PRADESH 3703.25 ARUNACHAL PRADESH 11.67 ASSAM 2442.57 BIHAR 3730.57 CHHATISGARH 1212.91 DELHI 183.23 GOA 69.31 GUJARAT 5258.49 HARYANA 1710.49 HIMACHAL PRADESH 296.26 JAMMU & KASHMIR 298.19 JHARKHAND 2394.46 KARNATAKA 3281.36 KERALA 1045.36 MADHYA PRADESH 5000.00 MAHARASHTRA 5745.48 MANIPUR 1.35 MEGHALAYA 8.76 MIZORAM 1.50 NAGALAND 11.13 ODISHA 2572.16 PUNJAB 2269.27 RAJASTHAN 5893.10 SIKKIM 0.00 TAMIL NADU 4027.08 TELANGANA 1736.67 TRIPURA 192.54 UTTARAKHAND 339.80 UTTAR PRADESH 9077.45 WEST BENGAL 4135.19 UNION TERRITORIES NAME OF UNION TERRITORY ROUTE KILOMETRES CHANDIGARH 15.70 PUDUCHERRY 22.16 ANDMAN & NICOBAR 0.00 TOTAL:ALL INDIA 66687.46
263 numbers of new line surveys have been taken up in the country. Surveys require investigation of one or more routes, in consultation with State Governments and Forest Department, to decide the most technically feasible alignment, interaction with State Government, trade and industries for assessment of traffic projections, preparation of plans and drawings for calculation of costs etc. Since this is an extensive exercise, it is not possible to fix time lines for completion of surveys.
This Press Release is based on the information given by the Minister of State for Railways Shri Rajen Gohain in a written reply to a question in Lok Sabha on 07.12.2016 (Wednesday).
(Release ID :155019)
4 posts - Wed Dec 07, 2016 - are hidden. Click to open.
8 posts - Thu Dec 08, 2016 - are hidden. Click to open.
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...
from IR w.r.t new trains, and painting a negative picture of regions blessed with trains.
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.