Public narratives often derive their force not from outright falsehoods but from selective presentation. What is stated may be factually correct, yet the omission of context can render it misleading.
For example, it was recently declared in the Lok Sabha that Indian Railways (IR) has become the second-largest rail cargo carrier in the world, a milestone attributed largely to the near completion of the Dedicated Freight Corridors (DFCs), now spanning over 2,800 km and handling nearly 350 trains daily.
According to official logistics data for 2024-25, the top three rail cargo carriers by volume (in billion metric tonne) are China at about 4.1, India at 1.62, and the US at 1.53. The claim, therefore, while technically accurate, conceals important context.
Freight traffic
The DFCs were described as “near complete” nearly two years ago. Since then, originating freight traffic (measured at starting point of loading, in million tonnes) on IR has grown by barely 3 per cent. Throughput, measured in net tonne kilometres, has remained almost flat, increasing by less than 1 per cent, while revenue growth has not kept pace even with the inflation putting a great strain of IR’s finances.
Moreover, while India may have overtaken US in originating volume, the picture changes when measured in net tonne kilometres, which is a better measure of revenue generation, where the US continues to lead by more than double due to longer haul distances.
A second claim relates to electrification. It has been stated that the shift to electric traction has yielded savings of ₹6,000 crore, cited as evidence of the success of the electrification drive and the benefits of investment in clean energy. IR is close to electrifying its entire network.
No comparable network has invested so extensively, with electrification levels as percentage of total network ranging between 40 and 80 in countries such as Germany, France, the UK, China, South Korea, Japan and South Africa, and below 10 per cent in large systems such as the US, Brazil, Australia and Indonesia.
This outcome was largely inevitable given the policy push and is also commendable at one level, particularly for reducing dependence on fossil fuels, which has become even more critical in today’s war scenario.
Yet, the development raises questions. Has the pace of electrification exceeded operational need, leaving nearly 5,000 diesel locomotives, valued at about ₹30,000 crore, underutilised?
Would it have been more effective, from an environmental perspective, to prioritise electrification of more polluting road freight instead of a mode that is already far more environment-friendly? Is electrification entirely green when more than half of India’s electricity still comes from coal?
These questions may seem like a fait accompli. It is reasonable, however, to expect that such investments would lead to IR’s energy bill to stabilise, if not reduce, with the decreasing dependence on volatile crude prices. Does the figure of ₹6,000 crore represent annual savings or cumulative savings over time?
With the current annual energy bill at about ₹33,000 crore (electrical energy and diesel oil combined), is it being suggested that without electrification it would have been closer to ₹39,000 crore?
The energy bill has in fact increased, rising from about ₹30,000 crore in 2018-19 to current levels, albeit a marginal rise. In the context of modest freight growth and passenger traffic that has yet to equal the pre-Covid levels, even this limited rise in energy costs raises questions about returns on investment. Moreover, with only modest increases in electricity tariffs, aided partly by procurement strategies such as open access, one might have expected the overall bill to decline with electrification.
At a fundamental level, these claims call for clearer explanation.
The writer is Retd GM of ICF, Independent Consultant and leader of Vande Bharat project
Published on April 22, 2026