The 175-Year Bureaucracy You're Fighting
Before I tell you how we fought for trains, you need to understand why getting Indian Railways to do ANYTHING new is like turning an aircraft carrier with a kayak paddle.
When we started advocating for commuter rail in 2009, we didn't realise we were asking a 175-year-old organisation to think differently. We didn't understand that Indian Railways wasn't just resistant to change, it was structurally designed to resist change. This chapter explains why.
This history wasn't just interesting. It explained every obstacle we'd face.
In 1846, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland passed two hundred and seventy-two Acts of Parliament setting up new railway companies. About a third of the proposed railway routes, totalling fifteen thousand three hundred kilometres, never got built, the companies either collapsed because of poor financial planning, were acquired by larger competitors before they could build their lines, or turned out to be fraudulent enterprises to channel investors' money into other businesses.
This was the zenith of a stock market bubble called "Railway Mania". The price of railway shares increased, speculators invested more money, which further increased the price of railway shares, until the share price collapsed. James Andrew Broun-Ramsay, First Marquess of Dalhousie, was a Scottish leader. As President of the British Board of Trade in 1845, he threw himself into work during the crisis of the Railway Mania with such energy that his health partially broke down under the strain.
He would become important not in his home country, but in another one. He moved to India and served as Governor-General for eight years from 1848. He was popular as Lord Dalhousie and credited with introducing passenger trains on railways, the electric telegraph, and uniform postage in India. He described these as the "three great engines of social improvement". He also founded the country's Public Works Department.
Indian Railways Fan Club Academy started as an electronic mailing list in 1989. Its members have documented the history of Indian Railways. It is an excellent source of the organisational and technical history of Indian railways. From their archives, I could piece together the history and the growth of railways in India. It forms a fascinating narrative on how entrepreneurship led to a massive monolith called Indian Railways that, by 2019, was carrying over twenty-three million people and three million metric tonnes of cargo per year.
Trains in India began with British traders wanting to move goods and manage logistics more efficiently. Small experimental railways began popping up in the nineteenth century in Chennai. Back in 1835, they laid the first piece of railway line in Chintadripet in Chennai to see if they could do this at all. They laid the second one in Red Hills, Chennai, a couple of years later to haul stones from a granite quarry.
These railway projects spawned lots of proposals from Western India, where the British were much eager to have access between Mumbai (then Bombay) and the rest of India. The then Governor-General, Lord Dalhousie, while advocating for railway construction in India, also stated, "No one can safely say whether or not railways in this country will earn". Arguably, this led to the Guarantee System.
When the first proposals for railways in India were being debated in Great Britain, there was intense lobbying and support from banks, traders, shipping companies, and other interested parties. These supporters prevailed upon the British Parliament to create the Guarantee System, whereby the government would provide free land and guarantee a certain rate of interest on its capital investment to companies that constructed railways in India.
The railways formed with such agreements governing them were called "Guaranteed Railways". Typically, the guarantee was for a return of five percent annually, and the right for the railway company to pull out of the venture and get compensation from the Government.
In 1901, the Government made up a railway board, which formed the core of what we now know as Indian Railways. Four years later, Lord Curzon formalised its powers by attaching it to the Department of Commerce & Industry. Three years later, the Government purchased almost all the lines and re-leased them to private operators. This was the first takeover of private infrastructure building by the Government, but allowed for private players to handle maintenance and operations.
The turning point came in 1920, when, with thirty-seven thousand miles of railway tracks already built, the East India Railway Committee, chaired by Sir William Acworth, recommended a unified management for the railways. On the recommendation of this committee, the Government took over the actual management of all railways and also separated railway finances from the general governmental finances.
At Independence in 1947, there were forty-two separate railway systems, including thirty-two lines owned by the former Indian princely states. 1951 marked the formation of zonal railway units beginning with Southern Railway.
In 1989, the Government introduced the new Indian Railways Act, more than a century after the first Act. By the time they passed this Act, all railway infrastructure, operations, and maintenance were in the hands of the monolith called Indian Railways. The railways not only ran trains but also set up eleven factories to manufacture coaches, wheels, and everything in between. There was very little private enterprise left in the rail industry.
What this meant for us: When we proposed suburban rail in 2009, we weren't asking a company to add a service. We were asking a government ministry, with its own budget, factories, unions, and political constituencies, to do something it hadn't prioritised in decades. That's not a business decision. That's a bureaucratic and political one.
Suburban trains, also called local trains in India and commuter trains in other parts of the world, are not new. In 1867, the Bombay, Baroda & Central India Railway Company launched the Virar to Bombay Backbay suburban services. It was the first time they introduced a shorter service for passengers. Kolkata opened its suburban railway a year later. In 1928, work began on Madras suburban lines.
The city, by definition, is a trading area. A city attracts employment from neighbouring towns. Goods and people move into and out of the city. Commuter rails connect towns and satellite areas which are approximately one hour's distance from the city.
In contrast, Mass Rapid Transit systems, also known as MRTs, serve the metropolitan areas. These are electric traction-led, underground or overhead lines with more frequent stops along the way. Since they served within the metropolitan area, they were also called metros in some countries.
Bengaluru had embarked on an ambitious metro project in 2007, the first in South India. The Government had made many failed attempts previously. 1977 was the first time a state town planning team mentioned a metro project. A Southern Railway team in 1981 recommended that the city build a metro system along with commuter rail.
Finally, the Karnataka Government in 2003 prepared a Detailed Project Report (DPR) for the Bengaluru Metro rail in association with the Delhi Metro Rail Corporation. Delhi had successfully launched its metro system five years earlier.
In fact, the will of the Government to create the metro network was so strong that they created a company called Bangalore Mass Rapid Transit Limited in 1994 and started collecting money from citizens to fund the effort. People were already paying a cess on petrol for thirteen years before the company that would finally build the Metro in Bengaluru, the Bangalore Metro Rail Corporation Limited (BMRCL), came into existence.
Understanding this history wasn't academic exercise. It explained:
Why Indian Railways moved slowly: 175 years of accumulated procedures, regulations, and hierarchies. Every innovation required navigating layers of approval that were designed to prevent the chaos of the Railway Mania era, but also prevented any nimble response to new needs.
Why suburban rail was neglected: The organisational DNA prioritised long-distance freight and passenger traffic. Suburban services were local headaches, not national priorities. No political glory in maintaining what already existed.
Why BMRCL opposed us: They were protecting their institutional turf. Metros get international attention and consultant fees. Suburban rail is unglamorous, using existing tracks to run more trains. No photo opportunities.
Why we needed multiple government approvals: Railway land belonged to Indian Railways (a central government entity). Stations were in city limits (state and local government). New services required political will at all three levels. The system was designed for gridlock.
Why private sector didn't help: The Guarantee System had failed. Private companies learned that railway infrastructure in India meant dealing with government guarantees, changing regulations, and eventual takeover. By 2009, no manufacturer wanted to touch suburban rail without government orders in hand.
This history wasn't just interesting; it was a warning. We were asking a 175-year-old monopoly to innovate. We were proposing a service that three levels of government would need to coordinate. We were advocating for something unglamorous that wouldn't win elections.
We were, quite literally, trying to turn an aircraft carrier with a kayak paddle.
But understanding the problem wasn't enough. We needed to see it. Touch it. Ride it.
Outcomes that appear irrational reflect design choices made long ago. Study how the system evolved, what it was built to optimize, and what it protects. History explains resistance better than bad intentions. Before you push for change, understand what you're pushing against.