Phase-3, with its extensions, involves constructing about 160km of metro network in one go – something that probably nobody anywhere in the world has done before. If you remember, phase-1 was executed over seven years and three months while phase-2 took less than five years and covered 125km. In Phase 3, apart from just catering to central Delhi, we have taken a quantum jump in technology – we have used new coaches, signalling systems, and automated driverless trains. (Phase-3 is essentially phase 1 + 2 put together.)
In phase 3, 90km will be ‘unattended train operations’ – where there is no human intervention. Trains operating on phase-1 and 2 lines cannot be shifted to driverless trains because that will require technology upgradation. Phase 3 will decongest stations like Rajiv Chowk and Kashmere Gate. With this phase providing more interchange options, congestion at these stations will reduce significantly.
Current passenger traffic is 2.8mn per day. In 2015, we had crossed 3.2mn in a day. After phase-3 is done, we expect it to rise to 4mn.
The DPR for phase – 4 is ready; it will comprise of 103km and will be concentrated in the central part of the city. It will consist of (1) Azadpur to RK Ashram – covering Sadar Bazar, Karol Bagh – the third line for Old Delhi and (2) criss-crossing from Inderlok to Indraprastha via Paharganj and ITO among others. These two lines will be completely underground and there will be two more lines. Phase-4 will provide more interchange stations. Execution on this phase will start anytime now. We will begin the preliminary work even before funding is secured.
As you said, we are still profitable at the operational level; however, our margins are shrinking. DMRC has always been a lean organisation; earlier, we had set a target of employing 40 people per kilometre, which we are further tightening to 34. We are constantly trying to improve this parameter. Staff cost (salary) is not in our hands as it is decided by the government, but we can control the number of people that we employ. We are also concentrating on operational- and energy-efficiency to reduce costs.
Tunnelling is one subject where bookish knowledge doesn’t work. Every project has something new. For example, in phase-3, TBMs (tunnel boring machines) were not working in a few places, hence we improvised. We don’t expect any significant new technology adoption ahead; it is more learning-based, gained through experience.
Let me give you another example – in phase 3, we used ‘U girders’. We realised that girders that were being cast in casting yards, in a factory environment, were superior to ones assembled at the site. So we transported pre-fabricated ‘pier to pier – U girders’ that were fabricated in casting yards, to the site and just placed them on the piers.
In phase-3 our focus was primarily on reduction of labour as skilled labour availability is very limited. In the harvesting season, especially, we did not get any labour; so, we mechanised many processes.
DPRs and first-section tenders of all metro projects were finalised by DMRC. We also built some of these metros (Jaipur and Kochi). We built Jaipur within three years and Kochi in less than four years – we have recently started trials in Kochi. DMRC’s track record has been great. We are also in the process of building Vijaywada and Mumbai Metro 2A.
Whenever DMRC takes a new project, we take full responsibility for all the decisions about finalisation of tenders, management of contracts, and decision about developers. State support is always needed in areas such as land acquisition, and law and order. The DPR is also prepared in consultation with the state government authorities. Our reputation has resulted in full support from government agencies. Be it Jaipur or Kochi, we have had a complete free hand. We expect this in Mumbai and Vijaywada too.
Fundamentally, there is no difference between LRT and MRT. In Europe, LRT means trams that run on surface. LRT is nothing but a metro – if you run trains at lower frequencies or with lesser coaches, it becomes an LRT. All these terminologies are interchangeable.
If you expect lighter traffic, you can have lighter civil structures – to run fewer trains with lesser coaches. Stations become small, but it is still a metro – there is no fundamental difference. Everything else including power supply remains the same. Only if coach sizes are different, then you have a fundamentally different model, but that will give you a maximum saving of 10%, not more than that. However, these coaches are not upgradable to a higher capacity in the future. So, you cannot run a five-coach train on infrastructure that was designed to run a three-coach one – this is because the power supply and station size would not be adequate. You can only increase the frequency.
Monorail is completely different. Its only selling point is that you can build it along sharper curves, and connect places that have narrow roads. But the experience is highly inferior because of single wheel. Another argument is that since the structures needed for monorail are sleek, they do not obstruct the skyview. However, the modern concept of life saving / rescue system for passengers means that the certifying authorities will insist on a walkway along the monorail corridors for passenger evacuation, thereby defeating the skyview argument – and we are back to square one. We do not consider monorail a proper solution for urban transport.
The biggest problem with monorail is the proprietary technology. Therefore, if you want to extend a monorail even by 5km, you have to go to the same rolling-stock vendor who has supplied the earlier phase. Even for existing rolling stock, spare parts can be procured only from the same vendor. On the other hand, metro technology is so open that you can add as many vendors as you like with the same specifications.
This is not 100% true. Different practices exist worldwide. For the first five years, rolling stocks do not require any major maintenance, largely because specifications are very stringent. Metros like those in Russia go for complete lifecycle cost, but having five or ten years does not make sense.
We do not include maintenance cost, as we believe that the vendors’ costs will be much higher than our departmental cost. Our maintenance would be much cheaper.
In the last tender for Phase 3 – we included energy consumption in the bidding process for rolling stock. Anybody proposing inferior energy consumption was loaded with a penalty on the submitted bid, and the winner was decided on this basis. This is going to result in significant cost saving as energy cost is 40% of our total operational costs.
The Delhi metro project was so large that players from over the world worked on it; we never had any problem of capability deficiency. The problem is that the window of work is very small – we are building 160km over 3-4 years – they ALL have to work in that time frame.
Since the employment of contractors is for a limited period only, once execution on a specific stretch is over, the developer has to wait for the next contract to be awarded. Resources are limited. Even if we want contractors to grow and become big in this domain, it is difficult, as this is not a regular job for them. They cannot be asked to bring in huge resources in terms of the viability of their contracts.
Most of the tunnelling work is done by international players. In phase-2, we saw Indian players taking on important roles, although in JVs with international players, mainly for consumables and spare parts for TBMs that are not available in India and therefore easier to procure with a partner.
If you have the scope to widen roads, there is no question, right? You should do it! Most of our cities – even tier-2 cities – have populations of more than 4-5 million. They are not tier-2 cities in the global sense of the definition. My point is, if you delay making metros for these cities today, and start building them after 10 years, it is just going to be more costly and more difficult to build. I think it is more prudent to plan a better public transport system today, as the return to society is much higher in terms of man-hours saved, and lesser pollution and fuel consumption.
You see, we need to move to an ecosystem where public will not mind paying for high-quality infrastructure. However, we have made a system where we don’t charge people adequately for obvious reasons. Still, our cost of construction is 50% lower than most metro projects across the world, even Kuala Lampur and Shanghai Beijing. While the investment might appear huge in absolute terms, it is still much less when compared globally.
Overall, I believe that investment in metro projects has many more tangential benefits than the ones that are easily visible. If you include them all, these investments are a very small price to pay.
Subscribe to enjoy uninterrupted access
