ERC Supply Crisis: When Steel Producers Themselves Raise Red Flags, Why Is RDSO Refusing To Revisit Its Technical Norms?
RINL & JSPL reportedly submitted written objections to mandatory 100% MPI testing and 1.5 PPM hydrogen limit; RDSO maintained its position despite the industry’s warning of an impending railway supply crisis
#Railwhispers Special: The growing crisis in the availability of 23 mm Grade 55Si7 spring steel rounds, the principal raw material for manufacturing Elastic Rail Clips (ERC MK-V), has now raised serious questions about the technical decision-making and accountability within the railway’s specification and procurement framework.
At a meeting held on 3 November, 2026 with ERC manufacturers, ED-TK-III, RDSO, Lucknow, to discuss the continuing spring steel supply crisis, the industry placed two critical technical bottlenecks at the centre of the discussion:
- Mandatory 100% Magnetic Particle Inspection (MPI) testing at the spring steel manufacturer’s end.
- The stringent maximum hydrogen gas content limit of 1.5 PPM prescribed under IRS T-31-2025 (Sixth Revision).
Despite detailed representations from the industry and written objections reportedly submitted by major steel producers, including RINL and JSPL, the meeting concluded without any favourable decision on the proposed amendments.
The industry’s central question is now straightforward: When the primary steel manufacturers themselves are raising technical and manufacturing concerns regarding the prescribed requirements, why is RDSO unwilling to undertake a meaningful technical review?
The most significant development: Steel producers have also raised objections
What makes the present situation particularly serious is that the objections are no longer confined to ERC manufacturers.
RINL and JSPL, both important players in the spring steel supply chain, have reportedly submitted written representations to RDSO highlighting the difficulties associated with mandatory MPI testing at the steel producer’s end and maintaining the hydrogen content limit of 1.5 PPM.
These submissions are significant because the steel producers are directly responsible for manufacturing the specified raw material and understand the metallurgical, manufacturing and testing constraints involved.
The industry has argued that the technical requirements must be evaluated in consultation with the actual producers of spring steel rather than being maintained without adequately examining their practical implications.
However, despite these written submissions and the supporting technical arguments placed before RDSO, the industry representatives stated that ED-TM, Railway Board, Anurag Kumar, categorically declined to consider amendments to the existing requirements during the deliberations.
This raises a fundamental question of accountability: If the requirements are creating difficulties for the very manufacturers responsible for supplying the essential raw material, who will take responsibility for the resulting shortage of ERCs across Indian Railways?
Differential technical standards: Why the disparity?
During the meeting, ERC manufacturers presented comparative technical specifications of other railway products, including coil springs, helical springs and modern fastening system clamps.
According to the comparative specifications presented by the industry:
- Mandatory 100% MPI testing at the steel producer’s end is not prescribed in the same manner for the cited products.
- The hydrogen content limit in the cited specifications is 2.00 PPM, compared with the 1.5 PPM prescribed for ERC spring steel.
The industry has questioned the technical justification for imposing these more stringent requirements on 55Si7 spring steel used in ERC manufacturing without a clearly demonstrated technical necessity.
The manufacturers have maintained that rationalizing these requirements to technically justified levels would improve the availability of approved spring steel without compromising the quality and safety of the finished railway components.
The issue is not opposition to quality standards. It is the demand for technically consistent, scientifically justified and practically implementable standards across comparable railway applications.
Quality Assurance or an additional procurement bottleneck?
Another important issue raised by the industry concerns the existing quality-assurance (#QA) framework for ERC manufacturing.
ERCs are already subjected to stringent quality controls through Process Inspection conducted by RITES in its capacity as a Non-TPI inspection agency. The arrangement includes monitoring of manufacturing processes and final inspection of finished goods under controlled conditions.
The Railway Board deliberately moved ERC inspection outside the conventional TPI framework and introduced Process Inspection to strengthen quality assurance at the manufacturer’s premises.
The industry is therefore questioning the rationale behind imposing increasingly restrictive requirements at the steel producer’s end without adequately considering the complete quality-assurance chain, including process monitoring and final inspection of finished ERCs.
Manufacturers argue that quality assurance must be based on an integrated and technically sound system rather than a series of disconnected requirements that may ultimately restrict the availability of essential raw materials.
Stores Directorate’s procurement system under pressure
The continuing insistence on disputed technical requirements is also creating complications for the procurement mechanism administered by the Stores Directorate.
ERC manufacturers are expected to fulfil time-bound purchase orders placed by various Zonal Railways. However, the availability of 23 mm Grade 55Si7 spring steel from RDSO-approved sources has become a major constraint.
The situation creates a serious contradiction: manufacturers are expected to maintain contractual supply commitments, while the availability of the essential approved raw material is being affected by requirements that the steel producers themselves have reportedly requested RDSO to reconsider.
The resulting delays and supply shortfalls cannot be viewed merely as individual manufacturers’ production failures without examining the upstream policy constraints.
The industry maintains that responsibility for the consequences of this supply-chain disruption must be examined at the level of the authorities responsible for prescribing and retaining these requirements.
Accountability of RDSO and the concerned decision-makers
The 3rd November meeting has brought the matter to an important turning point.
When manufacturers, supported by written representations from primary steel producers, raise specific technical concerns, the minimum expectation is a reasoned examination supported by technical evidence.
A categorical refusal to consider amendments, without a transparent technical assessment of the submissions, raises concerns about the adequacy of the decision-making process.
RDSO, as the technical authority responsible for railway specifications, must demonstrate that every mandatory requirement is supported by a sound technical rationale and is practically implementable by the approved supply chain.
Anurag Kumar, ED-TM, Railway Board, and the concerned RDSO authorities must also ensure that the industry’s written representations receive due technical consideration through the appropriate institutional process.
The issue is no longer limited to the interpretation of a specification. It concerns the responsibility of the technical authorities for the practical consequences of their decisions on the availability of critical railway components.
If the present requirements continue to restrict spring steel availability and consequently disrupt ERC supplies, the responsibility for the resulting crisis must be examined at the policy-making and decision-making levels, rather than being placed entirely upon manufacturers.
Railway Board must intervene before the crisis deepens
The industry expects immediate intervention by the Railway Board, particularly the Stores Directorate and the concerned technical authorities, to resolve the following issues:
- Review and withdrawal of the mandatory 100% MPI testing requirement at the spring steel manufacturer’s end, subject to appropriate technical validation.
- Rationalization of the hydrogen gas limit from 1.5 PPM to 2.00 PPM, in line with the comparable railway product specifications presented by the industry.
- Independent technical examination of the written representations submitted by RINL and JSPL.
- A joint technical review involving RDSO, RINL, JSPL and ERC manufacturers.
- Removal of avoidable procurement bottlenecks affecting the availability of RDSO-approved spring steel.
- Immediate measures to protect the supply chain of ERC MK-V and prevent disruption of supplies to Zonal Railways.
The Bigger Question
Indian Railways cannot afford a situation in which critical track components become difficult to procure because of unresolved technical requirements that are being questioned by both the manufacturers of finished components and the primary producers of their essential raw material.
Safety and quality must remain non-negotiable. Equally important, technical specifications must be scientifically justified, commercially implementable and regularly reviewed in consultation with stakeholders.
The Railway Board must now decide whether it will facilitate a practical solution to the spring steel crisis or allow the present deadlock to continue, with the risk of further disruption in ERC supplies to Zonal Railways.
The responsibility for ensuring uninterrupted availability of critical railway track components does not rest with manufacturers alone. It equally rests with the authorities that formulate, approve and enforce the technical and procurement policies governing their production.
Railwhispers.com | A Single Reliable Independent Railway Industry Reporting Portal