Breaking


Showing posts with label Bibek Debroy committee. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Bibek Debroy committee. Show all posts

Friday, 9 June 2017

19:02

Rework Railway Timetable for Safety Checks of Tracks: NITI Aayog

Rework Railway Timetable for Safety Checks of Tracks: NITI Aayog

New Delhi: The Railway timetable should be reworked to ensure that workmen get enough time for daily safety checks of rail tracks, a NITI Aayog report has suggested.

The report prepared by NITI Aayog member Bibek Debroy and its OSD Kishore Desai said several high density network (HDN) sections in railway network have capacity utilisation of more than 120 per cent (even up to 150 per cent and beyond for some).

“It is suggested that Ministry of Railways (MoR) considers relooking/redesigning existing Railway timetable.

Timetable should be redesigned in a manner that sufficient margin is available for daily safety checks,” said the report titled Fund Deployment Framework for Rashtriya Rail Sanraksha Kosh (RRSK).

Observing that majority passenger trains do not run to optimal capacities thereby choking the available network, the note said the ongoing network decongestion and expansion projects on HDN routes (doubling, tripling, quadrupling) would surely enhance safety margins.

“However, till the time these projects are commissioned, MoR may consider rationalising trains (by combining few trains; increasing coaches or wagons, rationalising stops) as an alternate approach,” the note pointed out.

Citing data, the report said over the six-year period (2012-13 to 2016-17), th country’s rail network saw a total of 586 accidents.

“These accidents led to 1,011 casualties and left 1,634 people injured,” it said.

Elaborating further, the note said: “Derailments accounted for more than 50 per cent of the total consequential accidents while Level Crossing (LC) related accidents (on both manned and unmanned) accounted for about 40 per cent”.

On a cumulative basis, the data indicates that human failures contribute to about 87 per cent of all accidents while the rest were due to failure of equipment, technology or other reasons, the report said.

 Source:RailNews
0
By at No comments:
Labels: , , ,

Saturday, 22 October 2016

08:04

Indian Railways organises Conference on Heritage Rail Tourism jointly with Asia Pacific Heritage & Rail Tourism Organisation

Indian Railways organises Conference on Heritage Rail Tourism jointly with Asia Pacific Heritage & Rail Tourism Organisation 

Heritage Rail Tourism Conference was organized by Indian Railways at National Rail Museum, New Delhi jointly with Asia Pacific Heritage & Rail Tourism Organization (APHRTO), from 19-21 October, 2016. Participants from many countries including Japan, UK, Germany, Australia, Taiwan, senior officers of Indian Railways and other stakeholders of Heritage Rail Tourism were present in the Conference. 

Shri Tim Fischer, Former Deputy Prime Minister of Australia delivered a talk on ‘Heritage Rail Tourism in Australia’ in a curtain raiser held on 19th October 2016. 

Shri Tim Fischer (Australia), along with Shri Adrian Shooter (UK), Shri David Morgan (UK) and Dr. Nui (Taiwan) and accompanied by Secretary, Railway Board and Executive Director/Heritage, Railway Board met Hon’ble Union Minister for Railways Shri Suresh Prabhakar Prabhu on 19th October 2016 to discuss ideas on developing Rail Heritage Tourism in India. The participants also visited Heritage Transport Museum, Gurgaon, being managed by Heritage Transportation Trust, New Delhi. 

Dr. Bibek Debroy, Member, NITI Aayog delivered keynote speaker in the inaugural session held on 20th October 2016. The inaugural session was graced by Shri Hemant Kumar, Member Rolling Stock, Railway Board, Shri Ashwani Lohani, CMD/Air India Ltd., Shri R.K. Verma, Secretary, Railway Board. The international conference, the first time ever organized in National Rail Museum on Heritage Rail Tourism is having three technical sessions with 14 papers being presented by national and international delegates primarily covering various aspects of Rail Heritage and promoting Heritage Rail Tourism in the world. 

The Annual General Meetings of APHTRO and WATTRAIN (World Association of Tourist Trams and Trains) had been held as a side event. It was envisaged that this APHTRO Conference will bring ideas and visions for strategizing Rail Heritage Tourism in India. 

Source:PIBNEWS 
0
By at No comments:
Labels: , , , ,

Sunday, 7 August 2016

22:33

Merging Rail Budget with General Budget will reduce Railways to just another Govt Dept

Merging Rail Budget with General Budget will reduce Railways to just another Govt Dept
The merger of the Railway Budget with the General Budget is once again making a buzz. It is learnt that the Railways Minister has accepted the recommendations of the Bibek Debroy committee.
Agreed, a practice started 90 years ago should be reviewed. It may be relevant to recall the factors that led to the separation in 1925.
The Railways were in bad shape at the turn of the last century. The 36,735-mile route was pulling in different directions. There were state lines worked by the state, state lines worked by guaranteed or independent companies, company lines worked by companies, and lines belonging to the princely states.
The Railways failed to meet the demand from passengers as well as trade. The facilities were utterly inadequate. Goods rotted on the platforms as there were no wagons or locomotives to move them. Overcrowding and waiting for days at stations was quite common. The main reason for such a state of affairs was the non-availability of funds for expansion, development, and repairs and maintenance.
A question of funds
Even though the railway revenue formed a major portion of the government revenue, the Railways were starved of adequate funds. In times of bad harvest and trade, when the revenue fell, the budget allotment to the Railways was the first casualty.
The cut in expenditure was exercised even during the currency of the year resulting in suspension of works in progress and disbanding of staff. Late in the year if the financial situation improved, the finance member with equal suddenness encouraged the Railways to spend more, leaving them little time in which to do so. The system was further battered by World War 1, leading to a clamour from the public — as represented in the Imperial Legislative Council urged through repeated resolutions moved in 1914, 1915, 1917, and 1918 — for the appointment of a committee to enquire into the desirability of adopting direct state management of the Railways and emancipating the utility from the finance department of the government.
In November 1920, a ten-member (three Indians) committee was appointed with Sir William Acworth as chairman to “go into the whole question of railway policy, financial and administration”. The committee collected evidence and came to the conclusion that Indian Railways “cannot be modernised, improved and enlarged so as to give to India the service of which it is in crying need at the moment until the financial methods are radically reformed” and the essence of that reform according to the committee was complete separation of the Railway Budget from the General Budget and its reconstruction in a form “which frees a great commercial business from the trammels of a system which assumes that the concern goes out of business on each 31st of March and starts de novo on 1st of April”.
This, then, was the beginning of the separation. Speaking in the Assembly while presenting the Budget for 1924-25, the finance member of the council reminded members that “I know of no reform which offers greater benefits to our finances and Railways alike than a definite separation”. This would enable the Railways to spend money according to the real needs of the system unimpeded by the vagaries of the Budget figures and the requirements of the Budget accounting. The separation started with the Budget of 1925-26.
Populist exercise
The practice of paying dividend to the general revenues on the capital invested from there continues but the Railways since then have been responsible for earning and spending their own money. Of course they do have to look for budgetary support from the general exchequer as the money earned has never been enough to meet their needs. One reason for this has been their inability to raise fares and freight commensurate with the rising cost of transport.

This politicisation of the Railways came along with Independence and India embracing parliamentary democracy. As a result, the Railway Budget over the years has become more a populist than a commercial exercise. The autonomy envisaged was fettered by not raising passenger fares in line with rising costs. Indeed, passengers are being subsidised by goods traffic.
The Budget has also become an instrument in the hands of several railway ministers to build their vote-bank. All this affected the finances so that today, the Railways do not have adequate funds for expansion, development or replacement of worn-out tracks or rolling stock. Besides, there was the impact of Partition and World War 2.
During all these years of independence, though major landmarks were achieved, Indian Railways still lagged behind in expanding and modernising its network for want of adequate funds. In 1950, we had 54,600 km of track. To this we could add hardly 11,000 km in all these years. China had just 22,161 km in 1950. Today it has over 1 lakh km. Our Shatabadis and Rajdhanis and even the latest Gatiman Express run at a maximum speed of 160 kmph. China has already achieved a speed of 300 kmph with the Beijing-Guangzhou bullet train service.
It is not that our engineers are not capable of reaching those targets. It has always been the constraint of funds. Internal resources were never enough. The budgetary support from the general revenues was always limited. External borrowings through the Indian Railway Finance Corporation could is also restricted. So the emancipation envisaged in the separation of railway finances from general finances was, to a great extent, diluted by inherent flaws in our political system.
Parallel problems
While merging the budgets will remove this snag, it will also create parallel problems. The railway revenue will become part of the general revenue but so will the expenditure. In the event of shortfall in revenue or gross receipts in the general budget, will the finance ministry carry out the cuts in Railway expenditure? Certainly not.
There are some regular costs such as staff salaries, fuel, stores and equipment that cannot be guillotined. The sacrificial lamb could again be the modernisation and expansion. The constraint in raising passenger fares would be the same with the finance minister presenting the General Budget as with the railway minister presenting the Railway Budget.
The merger will only make the Railways become one more government department; it will lose its commercial character. There is also a contradiction in the approach of intellectuals who were engaged in studying the organisation. On the one hand, they talk of privatisation of the Railways and on the other, they suggest merging the entity fully into the system, subverting its commercial nature which requires separate treatment of its finances.
It would be better to leave the current nature and character alone and concentrate on strengthening, modernising and expanding the Railways so that it can meet the demands and challenges of transporting mind-boggling numbers of people and goods across the length and breadth of this country.
Source:RailNews
0
By at No comments:
Labels: , , ,

Monday, 20 June 2016

08:28

AIREF cry injustice by Railway Board

AIREF cry injustice by Railway Board

Bhubaneswar: All India Railway Engineers Federation (AIREF) on Sunday alleged that Railway Board has done injustice towards around 80,000 junior engineers and senior section engineers working in Indian Railways by not promoting them from grade C to grade B.

The AIREF leaders told this at the annual general body meeting of the East Coast Railway Engineers Association (ECoREA) organized here. They said several safety committees- Wanchoo, Sikiri, Khanna and Bibek Debroy- have strongly suggested improvement of social status, pay structures and promotional avenues of the railway engineers in order to provide quality services to rail users.

“But the Railway Board is deliberately ignoring the recommendations of the committees. Even now seventh pay commission has not included them for pay revision,” said AIREF president Sanjib Kumar.

He said they look after safety and operations of trains across the country. “We work more than eight hours due to staff crunch. We can’t even spend time with families because of heavy pressure at workplace. But railway pays the qualified engineers less than a nurse’s salary,” Kumar said.

ECoREA president Bobin Mohanty said members of both the outfits decided to hold special safety and passengers amenities drive on July 4 as a mark of protest. This drive will continue for indefinite period, he added.

Mohanty said they (junior engineers and senior section engineers) put more than 100 per cent efforts for safe journey of 23 million passengers daily despite acute shortage of manpower and materials. From July 4 onwards, they won’t compromise with safety for the sake of punctuality, he added.

“We have been maintaining our work pace without sufficient manpower and materials, but the Railway Board doesn’t pay heed to our demands. From July 4 onwards, we will work as per availability of manpower and materials. It will delay several passenger and goods trains across the country. And it will give Railway Board a strong message that how railway functions without their dedicated effort,” said Mohanty.

Railway Convention Committee chairperson Bhartruhari Mahtab and Parliament Standing Committee on Railways member Balabhadra Majhi, who attended the meeting, assured the engineers to take up the matter with the Railway Board and railway minister Suresh Prabhu.

“We have met railway minister on the issue and requested him to resolve the matter. Even BJD MP Nagendra Pradhan has filed a petition before the Committee on Petitions of the Lok Sabha to discuss on the issue. But nobody pays heeds to the engineers’ demands,” said Mahtab.

Majhi admitted that injustice has been done towards the engineers. “I will take up the issue with Railway Board and discuss this at standing committee meeting,” he added.


Source:RailNews
0
By at No comments:
Labels: , , ,

Monday, 12 October 2015

17:52

Bibek Debroy: Key to Running a successful Rail Network lies in Interoperability & Effective Use of Technology

Bibek Debroy: Key to Running a successful Rail Network lies in Interoperability & Effective Use of Technology

This is a cliched claim that floats around freely, especially on the Net. The Romans used chariots, yoked to two horses. The chariots created ruts on the roads. If a chariot’s width didn’t match the rut exactly, it keeled over. Thus standardisation occurred across all those chariots, measured as the distance between the wheels. The Romans built roads all over England and replicated those ruts. 

There were horse-drawn carriages and carts. There were horse-drawn tramways and horse-drawn railways in collieries. They also stuck to the same width. Thus railways developed the standard gauge of four feet and 8.5 inches (1,435 mm) and the same gauge got transported to the US. Space shuttles had solid rocket boosters (SRB). Railway tunnels are a fixed percentage wider than tracks and SRBs had to pass through such tunnels. Therefore the design of a space shuttle was based on the backsides of two Roman horses.

Bibek Debroy big
In several details we needn’t get into, this yarn isn’t true, rollicking good though it might be. There was no standardisation of gauge across those early British collieries. There was a range from 1,219 mm to 1,524 mm. Indeed, George Stephenson did base gauge of his Stockton and Darlington Railway on the width of horse-drawn carts used in collieries. But that gauge was 1,422 mm, not 1,435 mm. He tried out 1,435 mm on Liverpool and Manchester Railway and found that to be better on curves. Thus the switch to 1,435 mm, but only on railways Stephenson built, and somewhat later.

For invention purposes, I have cited George Stephenson (the father) and Robert Stephenson (the son) almost synonymously and it is difficult to delink the two. Did you know Robert Stephenson wasn’t quite happy with 1,435 mm? Left to choose a gauge afresh, he reportedly said, “I would take a few inches more, but a very few.” Did you know that in 1845, in the UK, there was a Royal Commission on Railway Gauges? This led to a Gauge Act. There were too many gauges floating around: 1,435 mm, 2,134 mm and narrow gauges. But there was still incomplete standardisation, in the UK and the US. For instance, in the US, there was greater standardisation in the north than the south and this inefficiency in managing railway networks was cited as a reason for the Confederacy’s defeat. If one leaves narrow and metre gauge aside, there is standard gauge (1,435 mm) and broad gauge. But broad gauge also differs across countries. Ours may be 1,676 mm, but the range across countries varies from 1,520 mm to 2,140 mm. There were differences within Europe too, and the European Union (EU) struggled quite a bit with gauge unification.

India had its own battle over gauges. Both Lord Dalhousie and F W Simms, the consulting engineer for East India Company, wanted a gauge broader than 1,435 mm. Lord Dalhousie wanted 1,829 mm and Simms favoured 1,676 mm. Why couldn’t India have adhered to 1,435 mm? East India Company directors had a curious worry: “the continued action of violent winds, and the influence of the vertical sun”. These climatic conditions would make 1,435 mm unsuitable. Despite Lord Dalhousie’s preference for a uniform gauge, that didn’t materialise. Primarily because of lower costs, narrow and metre gauge proliferated. I read an apocryphal account of how Lord Mayo made three Indian males sit next to each other, measured the distance and thus decided the metre gauge width. But this account is probably of the same genre as the one of Roman horses. Under the Indian Railways’ (IR) plan of gauge conversion, Project Unigauge, all narrow and metre gauge lines are being converted to broad gauge. However, this still makes India an outlier, in the sense that several countries have standard gauge (1,435 mm). Standard gauge makes acquisition of rolling stock and related stuff easier, which is why Metro railways have standard gauge, not broad gauge.

Dedicated freight corridors also operate on broad gauge. The heights/weights of wagons are more than those of conventional lines, but the gauge is identical. Train lengths, train loads, axle loads and maximum speeds are also more along freight corridors. On gauge, as was Lord Dalhousie’s intention, the Indian Railways’ desire has always been for interoperability and standardisation. Despite Lord Dalhousie, several different gauges existed. If all mobile phones had similar chargers, life might be simpler. But the different Indian Metro railways seem to function satisfactorily with completely different kinds of power systems, without standardisation. Despite unification of gauge, the EU discovered interoperability becomes impossible because of differences in rolling stock and signalling, controlling and telecommunication systems. 

These are all integrated systems, with gauge only one of the components. As systems, they represent technology, characterised by intellectual property rights and developed independently. Perhaps there is an analogy with the way the Indian Railway Conference Association (IRCA) was formed in 1903, later transforming into the Research Designs & Standards Organisation (RDSO). Anything like the IRCA, developed through industry bodies, focuses on coordination. But something like the RDSO focuses on control and standardisation. Standardisation and uniformity may or may not have had a role when the IR was a closed system. However, as the IR opens up, we need to recognise railway technology only exists in a few countries and these aren’t interoperable.
0
By at No comments:
Labels: , , ,

Friday, 25 September 2015

07:27

American Consultancy firm ‘Deloitte’ reviews Gazetted Staff Strength on IR



American Consultancy firm ‘Deloitte’ reviews Gazetted Staff Strength on IR

American consultancy firm Deloitte has begun assessing the staff strength of Indian Railways to understand whether the national transporter requires any reduction in its work force. Railways over the years has become overly centralized, top heavy and hierarchical organization which is suffering from ‘departmentalism’.

One of the world’s largest HR Audit and Consultancy firm Deloitte is currently reviewing the staff strength requirement in gazetted level services of Indian Railways. The Railways has over 13 lakh employees in various departments of which about 18,000 gazetted officers are serving in categories ‘A’ and ‘B’ jobs.

Railways has kicked off the restructuring exercise with a direction for pruning additional officers in the ‘top-heavy’ organization by appointing a private firm Deloitte to suggest ways to right size its manpower of gazetted officers.

Gaz OffDeilotte, which will work in coordination with National Academy of Indian Railways Vadodara, will submit its report by March 2016.With hiring a private HR audit firm, the national transporter has taken the first step in its bold decision to rationalize staff strength. The scope of the assessment being carried out by the consultancy points to the possibility of reduction in the strength because the firm has been asked to study such factors which impact the workload. It will also take up study of reduction of workload on account of outsourcing of activities. These areas include technological advancements and outsourcing as well, said a source.
The private firm will study the functioning of various departments in zonal and divisional headquarters of railways with focus on technological inputs and achievements made in each department. According to high-level sources, the consultancy has been given the task of “studying” technological inputs and advancements made in each department. Likewise, it would be “studying reduction of workload on account of each department”. In recent years, the Railways have outsourced many of its activities.

The task which is aimed at rationalisation of manpower includes suggesting policies to determine “optimum intake” in various jobs. The company will be submitting its report by March 31, 2016. An official said the company will examine the railways’ manpower given the technological development/changes in operational and maintenance practices and suggest optimal level of the staff strength needed in coming years. The company is tasked with estimation of an optimum strength of gazetted officers required for effective discharge of duties to achieve transporter’s goal.Several independent expert committees have observed that staff cost (including pension) is the single most significant expenditure item for the railways, accounting for the lion’s share of total expenditure and have suggested rationalizing the number of employees. Bibek Debroy panel suggested for immediate intervention to right-size the railways’ bench strength which is eating up cash-strapped transporter’s resources.”The employee costs including pension constitute the single largest component of railways, which has further become unmanageable after the sixth pay commission. The seventh pay commission in 2016 would further push up staff costs and pension costs which will have serious financial implications for railways,” the panel said.

Both officers and the trade unions are opposed to recommendations the panel. Trade union leaders Raghaviah (NFIR) and Shivgopal Mishra have declared war against them. However, Railway Minister Suresh Prabhu has been maintaining that Railways is not considering any reduction in the number of employees. Several Trade Unions members highlights that major revenue loss for railways is due to various unworthy tenders and contractor-staff/officer nexus that is leading to drastic outgo of revenues which is one of the major contributor of revenue losses for IR.
Other private companies in contention were Ernst and Young, PWC and KPMG. “The ministry has hired the company through competitive bidding, and reputed companies including PricewaterhouseCoopers, KPMG and Ernst and Young,” Railway spokesperson Anil Saxena.

The exercise gained momentum after the recommendations of Bibek Debroy Committee on Restructuring of Railways. The panel had recommended rationalisation of workforce, regrouping of cadres and disbandment of wings which are involved in non-core activities. It also recommended disbandment of Railway Protection Force (RPF) and the health services. Debroy Committee has also recommended large scale outsourcing in non-core activities. It noted that the present railway board is saddled with excess manpower with total staff strength of 1,107 officers.

It noted that there are seven members, two Director Generals (DG-Health and DG-RPF), one Secretary, 16 Additional Members, 21 Advisors, 94 Executive Directors, 200 Directors/JDs, 250 DDs/USs and 516 Section Officers. Railways is divided into 16 geographical zones employing about 14 lakh people as on date.At a later stage, Railways will also hire a reputed consultant to examine the strength in non-gazetted section to study the system and requirement and see if there is any extra flab, said a senior official.
0
By at No comments:
Labels: , , ,

Tuesday, 8 September 2015

22:47

Suresh Prabhu aligns Priorities, Funding & Organisation to shape a Transformation Agenda

Suresh Prabhu aligns Priorities, Funding & Organisation to shape a Transformation Agenda
This man – a Chartered Accountant by profession, is determined to do wonders with Indian Railways – come what may!..

It is not easy being railway minister. Ask Union Railway Minister Suresh Prabhu. Everybody in India has a strong opinion on what the Railways should do. There are tomes of recommendations from weighty committees – notably the Rakesh Mohan Committee on Restructuring, 2002; the Kakodkar Committee on Safety, 2012; the Pitroda Committee on Railway Modernisation, 2012; and finally the Bibek Debroy Committee on Railway Reform, 2015.

Weave in the political imperative to demonstrate visible action to an aspirational India wanting bullet trains, and a bottom-of-the-pyramid India wanting to avoid getting trampled to death on railways stations during festival rushes.

Then there are the railway unions that get into paroxysms of righteous indignation whenever they hear the words privatization and PPP (public-private partnership)and threaten strikes to bring the nation to a halt.

If this were not enough, you have a staid, monolithic Railway Board and related establishments steeped in complacent Raj-era traditions alongside an archaic accounting system which Bibek Debroy publicly decries as being “non-transparent”.

And to put matters in perspective, India spends only 0.3 per cent of its gross domestic product on railways as against China’s 2.5 per cent. Even investments in highways has risen to 1.5 per cent.

Prabhu took charge of the Railways on November 9, 2015 – no doubt a wise choice by the Prime Minister, and welcomed by all. Ten months into the job, this affable, ego-less, practical and savvy professional-turned-politico is briskly working on his game plan.

So, has he got his priorities right? Does he have the finances to address these priorities? And are the allocations in sync with the priorities?

In a scan of his speeches, press and industry interactions, and other public deliveries, the priorities clearly reveal themselves.

The number one priority is clearly network decongestion and network expansion. Nobody can quarrel with this. Out of 1,219 sections of the Indian Railways, 492, that is 40 per cent of the network, operates at more than 100 per cent capacity. Mughalsarai is reportedly the most congested at 150 per cent.

Compared to the enormity of this problem, everything else pales into insignificance; and adding more rolling stock is akin to passing a thick rope through the eye of a needle.

Next is safety. That is followed by rolling stock modernisation, station redevelopment, passenger amenities, special projects, organisation revamp and social obligations (North-east and Kashmir connectivity). The priorities are clearly bang on target.

Moving on to funding and allocation, the two tables reveal the funding plan and allocations thereof.

For an establishment, struggling to generate internal cash at close to 90 per cent operating ratio; and dependant on the Union Budget for under Rs 50,000 crore, the railway minister has done well to plan to mop up cash from joint ventures (with states, public sector units ports et al), PPPs and debt.

From the institutional debt bucket, Rs 1.5 lakh crore from the Life Insurance Corporation of India is already being put to use for network decongestion, and others like the World Bank, National Infrastructure and Investment Fund, tax-free bonds et al are work-in-process.

The fundraising scenario is grounded in its potential for practical achievability and is certainly not a pie-in-the sky projection.

The allocation of finances is congruent with the priorities. It is commendable that the minister has stayed away from populism and stuck to the urgent requirement of alleviating the rail network congestion.

Close to 45 per cent of all the funding is earmarked for network decongestion, and network expansion.

Does that mean that all challenges and concerns are taken care of? By no means.

Clearly, the biggest elephant in the room is organisational rejuvenation. Here Prabhu appears to be the only minister in the Union Cabinet who openly welcomes the idea of an independent regulator.

Nitin Gadkari trashes the idea of an independent regulator for highways just as Piyush Goyal feels that a regulator for coal is unnecessary.

But Prabhu believes that an independent railway regulator is required for tariff setting, engagement with the private sector and service-level accountability from the railway establishment.

It is understood that he is working behind the scenes to make this a reality in as much as he is personally engaged in track II diplomacy with the unions to get their buy-in for his growth and development vision.

In fact, the top railway union leaders sit in on the Ratan Tata-chaired Kaya Kalp Council. The much-recommended revamp of the top echelons of the ‘Railway Diwan-i-Am’, is also a challenge.

Its break-up into a governance board with independent directors and an executive board (much like the current Railway Board) are changes up for consideration as are issues of decentralisation and ‘SBUisation’.

This great railway transformation has to be achieved in the middle of day-to-day pressures of profitability, winning back passenger confidence and positivism, and arresting the slide in freight carried.

This is clearly the best time for the Railways to effect a long-awaited and historic turnaround under a purposeful prime minister and an indefatigable railway minister.

To achieve this, Prabhu has clearly set out his own challenging set of tasks which we heartily endorse. More importantly, we wish him luck.
0
By at No comments:
Labels: , , , , , ,

Wednesday, 2 September 2015

19:09

Bibek Debroy’s Plan to turn-around the Indian Railways

Bibek Debroy’s Plan to turn-around the Indian Railways

The object in India for such a density of population should be to construct locomotive railways for trunk lines of communication, and horse railways for the short branches, says Bibek Debroy.

In India, with a population of 110 per square mile, we are now constructing trunk railways….

These trunk railways will no doubt pay good dividends, for although the population is only half as dense as in England, the cost of construction is small.

We have commenced well in India, and if the system of trunk lines be judiciously carried out, they must prove most remunerative, and will no doubt become valuable property to the shareholders; but a beginning has already been made to construct expensive branch lines….

The object in India for such a density of population should be to construct locomotive railways for trunk lines of communication, and horse railways for the short branches.”

Engines to haul trains along trunk routes and horses to haul trains along branch routes; the year was 1860 and this quote is from a monograph authored by Charles Burn on the construction of horse-railways. Even then, it was recognised that branch lines might not be remunerative.

In November 2014, the ministry of railways issued sectoral guidelines for domestic and foreign private investments in the railways, and this included renovation, operation and maintenance of stand-alone passenger corridors like branch lines and hill railways.

Indian Railways (IR) will transfer existing assets at nominal values, invite bids and grant concessions for 10-15 years.

One hundred per cent private equity is permitted. The rolling stock will be owned and maintained by IR and private operators will have to pay track access charges to IR. At least for branch lines (and hill railways), private operations are, therefore, already part of accepted government policy. But what are branch lines?

This is what the most recent (2013-14) Indian Railways Year Book states.

“Despite concerted efforts to enhance earnings on branch lines, most of these lines remain commercially unviable. The Railway Reforms Committee recommended closure of 40 such lines but due to stiff public resistance and opposition by state governments towards withdrawal of such services, only 15 lines have been closed permanently by the Railways. “

“A review of the financial results of the existing 90 uneconomic branch lines for the year 2013-14 shows that, on an original investment on these lines of the order of Rs 2,617 crore or Rs 26 billion, loss during the year 2013-14 amounted to Rs 1,681 crore or Rs 17 billion.”

Intuitively, branch lines are feeders. In 1862, the Indian Branch Railway Company was formed to construct branch and feeder lines.

There were also narrow gauge lines built by rulers of former princely states. These were never meant to be remunerative.

They pandered to the ego. After Independence, in 1969, there was a Railway Committee on uneconomic branch lines and we had some kind of definition of “branch line”.

Branch lines are narrow gauge lines and those broad and metre gauge lines that join the main network only at one end.

There was also a double kind of definition of an uneconomic or unremunerative branch line – (a) it did not make profits; (b) it did not make profits more than the rate of dividend paid to the Union government. Note that if there is gauge conversion and switch from narrow to broad gauge, the number of branch lines (and uneconomic lines) declines.

This doesn’t mean those lines have been closed.

The Railway Reforms Committee that recommended closure of 40 branch lines is one that goes back to 1983.

As far as I can make out, at the turn of the century, there were 110 uneconomic branch lines – 44 broad gauge, 44 metre gauge and 22 narrow gauge.

As the 2013-14 quote states, the number is now down to 90 (actually 89).

Is this because some lines have closed down, become remunerative, or because of gauge conversion? I don’t know and that is because of something quite bizarre.

IR continues to mechanically use the expression “branch line” and once upon a time, IR had classifications of routes as mainline, suburban and branch line.

But that classification was scrapped in 1976 and based on multiple criteria, broad gauge routes are now classified as A, B, C, D and E.

Metre gauge routes are classified as Q, R and S. A branch line can thus be interpreted as narrow gauge, metre gauge or D and E categories of broad gauge, and uneconomic branch lines will be sub-categories of these.

With IR accounts being the way they are, it is impossible to precisely know which line is remunerative and which is not. However, this is an interpretation.

Despite the expression “branch line” being bandied around and even used in policy announcements, there is no longer a definition, unless one adheres to the 1983 classification of lines.

In 1902, Lord Curzon went on a visit to the area around Lumding and had a conversation with the agent of the newly constructed railway line.

“Now, Mr Woods, that you have built this line, what traffic do you expect to carry?” “Nothing, sir.” “Then why build the line at all?” “I do not know,” was the reply. “The Government of India ordered it to be built, sir!”

That’s how many branch lines were built. With flexibility in fares and innovative marketing, many branch lines can be turned around, if they are taken outside IR. However, it helps to know what is being opened up.
0
By at No comments:
Labels: , , ,

Monday, 13 July 2015

09:51

In a vertically integrated structure like the IR, unbundling causes huge Headache: Bibek Debroy

In a vertically integrated structure like the IR, unbundling causes huge Headache: Bibek Debroy

Days before Bibek Debroy gave a report of his committee on railway restructuring, he was travelling by a Rajdhani which was re-routed. The troubled member of the National Institute for Transforming India (NITI) Aayog constantly kept tweeting his angst. “Consequences of derailment & rerouting. Pantry car has no provisions. Power car running out of diesel. RRI/Itarsi fire accident.” The report had gone to print by then but it gave Debroy a first-hand experience of a low-end passenger train on a premium train itself. In an interview with Jyoti Mukul and Sudheer Pal Singh, he blames the unhealthy competition among railway zones for poor service quality and inefficiencies. Excerpts:

Your committee’s report has recommended separation of power among different entities and empowering of zones. How will it improve the railway functioning?

Our report envisages three entities – the ministry of railways, the railway board and the regulator. The ministry formulates policy for the sector and not ony for Indian Railways (IR). It decides what is in the interest of the country and railway. We are also talking about functioning of different zones as almost independent revenue centres. People who have not read the report tend to think that we expect every zone to make a profit. We don’t expect that. Every zone should have an independent account. Imagine a train going from Delhi to Howrah does not belong to IR but to a zone. All rolling stock is owned by some zone. If it is a Rajdhani, it belongs to a zone. When it is going, it needs to negotiate and obtain access to track across other zones and sometimes it does not get access. Every zone gives preference to its own train for track. Problems of access to track are not something specific to the private sector. Public zones also have issues with access to track.

The ministry sets the rules for competition in terms of not only the private sector but also zones in the public sector. Currently, for instance, if a north central Rajdhani goes to northern zone territory after being re-routed, it will go with a goods train. Another example is if a Rajdhani is owned by the northern or the eastern zone, it might go for cleaning to a yard in Delhi or Howrah. If an eastern zone Rajdhani goes to Delhi, it will not be cleaned properly. There is tension between the zones all the time.

The railway unions have opposed forming a regulator which has more than tariff regulation powers. Why do you need such a regulator?

The most important task for the regulator is to ensure rules of competition, not only for access of tracks but also standards. Setting of standards like the stuff done by the Research Designs and Standards Organisation (RDSO) can also be a deterrent to free competition. IR must cleanly separate its commercial work from social objective and the government must cleanly pay the Railways for the social function. Every year, the railway budget mechanically shows a figure for social obligation. You show me how it is arrived at? There is no scientific method to it. The regulator will do that computation in future. Finally, the regulator will be in the business of tariffs (rates).

What role do you envisage for the Railway Board?

The Board will have nothing to do with potential private operators. That will be the function of the ministry and the regulator. If a train is passing through a track, that zone has to be compensated. If that figure is not derived at, except thinking of some number than even today, the Railway Board is not balancing the interest of different zones.

When a new train is introduced, the Board should arrive at an internal rate of return but am I not supposed to evaluate the disruption it will cost to existing things? Am I not supposed to consult zones? The Railway Board should do this. There is an inter-zonal coordination committee. Prove to me that the Railway Board does this, except purely whimsically. Even today, it is not doing its job.

Why have the Railway Board then?

You need somebody to oversee the functioning of IR. There are production units, locomotives have to be apportioned out to different zones, wagons and coaches. You can call it a board or a governing council.

Who gets to decide the annual plan, currently a function of the Board?

Part of it is decided at the board level and partly at zonal level. Today, there is too much centralisation. A General Manager of a zone is not asked what kind of coach he wants. Why should he be not empowered to deal with Rae Bareli and tell them this is what is needed? There is capital expenditure of different types. If you are talking about creating fresh track, broad gauge and safety, that’s one level. What kind of locomotives and coaches should a zone get…that is another level. Suppose there is a track completely within a zone. Why should I not have the right to decide on that track what safety or broad gauge? If in addition, I will meet it out of my revenue, give me the right on spending Rs 50 or at least Rs 25, out of every Rs 150 that I earn, for relevant expenditure. There will be issues and internal zonal trade-offs.

Do you think the railway regulator should have powers for macro planning, where inter-zonal issues are involved, just like the Central Electricity Regulatory Commission, which gets involved in transmission and tariff issues when it involves more than one state?

Not entirely. This power stays with the Railway Board. Investment will have nothing do with regulator. At the same time, if I am going to set up a rail track in the north-east, money will be required to come from the finance ministry. How can the Railway Board go and get that money? It will be the minister who has to go and get the money. If it is the Indian Railways’ money, do whatever you want to do with it. For non-IR money, how can the Board go and access that money? That’s the reason you have the railway minister; otherwise you can call the board chairman the minister.

The unions have said the committee has a drastically confused perspective of the European railways and that it wants the failed British model to be adopted…

There is no reference to any model in the text of the final report. There is some data because for every good thing, I will be able to give experience from somewhere in the world and for every stupid thing, I can give example from elsewhere. They are talking about something specific without reading the report. There is unbundling of the track and operating of trains. In the British model, that was privatised before it was reversed. In the interim report, we never said it should be privatised. We said bifurcate. The British model was about privatisation and reversal of it. We want it because there is conflict of interest. In a vertically integrated structure like the Indian Railways, unbundling causes huge headache. You don’t do it unless you have to. We have divided it into initial five years and then five years. In the initial five years, let the regulator come in so that he can resolve issues. If he cannot, then there are recommendations for the next five years.

Aren’t your recommendations bold and politically difficult to adopt?

Not bold at all. One way of looking at it is to say go back to 1950. That’s all we are saying. Whether it is de-centralisation, or accounting standards, the Railways were much cleaner in 1940. The regulator was there before 1924. It is nothing new. Over a period of time, the Railway Board has spread its tentacles everywhere. We are just reversing everything.

(Courtesy: Jyoti Mukul and Sudheer Pal Singh)
0
By at No comments:
Labels: , , , ,

Friday, 26 June 2015

07:27

The Kakodkar Committee paints a grim picture of inadequate performance by the Indian Railways

Railway Minister Gives Wings to Kakodkar Panel Report

NEW DELHI:  Three years after Anil Kakodkar-led High Level Safety Review Committee submitted its report to the Railways, Union Minister Suresh Prabhu has asked the Railway Board to submit an implementation plan of its recommendations along with deadlines.

The Kakodkar Committee had submitted its report to the then Rail Minister Dinesh Trivedi in March 2012, but there was no follow-up action.The Railway Board has issues with panel recommendations such as creation of a statutory Railway Safety Authority with enough powers to have a safety oversight on the operational mode of Railways. It is also against the creation of the Member Safety post in the board to oversee safety issues, a job that now comes under the board chairman.

Prabhu recently held a Railway Board meeting and discussed their reservations to the specific recommendations. He also asked the board to prepare an implementation plan with deadlines for recommendations that they have agreed to, so that there is a road map on the way forward.

The board is of the view that there is no need for a Railway Safety Authority as a Commission of Railway Safety already exists and if need be, it should be strengthened instead of forming another body. Similar was board’s objection of having Member Safety as that would create another unnecessary bureaucratic post. 

The Bibek Debroy Committee, in its final report submitted this month, had also called for adopting the Kakodkar Committee’s recommendations to improve safety.

If the Kakodkar Committee recommendations are accepted, the total financial implication over the five-year period is likely to be Rs 1 lakh crore.

The Kakodkar Committee paints a grim picture of inadequate performance by the Indian Railways, mainly due to poor infrastructure, insufficient resources and lack of empowerment at the functional level. It suggests adoption of advanced signalling system for the entire trunk route length of 19,000 km within 5 years at an estimated cost of Rs 20,000 cr.

0
By at No comments:
Labels: , , , , ,

Thursday, 25 June 2015

14:20

Unions’ should not Derail the Process of Rail Reforms; Let the Government take the historic decision atleast Now!

Unions’ should not Derail the Process of Rail Reforms; Let the Government take the historic decision atleast Now!


It will be the first “reform-oriented” government assumed charge at the Centre, and Suresh Prabhu will be the first Railway Minister with a reputation for reforms in backdrop of the deliberations of yet another ‘High Powered Committee’ headed by Bibek Debroy that is after that seemingly endless quest: “How to ‘reform’ the Indian Railways?”

There is no bigger controversial and emotionally charged subject associated with reforms in the Railways than the ‘P’ word. The arguments at both ends of the spectrum are often ideologically driven, dogmatic and ill-informed. The sheer number of reports and policy prescriptions that have emerged over the last few decades as to what ails the Indian Railways and what needs to be done to set things right should make one wonder why nothing substantial is being done to change things if the remedies are so obvious for the last more than two decades. And, the so called ‘policy-makers’ so easily allowed Railways to ruin by itself day by day, with no remedy or corrective action taken.  What does it speaks about?  Clearly the problems lies with the decision makers of previous governments. However the so called key influential groups i.e. Trade Unions also ensured that their job is to oppose any reforms in the Railways and raise heavy slogans, but when it comes to corrective steps for healthy Railway system, these Unions were silent.  Why?

Last week, NFIR reportedly wrote letters to Railway Minister stating that they oppose nomination of Consultants like “Ernst and Young, KPMG, Deloitte and PWCs” and asked the Minister to see that the precipitated steps for Railway reforms are contained and, are not resorted to, expressing fear that such actions would harm the Railways and disturb the industrial relations.

It is highly surprising to see the letter signed by Marri Raghavaiah as to how seeking expert reports from seasoned International Consultant entities like Ernst and Young, KPMG, Deloitte and PWCs for evaluation of the process of “reforms” in an organisational behemoth like Indian Railways would hamper industrial relations and harm Railways.  He even went and declared “Rail Bachao Andolan” on 25th June, and asked his affiliates to hold protests, demonstrations, mass rallies, gate meetings etc., at different places, at all levels, strongly protesting against the recommendations of Bibek Debroy Committee.

If it is the stand of a responsible GS of a reputed Trade Union, then what is his alternative suggestion to put derailed Indian Railways back on track?  Why was he silent all those years when Indian Railways was successfully ruined by the earlier governments and importantly the earlier Rail Ministers? Where was he at the time when the finances of Indian Railways were diminishing and why he has not asked the past Railway Ministers to streamline their acts that hamper the financial, operational and technical strength of Railway system in India? Obviously he cannot answer this question.

There have never been any contrasting views about the fact that the Indian Railways badly needed a face-lift. Governments have come and gone, committees formed and their reports were reviewed and were conveniently put in trash, but the railways never changed for decades.  Filthy platforms, manual scavengers at work, trains running hours behind schedule and inability to catch up with the safety standards, unable to catch up with the evolving Rail Technologies, unable to utilise the services of Technical arms like ISRO, IIMs and IITs in gradual benchmarking of standards and implement new and innovative technologies etc are some of the trademarks that our Railways have earned till now, over the decades. And yet, the so called intellectuals from Trade Unions conveniently remained silent.  Have you slept with your eyes open?  If so, why?  Were you not a responsible Railwaymen to correct the things happening right in front of your eyes all these years? No he does not have any answer to say…

Indian Railways constitute one of the largest and most wide spread Railway systems in the world under single management.  The track route kms is nearly 6 times bigger than that of earth’s equitorial diameter.

The latest in the series of committees formed to recommend measures for railways’ reforms is the Bibek Debroy committee, whose recommendations came out recently. One of the reasons why it didn’t catch much limelight was that most of its recommendations were a repeat of suggestions put forward by many earlier committees. The major ones among them were increasing the role of private players in Railways, formation of an independent regulator ‘Railway Regulatory Authority of India’ to decide on tariffs, activities like running railway schools and hospitals to be given into private hands, re-shuffling of the higher railway cadre and amalgamating the Railway budget with the General Union Budget itself. As expected, the recommendations brought out contrasting reactions and interpretations from different sections. While the railway labour unions are worried about the intrusion of private players, the officers are worried about the proposed ‘re-shuffling’.

As the Debroy committee report came out, many television debates interpreted it as favouring privatization of Railways, which is actually not the case. The report clearly states that the private players should be allowed to implement private railway projects and handle the add-on responsibilities of railways such as its schools, real estates and hospitals, so that the Railways can concentrate on its core duty at hand, i.e. running rails. Since the entire infrastructure is handled and maintained by the Railways, the terms and conditions of running private rails would need to be negotiated holistically. But these negotiations mustn’t scare away the Government from taking a step in this direction. With the socialist economic model dying its natural death, an increased role of private players is doing wonders across the world. Even in India, telecom and aviation are two prime examples of how private players can revolutionize the sector and bring world class services within the reach of the masses. Privatization brings with itself some much needed characteristics of a successful business, viz. competition, quality, and improving access.

Going by the existing and enhancing bonhomie between the present BJP Government and many industrial barons in the country, it may not be long before the private players are given a taste of railways. And this is where the danger lies, as is observed by the Trade Unions.  Monopoly and crony capitalism are two of the most dreaded aspects of privatization. While the private players must be welcomed into the ring, the Bibek Debroy Committe also suggested that the Government must formulate a strict Regulator for Railways, which is a welcome suggestion.

Also, there is a need to look at alternatives to railways. It goes without saying that road network is crying for an improvement. In addition, India is blessed to have many rivers. But, regrettably we have never realized the true potential of water bodies. Cargo transportation through waterways is highly underutilized in India. The cargo transported by Inland waterway in India is a paltry 0.1% of the net inland traffic. The same number stands at 21% for the USA! China’s navigable inland waterways stand at 125,000 Kilo Meters against India’s 14,500 KM! The underutilization of waterways has put further stress on the already weak railways infrastructure, thereby reducing its efficiency. Last month, the Government introduced the National Waterways Bill in the Lok Sabha to add on 101 new national waterways in the country. With no hurry visible from either side, the bill can’t be expected to turn into a reality very soon, which implies that for now, railways has nowhere else to look for support!

Indian Railways presents an intriguing case study. It is a business where customers line up months in advance, hence the demand is over the roof all year long! But the provider refuses to provide quality services even when the customer is ready to pay the price! It would be incorrect to take railways as a purely commercial entity since it has many social obligations. But at the end of the day, it must at least provide what it is meant for – meet the demands in a safe and comfortable way. There have been atleast two derailments on an average per week on Indian Railways.  What does that speak?  It is due to non-strengthening of the track, earth works, alignment works, signal and telecom system and last but not the least, the antiquated track systems. If the Railways are indeed to be given an overhaul, private sector participation is inevitable. Significant reforms also need a modicum of consensus among all stake holders including the political establishment and cannot be rammed down from above through executive fiats and diktats. It is now up to the Government to decide if it has enough guts to withstand opposing views and implement the recommendations of the Bibek Debroy committee or to opt for the tried and tested path and say, ‘Let it be, let the next Government take the plunge’!
0
By at No comments:
Labels: , , ,

Tuesday, 23 June 2015

21:28

Railway union members to oppose Debroy Commission report, protest on 25th


Railway union members to oppose Debroy Commission report, protest on 25th

Ahmedabad (ADI):  J G Mahurkar, general secretary of Western Railway Mazdoor Sangh (WRMS), announced widespread protest against the recommendations of the Bibek Debroy Commission report on Indian Railways and said that the railway workers would not tolerate the sweeping changes. The union members would stage protests at various Divisional RM offices on June 25.

Talking to the media, Mahurkar said that a decade ago the Rakesh Mohan Committee report was tabled which was criticized and shelved. “The present government has brought back the same report in the new garb which is not at all in favour of the railway employees. The British had set up the entire railway system 150 years ago and since then railway employees got access to its hospitals, schools and amenities. With the recommendations, the government wants to strip the employees of all these benefits,” he said.

He added that they will burn the report copies and will force the government not to implement it keeping in mind the best interest railway employees.
0
By at No comments:
Labels: , , , ,

Monday, 22 June 2015

09:46

Modernisation Vs. Investment: How Centre plans to steer Railways back on track

Modernisation Vs. Investment: How Centre plans to steer Railways back on track

The present government has been just over a year in power. It came in with grand plans of revolution. Its problem was that a decade had passed since the BJP was in power and virtually no one who had served in the last BJP government was fit to do so again. The Cabinet was full of novices, and looked in every direction for ideas. The prime minister chose Sadananda Gowda as minister of railways. He was asked to work out a plan for reforming the railways. He looked around, saw Bibek Debroy with little work in NITI (National Institution for Transforming India) Aayog, and appointed a committee with him as Chairman. But soon, the PM felt he needed someone more energetic for a ministry that called for action, sent Gowda to law ministry, and brought in Suresh Prabhu in November.

A New Platform

Prabhu met his railwaymen and found they were none too happy with the Debroy committee. It looked like a parking lot for retired elders. Only one member had any experience of the railways. He heard that the Debroy committee was contemptuous of the railways’ antiquated accounts.

So he roped in Vinod Rai, once comptroller and auditor general, as adviser. He shared the railwaymen’s contempt for economists, and shared their view that the railways would have been the world’s envy if the coin counters in North Block had given them money to invest and innovate. So he called up Ratan Tata and made him head of a new innovation council, calling it Kaya Kalp, a name he may have got out of a novel of Marathi writer Shubhada Gogate. He collected ideas from his railwaymen about what needed to be done, put them in a white paper, and released it when he presented the Budget. He recognised that the railways needed investment, which required time to make and to yield fruit. So he promised that by the end of this year, he would come up with a vision document. Debroy may have been disappointed by the sullen faces in the Railway Board, but he did not let himself be discouraged. He submitted a copious interim report in March with a strong message, and a final report with few changes in June. Mystified by the railways’ antiquated system of accounting, the report asked that they should change over to modern, double-entry book-keeping.

Economists think instinctively of competition and privatisation as incentives to efficiency. The Debroy committee recommended divestment of non-core services, such as catering and hospitals run by the railways, to private providers. The Indian Railways (IR) itself is a natural monopoly, and it is impossible to introduce competition (save in the form of road transport). So, the committee recommended a strong, independent regulator of price and service quality, and separation of track and trains so that private competition can be introduced in the latter. As that separation implies, the committee recommended the running of railways to be separated from investment and manufacturing. The railways have created ever more zones and divisions over time to increase the number of senior jobs available on promotion. The committee recommended a decrease in the number. But it wanted decentralisation of powers from New Delhi to the zones. The railwaymen were dismayed by these blithe plans for their dismemberment. The All India Railwaymen’s Federation has decided to observe a Black Day on June 30 in protest against the Debroy report.

Right Signal for Employees

It is Prabhu who lords over the railways, and not Debroy. He will read the Debroy committee’s report carefully, but will follow the inclinations of his railwaymen, which are reflected in the February white paper, “Due to underinvestment, there has been severe congestion on the network and has resulted in the inability of the system to accommodate more trains and increase the speed of trains. “Therefore, the need of the hour is to undertake a massive infrastructure expansion and decongestion programme coupled with upgradation of technology and judicious electrification of tracks along with enhancement of terminal capacity. It is evident that the real issue today is the lack of physical capacity over IR on key routes due to severe congestion and the incremental traffic is being offered on the saturated routes only.”In other words, IR rejects the Debroy committee’s proposals for reorganisation. It thinks it has as good managers as any. Their shortcomings are entirely due to the fact that they were never given enough money to invest and to improve the system. Just give them the money and they’ll deliver. We, spectators, can take any view we like on the two approaches. It is irrelevant. The railways cannot stop. And they can be kept running only by the existing workforce, whatever we think of them. The government will never have the courage to dismantle the railway management, as the Debroy committee wants. It’ll have to make do with the current management, and make only those improvements that it agrees to — and the government gives it money for. Modernisation of railway accounts is a good idea. But for the rest, let us wait for the Ratan Tata committee’s views — and for the money Arun Jaitley may cough up for the railways. (Courtesy: By Ashok V Desai)
0
By at No comments:
Labels: , , , , , , ,