Stats of annual passengers earning year 2016-17 shows Gwalior's daily avg no. of ticket booked were 23,825 and Jhansi's were 24, 969 (1000+ more than gwl). Now as per the annual pax earning goes Gwl = 183.04cr and Jhs = 172.08cr. this proves your statement of Volvo vs Parivan buses absolutely correct. Gwl is infact a Volvo with less no. of pax with whopping 11cr more revenue and Jhansi is overcrowded 3rd class bus. At that time Jhansi had 120+ more trains than Gwl. only 3 vip trains had stoppage at gwl which includes chennai Raj, Garib Rath and Bhopal Shatabdi. Gwl people have every reason to travel to Jhansi whereas Jhansi had none. Now as per latest info Gwl's daily footfall being 4500 more than Jhs's and with more vip trains getting halt including Gatimaan, B'lore Raj, Chennai Duronto and many more. Also Gwl-ahmedabad exp originating from gwl. (Which gives...
more...

jhs people atlast a reason to board a train from gwl). The annual passengers earning no. would easily be more than 25-30cr in favour of Gwl. In terms of passengers facilities gwl still proves to be better than jhs. There is a huge Mall just outside the gwl rly stn. where as Jhansi has none. And the reason for jhansi being overcrowded and "Producing hardly any difference in no. of passengers" is because of people coming from the Mau, Mahoba, Orai to catch delhi bound trains and people from gwl, dabra, datia and morena boarding mumbai/south bound trains from jhs. If gwl etawah kanpur route gets 20% of the no. of trains that jhs kanpur route has and if all skipping trains gets a halt at gwl than the difference in no. will be even more.

It is quite obvious when the no. Of stops of trains are more in Jhansi almost 120 as u said hence no. Of passengers must be more.
But having a difference of 10crores in revenue is a big no. Gwalior is generating more than Jhansi. Hence for all d trains stop should also be provided in gwalior and for some trains it should be skipped at jhansi.
Earlier when there was no direct flight from Gwalior to Hyderabad one of my friend travel in train from Gwalior to Jhansi to board Secumderabad Rajdhani...
more...

as it is not having halt in Gwalior.
Also if Kanpur Etawah Bhind line is not giving importance due to politics of Jhansi. Though goods trains are running thru this route. The earnings of Gwalior will be more and will become much more then jhansi.
Also for narrowguage route as per news avg 6000 passengers travels daily if this route was converted to broad guage though not done just because of politics of Jhansi. Earnings would have been more.
Thus Jhansi is responsible for putting railway in debt.

I agree that the rake length should be increased. Just pointing out some issues here.
The platform length increase was not implemented rigorously. Many of the major stations have long platforms, but the platform length has not been standardized across all stations. So you may have some stations on the route having long platforms, while most of the medium/small stations don't. This won't be a problem if it's only a few trains having longer rakes, but it will be a problem if longer rakes become the norm.
Moreover, just having a long platform...
more...

doesn't mean much. The signalling, fouling points etc also have to be moved so that the full platform can be used.
For example, one of the platforms at Secunderabad (SC), I believe it is PF3 or PF4, is long enough to hold 24 coach rakes. But the points (where the track merges with the other tracks) are too close to one end of the platform. So, some space at the end of the platform is useless, as there is a safety margin to be followed here. Because of this, the platform can only hold shorter rakes, despite being long enough. ( I don't know if this has been rectified now)
Similar issues may be present at most stations that seemingly have long platforms. This restricts the number of platforms that can be used for such long rakes, making things difficult for the controllers.
Again, not an unsolvable problem, but not a simple one to fix either, as it will require yard modifications at many places.

One more issue that rarely gets mentioned, is the capacity of the EOGs and the HOG. Adding more coaches adds more electrical load on these systems. They may develop unwanted harmonics (secondary characteristics in the power supply) because of the increase in the rake length.
This would be an even larger problem to handle as all the EOGs and the HOG systems in locomotives would have to be upgraded to the new specifications.
This is potentially an issue in this case as, particularly in IR, we have a tendency to always...
more...

implement systems that 'just' meet' the needs. We usually leave very small margins for updates and expansions.
Most stations have platforms and loop lines that are 'just' long enough for the longest rakes of that time. The locomotives are typically just powerful enough to handle the largest loads of that time.
It is such philosophy that is the main hurdle in transitioning smoothly to newer technologies, and optimizing operations (in this case, increasing the LHB rake length).

Yes, I know these problems. Which is why I mentioned attaching a couple of coaches in the busy season, not as a permanent basis till such lacunae are rectified.
Power may not be much of an issue for mixed rakes as only one EOG is used. It may pose some problem with full AC rake with pantry. Presently, P7 power capacity is being ramped up by 500 HP. It may be in line with providing more power with HOG. With 100% track electrification in sight, next couple of years might see most trains with electric power end-to-end.
Home...
more...

platforms at major stations do have required length from where most popular and prestigious trains operate. What I suggested was attaching couple of extra coaches to such trains only in busy seasons when wait list turns into regret.