Central and East Asia Read online

  TRACKING THE GAUGES

  - GAUGING THE TRACKS

  The Story of the World’s Railway Gauges, Yesterday and Today

  Part 5 – Central and East Asia

  By

  Michael Frewston

  © Copyright Frewston Books Online 2016

  PART 5 – CENTRAL AND EAST ASIA

  PAKISTAN, INDIA, BANGLADESH

  SRI LANKA

  NEPAL, BHUTAN

  CHINA (INCLUDING TIBET AND HONG KONG)

  TAIWAN

  NORTH KOREA

  SOUTH KOREA

  JAPAN

  ON TO PART 6…

  PART 5 – CENTRAL AND EAST ASIA

  In Part 4, we saw the use of 1676 mm gauge within the borders of Afghanistan where it meets Pakistan – a gauge that will feature prominently in Part 5. The first chapters in Part 5 of our continuing odyssey around the world take us further into the countries that use 1676 mm gauge - the broadest gauge to be found in the world on normal railways, and a gauge that, in terms of route distance, is even increasing, notwithstanding the push in many areas of the world to extend the use of 1435 mm Standard gauge.

  But, as in Part 4, there is more than one gauge to be found in extensive usage, often next door to each other, and there are at least four gauges in common use in central and eastern Asia (not counting small industrial or other narrow gauge railways, or trams and metros). With each of these four gauges enjoying widespread usage, there would appear to be little prospect of any form of commonality between them. It will be left to technology, in the form of either bogie-changing or variable-gauge wheel-sets, to overcome the constraints imposed by different gauges.

  This part of the world includes two of the four so-called economic powerhouse BRIC countries – India and China. And China borders a third BRIC country – Russia. Each of these three countries uses a different gauge for its primary main-line railways – and each is sufficiently powerful in its own right, both economically and militarily, to resist any attempts by the others to convert its railways to another gauge.

  The interesting thing about the countries in Part 5 of this book is that, with the exception of Korea, they were all heavily influenced by the British and the Americans during the early years of their railway development. Yet, in many ways quite amazingly, that influence, with the exception of China, did not extend to the use of the gauge chosen by the father of railways, George Stephenson – 1435 mm.

  Other British influences are very apparent, particularly in the Indian sub-continent. The use of British-style buffers and couplings, operating procedures, track standards, station design and other features – some of them unique to the way the British did things – remained very apparent for most of the 19th century, and many exist to this day.

  In a way, China and the two Koreas here are the odd ones out. China and the Koreas use Standard gauge for their main railway systems – the only countries in central and east Asia to do so, and primarily due to both Japanese and American influences. Otherwise the Indian sub-continent – almost uniquely in the world – uses exclusively a wider gauge than Standard (trams and metros excepted), while Japan – again under British influence – uses Cape gauge for most (but not all) of its railways.

  PAKISTAN, INDIA, BANGLADESH

  I have combined these three countries under one heading, at least initially, as for most of their history – until Partition in 1947 when the British under the Raj left – they were all in fact part of one India, and thus shared a common railway system. Today most of that commonality still exists, although the fortunes of the railway systems in what are now three different and quite separate countries have diverged somewhat since Partition, and not always for the better.

  History:

  Long before the building of railways, India was ruled by the British, so it was only to be expected that British influences dominated India’s first railways. From 1848 to 1856, when India was still a collection of disparate states, British India’s Viceroy was Governor-general James Broun-Ramsay, 1st Marquess of Dalhousie. A controversial character by many accounts, he initiated the building and opening of the first public railway in India, in 1853.

  That railway wasn’t actually the first railway on the Indian sub-continent – there were a number of private mine, construction and industrial railways in India dating from the 1840s, and which were built to a number of gauges, including 1435 mm Standard gauge. These included the Red Hill Rail Road, built in 1837 (1435 mm gauge, one of the very few Standard gauge railways on the Indian sub-continent) and used to transport quarried stone; the Godavari Dam Construction Railway (gauge unknown, but likely narrow gauge); and the Solani Aqueduct Railway (gauge also unknown, and also likely narrow gauge). None of these was open to the public, and all are now closed.

  It was Dalhousie however who really was responsible for the appearance of the railway in India, and he was charged with (or even initiated without the requisite superior approval, depending on which accounts of his career you choose to believe) the building in the early 1850s of the first public railway line, initially from Bombay (as it was then known, using the traditional English-language spelling) to Thane (today, a Mumbai suburb), a distance of about 35 km. And he chose a wider gauge than Standard – 5 ft 6 in, or 1676 mm, and today often known as Indian gauge. The first passenger train in India reached Thane on 16th April, 1853.

  There are a number of speculations as to why Dalhousie chose 1676 mm gauge rather than Stephenson gauge that was by now well established (and legislated – see Part 1) in his homeland. Firstly, it was actually Dalhousie’s chief engineer John Brunton who is reported to have recommended this broad gauge. Brunton was concerned that the heavy monsoon rains and high winds that India experienced for much of the year would seriously endanger Standard gauge trains, and that the wider gauge would add the necessary stability to withstand 150 km/h winds.

  Secondly, the wider gauge would permit bigger steam locomotive cylinders (locomotive design by this time had not progressed as far as incorporating outside cylinders), and hence would allow for more powerful locomotives. More powerful locomotives would permit the faster movement of freight.

  Dalhousie accepted both these arguments, and even observed that the larger trains that this gauge permitted would enable more of India’s increasingly mobile workforce to be carried to and from their jobs – an observation that would prove (and still proves) to be very true in this very populous country, where the railway is utterly fundamental to India’s functioning and well-being.

  We are all familiar with scenes of Indian railways with passengers hanging on to the sides, roofs, buffer beams and anywhere else there is space to be found in or on an Indian passenger coach, and this situation would be even worse if the vehicles were smaller, as would be necessary on Standard gauge.

  It is interesting to note that Brunel, not ten years earlier, was using the same argument in Britain regarding increased carrying capacity and enhanced stability for his broad gauge trains! Dalhousie in India of course was obviously not constrained by Britain’s Gauge Act of 1846.

  At this time, in the mid-1850s, no-one was building standardized locomotives and rolling stock to 1676 mm gauge. It seems that India (whether under the specific direction of either Brunton or Dalhousie himself is not known) solved that problem by building at least some of its own locomotives. If so, then this would represent one of the very first examples of heavy locomotive engineering and manufacture outside Europe and the USA during the early/mid 1850s. Having said that, most of the early locomotives were eventually made in, and shipped from, England.

  Dalhousie wanted private enterprise to fund, build and operate the ensuing railways in India, which precipitated the setting up and operation of over a dozen separat
e railways by the end of the 1860s, each of which was guaranteed a 5% return on their investment. In this endeavour, he was encouraged by the Maharajahs, who were as enthusiastic about railways as Dalhousie was, and in fact became quite fanatical over the new railways being constructed throughout their kingdoms.

  Like in those other countries we looked at in the previous Parts of this book, and as we shall see later, where these early railways were allowed to be built by private interests, this policy carried the risk, in the absence of legislation such as Britain’s Gauge Act of 1846, that each railway would end up choosing its own gauge.

  However, Dalhousie wielded a heavy hand, and ensured that each privately-run railway company operated under close government supervision. Although history does not mention this as a fact, it is safe to assume that such close supervision included using only 1676 mm gauge, as well as ensuring common standards everywhere else.

  In the mid-1850s, the line from Calcutta to Delhi – arguably the most important in India – was opened. By the end of the 1860s, there were over 4000 km of railways either being built or already in operation, and new lines were being built at the rate of 1 km per day.

  In 1861, railways reached what is now Pakistan, when the Karachi-Kotri railway was opened, a distance of 170 km, and to 1676 mm gauge of course. The following year saw the completion of the 1676 mm gauge line between Dorshona and Jogotee in what is now Bangladesh.

  By the end of the 19th century, there were over 22 000 km of 1676 mm route distance in service on the Indian sub-continent, and there were few parts of India that were not being served by the train.

  But not all of India’s early railway development was to broad gauge. The British aristocracy ruling India in the 19th century found the heat of the central lowlands unbearable in summer, and in consequence built second homes high in the hills and mountains, some of which were 2000 m or more above sea level, where summer temperatures were much more bearable.

  To reach these summer residences required more railways – but the mountainous nature of this part of India pointed to something narrower than 1676 mm gauge. Metre gauge was selected for these railways.

  It is well established that for some years after Lord Dalhousie had departed, Lord Salisbury, who continued as Secretary of State for India, from 1866 to 1867, formally continued the policy of building all of India’s railways to 1676 mm gauge. Yet that policy was very nearly undermined in a very serious way.

  After Salisbury’s departure Lord Mayo subsequently took over as Viceroy to India, holding that post from 1869 until his unfortunate assassination in 1872. In the last year of his life, he reversed Lord Salisbury’s policy, and initiated the building of a large number of 1000 mm gauge railways, not only into the mountains that would enable the British rulers to reach their summer homes, but in other areas as well. It is quite possible that Mayo wanted to convert all of India’s railways to 1000 mm gauge.

  Quite why Mayo chose metre-gauge is not completely clear – it was said that Mayo initially wanted to use a gauge of 3 ft 3 in (991 mm), but that, as India was going to adopt the metric system, the gauge was adjusted to 1000 mm.

  This reasoning seems a little tenuous. Firstly, 3 ft 3 in was a very odd gauge (the common narrow gauges in use at that time in Britain and other areas in the world under British rule or influence were either 3 ft 6 in or 3 ft 0 in, both of which offered the easy availability of ‘off-the-shelf’ locomotives and rolling stock). Secondly, some even narrower gauge railways in India were built to hard imperial dimensions (2 ft 0 in and 2 ft 6 in), so there was every precedent to build these metre-gauge railways to imperial dimensions as well. Using a hard metric value of 1000 mm would be a departure from those precedents.

  Thirdly, there was little evidence of any intention by India to convert to the metric system at that time – official conversion didn’t occur until nearly 100 years later! (And indeed, some European countries, such as Sweden, had not officially adopted the metric system in the 1860s and 1870s, so it seems highly unlikely that India – still under British rule – was about to do so.) I believe there was some other influence at work, but history has not recorded as to what that influence may have been.

  As the 19th century closed, over 17 000 km of metre-gauge railways had been built in what is now India, Pakistan and Bangladesh – nearly as many as 1676 mm broad gauge! And these metre-gauge railways were to be found not only in the hills and mountains, but throughout the lowlands and the central plains as well. In today’s Bangladesh, most of that country’s railways were built to metre-gauge, reflecting not only the hilly and mountainous nature of this relatively small country on the eastern border of India, but also the fact that Mayo’s influence had indeed extended far and wide.

  For well over 100 years these metre-gauge railways have been continuously operated in these three countries, with, until recently, little thought given to changing this gauge. But that is changing, at least in India and Pakistan, as we shall see shortly.

  Meanwhile, the even narrower gauge railways I mentioned above were also being built, particularly in the more difficult mountainous regions, the most famous of which is the Darjeeling Himalayan Railway, opened in 1880 and to 610 mm gauge.

  The first sub-1000 mm narrow gauge railway was the Dabhoi to Miyagam line, built to 762 mm gauge, in 1873, shortly followed by a number of other 762 mm gauge lines. Dabhoi soon became the focal point for a very large network of narrow gauge lines – the largest in the world in fact of these narrow gauges, exceeding even that of eastern Germany’s 750 mm gauge railways (see Part 2).

  These very narrow gauge railways were built to both 762 mm (2 ft 6 in) and 610 mm (2 ft 0 in) gauges, although 762 mm gauge was the most predominant. This was in fact the policy, to build to this 762 mm gauge, initiated in 1897.

  For example, some railways (e.g. the Kalka-Shimla Railway, 96 km long) were built initially to 610 mm gauge and then converted to 762 mm later, usually in the early 1900s. Many of these have since been converted to 1676 mm gauge – and most (but not all) of those not yet converted will be at some point. That will be explained later.

  One railway – the line from Yeshwantpur to Telahanka, a distance of just 14 km – was built dual 762/610 mm gauge, the 152 mm gauge difference, as well as the light rail used, just allowing this to be accomplished with three rails (rather than four).

  I should mention one aspect in India’s decision to build to 1676 mm gauge, and that is what could have happened if what was known as the Robertson report had been adopted. Sir Thomas Robertson was appointed as special Commissioner for Railways in India, and chaired a committee in 1901 to look into improving the poor running of India’s railways, including the possible conversion of all of India’s railways to 1435 mm Standard gauge. In 1903, Robertson tabled his report, which, among its many recommendations, included that of conversion of all of India’s 1676 mm and 1000 mm gauge railways to Standard gauge.

  It was, when you think of it, an astonishing recommendation – a lot of cost (and reducing costs, especially in terms of making the railways profitable, was the prime theme running throughout Robertson’s report), with little (at the time) obvious benefit. Was Robertson truly a visionary, and could foresee something on the lines of a trans-Asian railway, linking east with west, with a common Standard gauge throughout? Or was there another reason? The Robertson report gives no insight as to what was running through Robertson’s mind.

  It seems however that more cost-conscious minds on his committee prevailed, and Robertson failed to convince anyone, other than a few of his committee members, to implement his recommendations. Nothing further was heard of Robertson’s proposed conversion to Standard gauge. Certainly, in 1904 and for the next decade after, many more, and some quite significant, metre-gauge lines were still being built, as well as a number of key 762 mm gauge lines. And of course the 1676 mm broad gauge lines remained broad gauge, as did any new main lines that had yet to be built.

  Whatever the reasons behind Robertson’s recommendation to co
nvert nearly 40 000 km of railway lines to Standard gauge, they must remain something of a mystery.

  India today:

  India had the fourth largest railway system in the world at one time. While its position in the world ranking has slipped a bit as countries like China have implemented huge construction programs, as well of course as a result of Partition, thereby reducing the size of India, it still remains one of the largest in terms of route distance. Not only in terms of route distance either – in fact, the Indian railway system can boast to being possibly the world’s largest employer, with 1.5 million employees (the incredible bureaucracy and sheer inefficiency of India’s railways is of course the stuff of legend).

  Today India has over 55 000 km of route distance at 1676 mm gauge, continually increasing as Project Unigauge is implemented, of which one third is electrified. The metre-gauge and narrower lines are of course ever decreasing in distance as they are slowly being converted to broad gauge.

  This naturally raises the question – why are these narrow gauge lines (including almost all of Mayo’s metre-gauge lines) being converted? With nearly 18 000 km of lines narrower than the 1676 mm broad gauge (17 000 km metre-gauge, plus just under 1000 km of 762 and 610 mm gauges), India has embarked on a program called Project Unigauge. This plan envisages that almost all of the narrow gauge lines will be converted to 1676 mm gauge (and in fact, this conversion to broad gauge is actually a continuation of a program that started as long ago as the 1920s). The idea of course is to increase the amount of through running across all of India without encountering breaks of gauge.

  Much of this plan has already been implemented, but there is a long way to go. Some railways however will not be converted at all. Primarily this is because the lines are too twisty, lightly used, and often in very difficult mountainous country, to make a wider gauge practical.