The illegitimacy/illegality of Railway Board’s so called in-principle approval to construction of K-Rail on standard gauge
Railway Board must know how seven prestigious projects of building lines in the Himalayas over the past 20 years have suffered on account of infeasibility of construction and doubts about stability and safety because these projects were also approved in a similar manner without ground surveys
The missing pieces of the jigsaw puzzle are in place now. This is a chronological account of how on the basis of reports which were prepared in gross violation of the rules of Indian Railways, specifically the Engineering Code of Indian Railways, for preparation of proposals for sanction of new line projects, Railway Board gave in-principle approval for construction of the Thiruvananthapuram-Kasargod semi-highspeed line on Standard Gauge and not Broad Gauge. But, first a few facts to convey the gravity of the situation here:
I) In all probability, this will be the only line – if built as per the current plan – which would be a completely stand-alone line, segregated from the existing railway network which is also not a part of a larger plan of adding more such lines to create a local, regional or national network.
II) This will be one of the first two Classic / Conventional High Speed (200-250 kmph) lines, the other one being the Pune-Nashik line. It will also be the first such line on Standard Gauge because the Pune-Nashik line will be on the Broad Gauge. (The term “semi highspeed line” is a misnomer and should be used for lines for maximum speed speed 160 kmph and above but less than 200 Kmph).
III) This would be one of the costliest railway lines in India, even by the current official estimates (These estimates are evidently totally unrealistic, not based on proper surveys).
The above factors warranted thoughtful planning, alignment surveys and feasibility studies and careful scrutiny of the reports by the Railway Board before giving clearances and approvals. But, this plan has been dealt with unbelievable incompetence, unprofessionalism and obfuscation by the main protagonists: “KRDCL and its General Consultant M/s SYSTRA of Faridabad, and Railway Board repeatedly failed to exercise necessary technical controls”.
Chronological account of the handling of the proposal is as follows:
January 2019: After a series of meetings of senior officials of KRDCL and its General Consultant, SYSTRA, MD/KRDCL conveyed that the proposed line shall be an elevated line on Standard Gauge. He informed that the Railway Board has already approved the Standard Gauge for the line.
March 07, 2019: As preparation of the detailed Preliminary Feasibility Report for examinations of technical feasibility and financial viability of the line was nearing completion, SYSTRA wrote to MD/KRDCL on to provide documentary proof of approval of Standard Gauge by Railway Board, but MD/KRDCL failed to provide any such document.
March 20, 2019: SYATRA finalised and submitted the Preliminary Feasibility Report. This report was based on an alignment which was prepared by Reconnaissance Survey in accordance with Para 576 of the Engineering Code of Indian Railways. The report emphasised the importance of providing stations near the city centre, and avoiding the unfavourable terrain of the Mid-High lands. It said:
“It is prudent and advantageous to carry the line nearer to the sea rather than nearer to the mid-High lands in almost every respect from cost and stability of the line to access to the most densely populated core of the cities.”
The report said that a Broad Gauge line, integrated with the existing Indian Railway network, would be a better option. Chapter 6 titled “Formulation of Conventional Highspeed, Gauge and Integration” examined these issues in detail. The report emphasised that if the new line is built on Standard Gauge it will be completely standalone and segregated from the existing lines and the main Indian Railway network, and said:
“integration with the Indian Railway at a later stage would be difficult and costly”.
The report also emphasised the need to carry out a thorough study of “traffic projections and projected non-fare revenues”. Regarding shifting station locations to bring them nearer to the proposed sites for development of new cities, it said that decision should be taken after a detailed study of the scope of development in “consultation with the urban planning experts.”
The report concluded that the unfavourable terrain and the urban sprawl (pattern of very diffused urban population and absence of cities with concentrations of population) in the
Thiruvananthapuram-Kollam-Kottayam-Ernakulam-Thrissur-Kasaragod corridor would result in very high cost of construction and low ridership, and recommended that the decision conveyed by KRDCL to build the line on Standard Gauge should be reviewed (Para 9 and 17 of Chapter 6, and Para xi and xii of Chapter 15, Final Recommendations of the Report).
On March 25, 2019, MD/KRDCL conveyed KRDCL’s remarks on the Preliminary Feasibility Report to SYSTRA through a letter addressed to MD/SYSTRA, Faridabad. Apparently, no revised Preliminary Feasibility Report was prepared, nor did KRDCL pass any order on the recommendations of SYSTRA.
Further, it seems KRDCL did not provide – and SYSTRA did not ask for – Terms of Reference (which is necessary in accordance with Para 408 of the Engineering Code) before proceeding with preparation of the final Feasibility Report.
April-May, 2019: SYSTRA prepared only one alignment for the Feasibility Report. According to the Engineering Code, feasibility study should be carried out on the basis of examination of alternative alignments. These alignments should be prepared by following the rules prescribed for Preliminary Alignment Surveys in the Code. SYSTRA submitted the Feasibility Report on 20.5.2019.
This report stands out for its many serious irregularities and violations of the rules for carrying out Preliminary Alignment Survey and Traffic Survey:
i) In a grave violation of the rules, no ground surveys were done and no traffic survey was done. Topographic data was extracted from Google Earth to prepare the alignment, which is not permitted for Preliminary Alignment Surveys because it is too inaccurate and difficult to verify. In fact, KRDCL had invited tenders for Lidar Survey to collect topographic data for the Preliminary Alignment Survey.
The Report actually says that Google Earth data was used with no ground verification due to the urgency of submitting the Feasibility Report to Railway Board!
ii) Alternative alignments to develop the optimum alignment with the optimum location of stations from considerations of cost of construction, ridership projections, cost of operation and maintenance, social and environmental impact etc were also not prepared.
iii) It seems adoption of Standard Gauge, the station locations and layout of the sole alignment that was prepared by SYSTRA was decided in verbal discussions with MD/KRDCL. Stations were taken to the outskirts at the following main cities – Thiruvananthapuram, Kollam, Chengannur, Kottayam and Kochi. This resulted in shifting the alignment deeper into the adverse terrain of the Mid-High lands, which SYSRA had said in its earlier report should be avoided.
iv) Instead of keeping as much of the alignment as possible on low height viaducts to minimise high embankments and cutting in soft soils, minimise obstructions to the flood water and traffic on the local bylanes and roads, and minimise requirement of land and dislocation of the population, 80% of the alignment was on ground and the alignment was full of high embankments and cuttings, many in wetlands.
v) In contradiction of its recommendations in the Preliminary Feasibility Report, SYSTRA did not do the following due diligence or walked back on its earlier recommendations for the final Feasibility Report:
a) Traffic Survey for ridership estimates;
b) Realistic assessment of non fare box revenue;
c) Study of feasibility (location etc) and scope of development of new cities near the stations.
KRDCL sent SYSTRA’s Feasibility Report to Railway Board seeking “In-principle Approval”, which authorises pre-construction expenditure of up to INR 100 crore.
On February 25, 2019, ‘The Print’ carried an article titled “Designed to fail” about the discrepancies in the preliminary and final feasibility reports. It highlighted the arbitrary manner of adoption of Standard Gauge, and slashing of cost from INR 71,063 crore to INR 56,443 crore, and drastic upward revision of traffic projections from 37,750 daily to 67,740 daily in a space of just 55 days between the Preliminary Feasibility Report and the final Feasibility Report.
On December 10, 2019, a presentation on the Feasibility Report was made in the Railway Board office by the Principal Secretary, Transport, Govt of Kerala and MD/KRDCL. This was attended by senior officers of KRDCL, the Consultant and Railway Board. The meeting was presided over by Member (Infra) and Member (Finance) of the Railway Board. Minutes of the meeting are now in public domain, having been obtained through RTI.
On December 17, 2019, In-principle Approval of the Railway Board was conveyed to all concerned. The minutes show that all the gravest of the flaws of the Feasibility Report were overlooked as there is no mention of the following flaws of the report in these minutes:
i) That no comparative study to assess the relative merits and demerits of building the line on Broad Gauge versus Standard Gauge was done, and that Railway Board had never approved Standard Gauge. There is no mention that such an examination was actually done in the Preliminary Feasibility Report of March 2019 by the Consultant who strongly recommended in the report that construction of the line on Broad Gauge should be seriously considered.
ii) That no ground surveys prescribed in the Engineering Code were carried out to accurately assess the topographic features, and the geological, geotechnical and hydrological conditions.
iii) That no traffic survey was done to estimate ridership, and that the effects of the acute urban sprawl in Kerala, and location of stations in the outskirts far away from the city centre on ridership were ignored.
iv) That there is no basis for the estimates of high recurring earnings from real estate development and other forms of commercial exploitation of land near the stations.
It seems Railway Board decided to give In-principle Approval based on the above Minutes of the Meeting. Leaving aside the fact that the Feasibility Report was riddled with irregularities and violations of Code, this manner of giving approval is unusual and improper for the very fact that the plan involves approval of Standard Gauge for a 200 kmph line (thereby creating a new kind of completely standalone and segregated railway system) which is not covered under any policy decision of Railway Board regarding gauge, and Standard Gauge would also have serious short and long term implications for the existing line.
The matter becomes curiouser considering that around this time the Railway Board approved Broad Gauge for the 200-250 kmph line from Pune to Nashik.
Whether to grant In-principle Approval, this decision should have been taken after scrutiny and deliberations on file by all the concerned branches of Railway Board which work under the following Members of the Board: Chairman and Chief Executive Officer (CEO), Member (Infrastructure), Member (Traction and Rolling Stock), Member (Operations and Business, Development), and Member (Finance). The scrutiny and deliberations should not have been confined to just two Members.
Railway Board must know how seven prestigious projects of building lines in the Himalayas over the past 20 years have suffered on account of infeasibility of construction and doubts about stability and safety because these projects were also approved in a similar manner without ground surveys.
Further, a policy decision to limit the ruling gradient to 1 in 80 was taken by just two Board Members based on their personal opinions while a High Level Expert Committee was already examining the issue of ruling gradient.
More on this and the state of these projects, the strictures passed against the concerned Board Members by court, the observations of CAG and the assurance by Railway Board to Delhi High Court that it has learnt lessons and would not allow such lapses in future will be covered by the author in the extended version of this article which will be published shortly.
Another important point is that there are unconfirmed reports that Railway Board has approved the Detailed Project Report also for the Kerala project without Final Location Survey which is yet another violation of the Engineering Code of Indian Railways (Para 502).
In the cinsumstamces narrated above, it is urgent and important that Railway Board immediately withdraw the so called In-principle approval for K-Rail.
Written By,
Alok Kumar Verma, Retd. IRSE
#KRail #RailwayBoard #IndianRailways #Policy #IREM #Approval #KRDCL #DPR #PFR #Final_Location_Survey #BroadGauge #StandardGauge