Snubbing Its Own: The Puzzling Case of ICF and High-Speed Trains
The news doing the rounds is that Indian
Railways (IR) is poised to award a massive contract to M/s Bharat Earthmovers
Limited (BEML) for sixteen more high-speed trainsets, coming close on the heels
of a contract already awarded to them for developing two prototype 8-coach
indigenous high-speed trainsets for ₹866.87 crore for the Standard Gauge
Mumbai–Ahmedabad corridor under construction. I had firmly believed that the
Integral Coach Factory (ICF), Chennai, ought to have been the natural choice
for designing and manufacturing these prototypes, in preference to BEML. That
decision was, however, taken in favour of BEML, but one expected that at least
this time the mandate would revert to ICF. I said as much, and those views have
found place across several media platforms including The Print, ETV Bharat,
MSN, among others (referenced at the end).
I am fully aware
that while many may agree, there will be others who would argue that the
quality of BEML’s products surpasses that of ICF, and that my position is
coloured by my association with ICF, where I led the Train 18/Vande Bharat team
eight years ago. Some may even choose to troll. That, of course, is part of the
game. Yet, it is precisely to pre-empt such arguments that I find it necessary
to lay out, more fully and clearly, the reasons behind my stand.
It may well be
argued that my view is guided by affection for ICF. It is equally possible that
there exists a sound rationale for favouring BEML alone, though such reasoning
is not available in the public domain. Be that as it may, let me set out my
position plainly.
The indigenous
development of a high-speed train is unquestionably a welcome step.
I have consistently advocated this approach, maintaining that while 350/320
kmph trains from Japan must be deployed to fully utilise the infrastructure
being built, we must simultaneously nurture indigenous design of trains capable
of operating in the 220–250 kmph range during slack periods as part of our own
experimentation and learning curve. In the end, this has happened, but less as
a result of a coherent strategic vision and more as a cynical consequence of
failed negotiations with the Japanese, whose pricing proved astronomical. One
would have applauded the decision far more had it emerged as a natural
progression of the Vande Bharat initiative rather than as a reluctant fallback.
Even so, it remains a step in the right direction.
When it comes to
mainline coach design and manufacture, ICF remains the finest asset India
possesses. Yes, its quality standards require
improvement, and it’s still far away from being ‘world-class’, but judged on
proven capability and accumulated experience, no other unit within Indian
Railways (whether RCF or MCF), nor any PSU or private player, matches it. That
a unit which ushered in the Vande Bharat revolution and was rightly celebrated
for it should now be treated almost as an afterthought, while preference is
extended to an entity that has never designed a mainline passenger coach, is
nothing short of baffling. Even the recently rolled-out Vande Sleeper from BEML
involved limited original design input, with much of the design having been
handed over from ICF’s Vande Bharat repertoire. Despite this, the project saw
significant delays: the first rake, though built and tested, remains unused,
and only the modified second and third rakes have been inducted into service.
The recent
mandate assigning ICF the task of building two 16-coach trainsets designed for
220/200 kmph operation on existing broad-gauge tracks appears, frankly, to be a
red herring. The rationale is difficult to
comprehend. Even the 180/160 kmph Vande Bharat services operate well below
potential, typically in the 110–130 kmph range, due to the absence of 160
kmph-capable broad-gauge tracks. Where, then, is a 220 kmph train expected to
run? Even if one assumes that such a train would be tested at up to 200 kmph on
the new test track being built in Rajasthan, it would remain precisely that: a
test specimen, not a commercially deployed asset. What motivation can any
engineering team derive from building a product that is not going to see
real-world service? It begins to look less like a meaningful assignment and
more like a token gesture: crumbs to keep ICF nominally engaged.
Are we committed
to building a robust, competitive ecosystem for high-speed rail manufacturing,
or are we inexplicably placing disproportionate faith in a single, relatively
inexperienced player? The current trajectory suggests the
latter, at the expense of broader participation, which is essential for
innovation, resilience, and long-term capability building. While ICF is the
natural front-runner, there are also competent designers and manufacturers in
the private sector who deserve encouragement and inclusion.
Equally
troubling is the apparent insistence on stainless steel (SS) coach construction
for high-speed trains. The global shift away from SS happened
long ago; aluminium has become the material of choice due to its lighter
weight, superior energy efficiency, and better aesthetics. Even if SS were to
be accepted as a starting point for prototypes, committing to it for
large-scale production, presumably for the entire fleet, effectively shuts the
door on aluminium-based designs, thereby locking us into a sub-optimal
technological path.
Let me be clear:
I am not blind to BEML’s strengths. In fact, I was the
one who supported its re-entry into the mainline passenger coach domain in
2017, after decades of inaction, and placed an order on them as GM/ICF for a
complete rake of LHB coach shells. I remain open to being persuaded if a
compelling, transparent, and technically sound argument in favour of BEML is
presented. But as matters stand today, the optics and the substance suggest a
troubling pattern: a stepmotherly treatment meted out to a proven in-house
institution, in favour of a less experienced entity.
And in the end, unless my views are
convincingly corrected, one is reminded of King
Lear’s bitter truth on ingratitude: “How sharper than a serpent’s tooth it is to have a
thankless child!” and of Julius
Caesar’s enduring verdict: “This was the most unkindest cut of
all.”
…
Ref.
The Print 29th April 26: https://theprint.in/india/with-a-proven-track-record-icf-should-be-first-choice-for-high-speed-trains-vande-bharat-maker/2917735/
…
Very elaborate and well described sir . ICF certainly has an edge being trained staff/supervisor and officers . Thus there is certainly an edge on quality and workmanship.
ReplyDeleteThanks, even if there is no edge in Quality, there is this legacy of decades.
ReplyDeleteVery well articulated in strong words and with full logic sir. To me it appears an ego problem and optics management by the leadership. The most prudent solution would have been to induct few Shinkansen train sets to set the benchmarks and bring in indigenous players. This mistake of not bringing ETCS in limited sections as decided earlier and proliferating the immature Kavach across the railway network is taking us along the longer learning curve.
ReplyDeleteMoreover, manipulated technocrats of IR are equally responsible for this suicidal step.