Brindavan Express - ರೈಲು ಹೆಸರು ಬೃಂದಾವನ್ ,ಇದು ಯಾವಾಗಲೂ Number 1 - Vijay Baradwaj

import of high speed coach was not justified for the following reasons:
(a) RDSO had covered much ground and was confident of achieving improvements in coach designs to suit specific requirements of Indian Railways. The Minister had also felt in June 1992 that "all requirements can be met by going ahead with our plans for upgrading the ICF coaches", but asked for a review by the full Board in view of the insistence of the former CRB and MM on import.
(b) Following that directive...
more...

of the Minister, the considered view of the Railway Board (18/ 19 June 1992) was that the present cost of import of the coach would be too high (Rs.5 crores per coach against Rs.0.50 crore per indigenous coach) for the benefits likely to be derived.
(c) The present track standard does not permit running of longer coaches and would need additional investment on the track to accommodate such coaches.
(d) In fact, with the help of RDSO and experts of UNDP, RCF succeeded in rolling out in 1994-95 a prototype of high speed coach which was fit to run at 160 kmph.
ii) After marathon search for a "state of art" coach technology for 9 years, what Railways finally opted for was not a complete coach technology but a part of it. As per finalised contract, 21 AC Chair cars would be supplied without antiskid devices restricting the speed potential to 160 kmph only. Similarly, 3 generator-cum-brakevans would be supplied without power generation equipments, viz. diesel engines, alternators, rectifiers and control equipments. Thus, these 24 coaches cannot be put in service even on Shatabdi routes on their receipt in India. Formation of two full rakes for Rajdhani routes would not be possible at all in the absence of AC first class and AC sleeper coaches to complete the formation. The import of 'state of art' coach technology, therefore, would not bring any immediate benefit to the Railways.