of three-hour maintenance block shall be ensured even by regulating mail/express trains or short terminating passenger trains, in each section where asset maintenance works are scheduled.” Unfortunately, we have been down this road before. For example, on March 11, 1998, a letter was sent to all general managers by member (traffic) asking them to identify four hours at a stretch per block (or two separate slots of two and a half hours each) before drawing up timetables.
This was clearly not implemented and the reason has to do with IR’s silo system. The engineering department wants to free blocks for maintenance. But the operating department wants to push in more and more trains, because that’s good for revenue. If you look at IR data on accidents, you will find most accidents happen because of “failure other than railway staff”, meaning level crossings. The engineering directorate figures next, meaning derailments. Ideally, timetables should be drawn up afresh, with zero-based scheduling of trains and a maintenance requirement of two and a half hours, if not three hours. On roads, we are familiar with signs that say “speed thrills, but kills”. It is no different for rail. We can’t have safety (until capacity constraints ease) and speed at the same time, not with the present number of trains. If we were to scrap and merge trains, that would be a different matter. But with the present composition of the Railway Board, can you visualise member (traffic) agreeing to what member (engineering) wants? Under the Railways Act, the Commission of Railway Safety (CRS) doesn’t possess the powers required to place that kind of premium on safety. Perhaps, that’s the reason there is talk about a new and independent safety authority.