Search Forum
Blog Entry# 2083643
Posted: Dec 07 2016 (21:30)
14 Responses
Last Response: Dec 10 2016 (16:33)
14 Responses
Last Response: Dec 10 2016 (16:33)
Commentary/Human Interest
Rang De Basanti^ 138872 news posts
As on 31.3.2016, the state-wise length of railway lines in terms of Route Kilometers’ is as under :
...
...
10 Posts
Is list of 263 numbers of new line surveys mentioned in press release available?
#BSB_AMH_GKP_NewLine
#BSB_AMH_GKP_NewLine
it, in my opinion, actually distorts the picture. this is because many rail lines in India in the most populated region carry far more than their sanctioned capacity. routes leading out of mumbai towards north, ALD-MGS section, ET-AGC etc carry more trains than the number they were designed for, and hence while 1 Km track per thousand people may correspond to 'x' number of trains (x<1) in other place it may correspond to 1.6x or even 2x if the network is heavily loaded.
unless some correction factor compensating for overload is involved, the picture depicted by the rail density per 1000 Km is going to be rather wrong, ending up showing far rosy picture in areas with rail lines but facing neglect...
more...
unless some correction factor compensating for overload is involved, the picture depicted by the rail density per 1000 Km is going to be rather wrong, ending up showing far rosy picture in areas with rail lines but facing neglect...
more...
Agreed. I only suggested having the population numbers so that people don't interpret the route lengths at face value. Historically, the Gangetic plains UP and Bihar had the highest population density ( not relevant now probably), so these areas had a much higher track density than most areas in the rest of the country and as such, even during the British Raj itself, these areas had a much denser railway network than anywhere else in the country. So, even if subsequent developments have been tainted by bias from the government, these places already had a head start compared to the rest of the country. Biased government or not, they are bound to be at the top of the table. I wanted the population data to be included so that the reason behind the disparity is made clear.