Smoke Screen & Spin Cycle Railways

 

There is a famous quote, often attributed to Winston Churchill, that “There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics.” In today’s climate of hype and headline-making announcements, one might well add a fourth category: declarations that fall into four convenient shades, the truth, the lie, the hype, and the half-truth. Indian Railways (IR), it would seem, has not merely learnt the craft of presenting hype and half-truths but has elevated it to something of a performing art, complete with drumrolls, confetti cannons, standing ovations.

First the hype. There are innumerable examples, but let us stick to the latest one. It was announced this week that building on the success of Vande Bharat trains, a new era of high-speed freight transport is going to begin with Vande Bharat-based freight trains. IR is gearing up to launch India’s Vande Bharat freight EMU, and Integral Coach Factory, Chennai, will soon roll out the first prototype for testing and trials.

The freight EMU was conceived in 2021–22 by IR in a familiar fit of overreach, a classic case of leaping before looking. An expensive 16-car train with a payload of 264 tonnes of palletised containers, equivalent at best to 4 or 5 BCN wagons or a handful of VPUs. Designed for 160 kmph, but given that even passenger Vande Bharat trains run at 130 kmph, it would likely operate at that speed while still consuming multiple paths. If a fast parcel or freight service was the objective, why not improve and expand the far cheaper Millennium Parcel specials, using locomotive-hauled trains with converted ICF coaches? Then there is the question of handling. A 16-coach train on a passenger platform would render it unusable for long periods during loading and unloading. A goods shed or siding would waste capacity for such a small payload. And what of first- and last-mile logistics for the target commodity? A superfluous question, perhaps, as no clearly defined commodity appears to exist.

Having announced and initiated manufacture nearly five years ago, it was soon realised that the project was, at best, a damp squib. When the impracticalities became evident, it was quietly set aside. But having invested in a hyped concept, abandoning it altogether must have seemed difficult. Thus, a hyped virtue is now being made of a doubtful necessity. One should not expect too many of these trains; the project appears structurally unviable from the outset.

Let me turn to two examples of half-truths.

It was recently declared in the Lok Sabha that Indian Railways has become the second-largest rail cargo carrier in the world by volume, a moment worthy of celebration. This milestone, we are told, is largely due to the near completion of the Dedicated Freight Corridors, now stretching over 2,800 km and handling more than 300 trains daily.

According to official logistics data for 2024–25, the top three rail cargo carriers by volume are China at approximately 4.0 billion tonnes, India at 1.62 billion tonnes, and the United States at about 1.5 billion tonnes. All correct, and yet not the whole story.

The Dedicated Freight Corridors have been described as near completion for more than two years now, a phrase with remarkable elasticity. In that period, originating freight traffic has grown by only about 3 per cent. Growth in net tonne kilometres has been under 1 per cent, and revenue growth has not kept pace with inflation. The proclaimed leap forward, therefore, appears much more modest on closer inspection.

The measure itself also matters. While India may have overtaken the United States in originating volume, the picture reverses when measured in net tonne kilometres, where the United States still leads by over 50 per cent due to longer hauls. The ranking, it seems, depends largely on the metric one prefers.

The second example concerns electrification. It has been claimed in the Lok Sabha that the shift to electric traction has yielded savings of ₹6,000 crore, presented as evidence of strategic success.

To be fair, Indian Railways is close to electrifying nearly 100 per cent of its network, potentially making it the first major railway system to achieve this. Other large systems remain between 40 and 80 per cent electrified, while countries such as the United States and Australia are below 10 per cent. This is a notable achievement and contributes to reduced dependence on fossil fuels.

Yet questions remain. Has electrification outpaced operational need, leaving nearly 5,000 diesel locomotives worth about ₹30,000 crore underutilised? Would greater environmental gains have come from targeting electrification of road transport vehicles, a far larger polluter? And can electrification be called fully green when more than half of India’s electricity is still coal-based?

The claimed ₹6,000 crore saving is unclear. Is it annual or cumulative? With the current energy bill at about ₹33,000 crore, does this imply it would otherwise have been ₹39,000 crore?

The numbers do not clarify matters. Yes, the energy bill has risen only marginally from about ₹30,000 crore in 2018–19 to current levels. Given modest freight growth and a sluggish passenger segment that is still below pre-Covid levels, even this increase raises questions about returns. With such large investments and relatively stable electricity tariffs, thanks in part to open access procurement strategies, one might have expected the energy bill to at least stabilise, if not decline.

In essence, such claims require clearer articulation. Yet they pass with limited scrutiny, while the opposition shows little inclination to engage with such substantive issues. What emerges is a familiar pattern. The facts may not be incorrect, but they are incomplete. In public discourse, a half-truth can mislead as effectively as a falsehood. Transparency and clarity are essential for credibility.

One hopes that greater clarity will emerge and that these reasonable doubts will be addressed. Until then, one is reminded not only of Gonzalo, who observed in The Tempest, “The truth you speak doth lack some gentleness, and time to speak it in...”, but also of Macbeth, who, in Macbeth, warns against appearances that mislead: “...False face must hide what the false heart doth know.”

...