Since 1992, there has been a Project Uni-gauge and its desirability is unquestioningly accepted. There was gauge conversion earlier too, but it became more formal from 1992. The 1992-93 Railway Budget speech stated, “The question of uni-gauge system has been agitating parliamentarians, economists, entrepreneurs and even the public at large. Metre gauge route kilometres of 23,419, representing 38 per cent of the total route kilometres, are considered a drag on the system. From the macro-economic point of view, it stands to reason that gauge conversion should be speeded up especially when the emphasis is now on energy conservation, and some of the ills of the metre gauge system need to be remedied urgently... Minimizing of transport bottlenecks and transhipment hazards would thus not only enhance Railways’ capacity and capability but also inspire confidence in investors in opening up new growth centres and boost economic activity for removal of regional disparities.” Hence, Uni-gauge, ruling out some heritage lines. Historically, IR (Indian Railways) had four gauges — broad (1,676 mm), metre (1,000 mm) and two narrow gauges of 762 mm and 610 mm. Metre and narrow gauges were constructed because they were cheaper and traffic wasn’t expected to be significant.
Railway old-timers will correct me if I am wrong. I think there was someone from IRTS (Indian Railway Traffic Service) who retired as GM. (His name was Hariram.) He is the one who prepared the base-paper for Project Uni-gauge. Arguments were standard ones. Passenger and freight services suffered on metre and narrow gauge. Speeds were low. There were transshipment costs. These are valid arguments, but it is also true that metre gauge got short shrift. There were under-investments in metre gauge. What is the axle load on a railway wagon? You might say more than 20 tonnes, aspiring to go up to 25 or even 32.5. But let’s go hack several decades, at a time when even 20 tonnes was tough. Though it is difficult to believe, in those days, metre gauge wagons carried more weight (per length of track) than broad gauge. hen containers that could be used on both broad and metre gauge wagons developed and non-container loads declined in importance, transshipment costs became less important. In 1977, in Tambaram, there was a farewell for the last metre gauge train and one of the spectators said in an interview, “We used to wait on the Guindy bridge to watch the metre gauge Vaigai Express in those days running at a speed of 100 km per hour.” That’s a decent speed.
I am not suggesting we should have stayed on with metre gauge. All I am flagging is that there was no attempt to increase speeds and axle loads for metre gauge, or develop better couplers. A neglected metre gauge was unfavourably compared with a preferred broad gauge. I have found references to a report, but have been unable to lay my hands on it. It was by Sanderson and Porter Company and was dated 1957. For US, this evidently recommended that one should first invest in metre gauge before upgrading to higher gauges. Thanks to Project Uni-gauge, there has been gauge conversion. Other than rails, bridges, tunnels and platforms have been redone. In some instances, with a new broad gauge line, distances have declined. We are moving towards uniformity with that broad gauge of 1,676 mm. I asked someone from IR a stupid question. Can’t one have rolling stock that runs on both metre and broad gauge? I remember the Maharani Saloon in Mysore Railway Museum. This goes back to 1899 and can run on both gauges. Apparently, technology to enable rolling stock to run on multiple gauges has been developed. But it is still very expensive. Therefore, no option other than to tinker with rails.
However, who uses this broad gauge of 1,676 km? India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, a bit of Bangladesh, and bits of Argentina and Chile. China and several countries in East Asia use standard gauge of 1,435 mm. Much of South East Asia uses metre gauge. Iran uses standard gauge too. Uni-gauge may have standardised within the country, but from a cross-country angle, we might have been better off without gauge conversion and with metre gauge. That’s the reason Bangladesh wants the new rail links with India to be mixed gauge, that is, dual gauge. Even if there is multilateral funding, why should Bangladesh switch to 1,676 km? We used to have some dual and mixed gauge sections, but they are now neglected. Think of the nightmare of the Trans-Asian Railway network — 1,435 mm, 1,520 mm, 1,524 mm, 1,676 mm and 1,000 mm. Without dual/mixed gauge, passengers/freight will have to be transshipped. I suspect integration gains with neighbouring countries are primarily for freight, not passenger traffic. In that event, for Bangladesh, Nepal and South-East Asia, we would have been better off had we retained metre gauge in north-east India and invested more in improving its efficiency. There is an apocryphal account of how Lord Mayo (Viceroy from 1869 to 1872) made three Indian males sit next to each other, measured the distance and thus decided the metre gauge width. That was a good reason for retaining metre gauge.
Disclaimer: These are personal views of the writer. They do not necessarily reflect the opinion of www.business-standard.com or the Business Standard newspaper
