Thursday, March 30, 2006

West Bengal

Dear Sir,


Sub: Urban administrators-challenge-Viable alternative Skybus
Ref: Your Letter No: TS-176/06 dt 21st March,2006 & Conference in New Delhi on 21st March, 2006

As a former senior bureaucrat-engineer-manager-inventor and scientist, my interest is purely public interest. (a one page profile you may glance through).
I have done enough presentations in my service, and making one more to you is not difficult. But, the concern and worry that quite a few senior persons who talked to me at the conference, makes me write this letter.
My wish is one of your smart men should take the leadership position to present & implement viable, safer transport solution to improve the urban habitat. Of course, my services are always available as needed to your state.
Please accept my suggestion. Choose & nominate a dynamic senior in cadre, committed team leader in your Government, whom you trust & directly dealing with the problem of Urban transportation, to meet me in Hyderabad, to spend about only three hours. I will utilize this time to convince him of the necessity to design transport product to suit people and how to avoid bending peoples’ interest to serve product sellers.

Technology should serve people, not vice-versa!

Metro transport solution should basically meet the fundamental requirements to serve people and not to tax them and destroy their livelihood and homes.

Please be bold and insist to demand your requirements; it is the job of engineers and technologists to evolve suitable design to meet your needs:
  1. Only transport zone in the city, space above or below the road should be used- but with least occupation of the congested road, by the solution.

  2. The city aesthetics concerns, noise pollution, should be adequately addressed. This can be achieved only if continuous fixed structure is at a height of not less than 9 to 10m range.

  3. The access for people should be friendly and available every 500m , and one need not climb more than 6 to 7m as well as without need for another feeder system

  4. The solution should not generate further congestions on the roads with sudden massive discharge/ ingress of commuters, but evenly spread to match with the walkways available.

  5. The solution should be scalable for next 100 years, to carry light loads like 8000 pphpd to heavy 80,000 pphpd. And at high speeds of the order of 100kmph.

  6. The solution should address the cargo movement requirement of the city too, as well as the transport requirement for house keeping functions of the city.

  7. Not a single building nor any occupied land be demanded in the city for setting up the solution.

  8. The system should be free from climatic disruptions and be capable of working in floods/snow.

  9. Credible disaster management arrangements should be demonstrated.

  10. The safety of not only the commuters on the train, but also of the road users who are not using the solution, should be guaranteed through third party international accredited safety certifiers.

  11. The solution provider shall not expect any subsidy nor grant from the government. The solution should be financially viable from the fare box collections.

  12. Concession period will be negotiable from 10 years to 30 years, with performance assurance in the form of bank guarantee, with presentation of their solution in detail, to be completed within 3 years- will form the parameters to choose the DBOT( Design, Build, Operate & Transfer) through open bidding process. State should only provide the traffic data along the route, the work done by accredited responsible traffic survey consultants.

  13. The DBOT operator will be required to price his service to compare with existing modes of transport and shall not be given preferential treatment by the state, to control other modes, to favour him. A regulator on the lines of TRAI, of state will provide for any relief if needed by the DBOT operator.

  14. Thus the State will not act to promote any particular, technology at the cost to public interest, but will be people centric and protect only the public interest, thus making technology to be evolved to serve people.

  15. The state has to provide the legal framework of Tramway Act and rules made under the act, to allow the DBOT operator to get the commissioning safety certificate formally issued by a state nominated Safety Commissioner, based on the safety certificate issued by a reputed accredited international class safety certifiers.

I am not a salesman for the Skybus technology- although it is my invention; but all rights of royalties go to the people of our country and my effort is solely in public interest. You will be surprised to know that all the above requirements are met only by our country’s invention Skybus technology, which is pre-certified, - and not by any of the imported technologies.

My sincere advice to you is to send a sincere committed senior officer who can think of public interest- I am prepared to spare my time without any charges. In about three hours I will give all necessary materials and training inputs to your officer, so that he/she may correctly face the Urban decongestion challenge, and be a leader & implementor. Then this officer can explain or do the necessary presentation to the superior decision making authorities in the State. You have to lead, through knowledge.

Please do not be led by product sellers.

You can have free metro transport solution- if only you want it: we can make it happen, that is what as IITian from Kharagpur (1996-1970), I can do for Kolkata!

But for heaven’s sake do not commit the blunder of setting up an elevated conventional metro rail traveling on your head all along the road- a waiting disaster to happen to the innocent road users and adjoining property- that will be a criminal act of negligence knowingly by the powers charged to protect lives and property in the state.

Let us serve wisely!

Yours sincerely,


(B. Rajaram)

Annexure: Profile.



Sri
Principal Secretary/ Transport/ Govt. of West Bengal /Kolkata
















Working for Infrastructure Development model
to make travel, food and shelter virtually free to all!
Er. B. Rajaram B.E., M.Tech., F.I.E IRSE(retd.,)
Life Member Computer Society of India
Fellow of National Academy of Engineering
Inventor &Mentor Anti-collision / Skybus Technologies
Mr. B. Rajaram (born 1945) is a First Class First with Distinction Engineering graduate and an M.Tech from IIT/Kharagpur. Having served a decade in railway open line in various capacities, another decade in Railway research at RDSO & IIT, worked abroad as consultant till 1990.
He was involved with the Konkan railway project from the beginning of construction (1990) as a Chief Engineer, Director (Projects) and finally as the Managing Director(1998 to Jan, 2005).
The World Bank praised his management practices.
He has original contributions of new theories in rail-wheel and track-vehicle interactions in railway technologies recognized and published in the world forums.
He holds several patents abroad and in India for his inventions. His inventions cover railway technologies, world’s first Intelligent Anti-collision Devices (already under implementation over 2500km of route on Indian Railways), Sky Bus Metro (concept first presented in Bologna University Italy, by him in 1989)- in all 17 patents are assigned by him to the Government, through Konkan Railway Corporation, the royalty streams valued ( by Pricewaterhouse Coopers) at Rs 20,000 to 30,000 cr over 10 years with NPV of over Rs 8000 cr, if nurtured over next three years.
Research & technology innovation has been his passion. He is the recipient of FICCI national level award for Outstanding contribution to knowledge based industries in our country, as adjudged by Justice Bhagawathi committee, in 2004.
He believes it is in the realm of reality to make food, travel, communication and dwelling virtually free to all humans on the planet through bold application of science and technology to infrastructure development.
He wants India to lead the world in transportation, with Skybus technology, which makes metro-rail safer and financially affordable.
He has started his own research laboratory and is using the company as the vehicle. His website is www.atrilab.com

Wednesday, March 29, 2006

Elevated metro rail is a criminal act of negligence

Dear Sir,


Sub: Urban administrators-challenge- please be informed about derailment-free and financially viable metro rail, the pre-certified Skybus of India
Ref: Conference in New Delhi on 21st March, 2006

As a former senior bureaucrat-engineer-manager-inventor and scientist, my interest is purely public interest. (a one page profile of mine, you may glance through.) I have done enough presentations in my service. The concern and worry that quite a few senior persons who talked to me at the conference, makes me write this letter.

My wish is one of your smart men should take the leadership position to present & implement viable, safer transport solution to improve the urban habitat. Of course, my services are always available as needed to your state.

Please accept my suggestion. Choose & nominate a dynamic senior in cadre, committed team leader in your Government, whom you trust & directly dealing with the problem of Urban transportation, to meet me in Hyderabad, to spend about only three hours. I will utilize this time to convince him of the necessity to design transport product to suit people and how to avoid bending peoples’ interest to serve product sellers.

Technology should serve people, not vice-versa!

Metro transport solution should basically meet the fundamental requirements to serve people and not to tax them and destroy their livelihood and homes.

Please be bold and insist to demand your requirements; it is the job of engineers and technologists to evolve suitable design to meet your needs:
  1. Only transport zone in the city, space above or below the road should be used- but with least occupation of the congested road, by the solution.

  2. The city aesthetics concerns, noise pollution, should be adequately addressed. This can be achieved only if continuous fixed structure is at a height of not less than 9 to 10m range.

  3. The access for people should be friendly and available every 500m , and one need not climb more than 6 to 7m as well as without need for another feeder system

  4. The solution should not generate further congestions on the roads with sudden massive discharge/ ingress of commuters, but evenly spread to match with the walkways available.

  5. The solution should be scalable for next 100 years, to carry light loads like 8000 pphpd to heavy 80,000 pphpd. And at high speeds of the order of 100kmph.

  6. The solution should address the cargo movement requirement of the city too, as well as the transport requirement for house keeping functions of the city.

  7. Not a single building or any occupied land be demanded in the city for setting up the solution. Practically no demolitions in the city.

  8. The system should be free from climatic disruptions and be capable of working in floods/snow.

  9. Credible disaster management arrangements should be demonstrated.

  10. The safety of not only the commuters on the train, but also of the road users who are not using the solution, should be guaranteed through third party international accredited safety certifiers.

  11. The solution provider shall not expect any subsidy nor grant from the government. The solution should be financially viable from the fare box collections.

  12. Concession period will be negotiable from 10 years to 30 years, with performance assurance in the form of bank guarantee, with presentation of their solution in detail, to be completed within 3 years- will form the parameters to choose the DBOT (Design, Build, Operate & Transfer) through open bidding process. State should only provide the traffic data along the route, the work done by accredited responsible traffic survey consultants.

  13. The DBOT operator will be required to price his service to compare with existing modes of transport and shall not be given preferential treatment by the state, to control other modes, to favour him. A regulator on the lines of TRAI, of state will provide for any relief if needed by the DBOT operator.

  14. Thus the State will not act to promote any particular, technology at the cost to public interest, but will be people centric and protect only the public interest, thus making technology to be evolved to serve people. State should not become an instrument to impoverish & displace citizens to favour and prop up unviable technologies.

  15. The state has to provide the legal framework of Tramway Act and rules made under the act, to allow the DBOT operator to get the commissioning safety certificate formally issued by a state nominated Safety Commissioner, based on the safety certificate issued by a reputed accredited international class safety certifiers.

I am not a salesman for the Skybus technology- although it is my invention; but all rights of royalties go to the people of our country and my interest is solely in public interest. You will be surprised to know that all the above requirements are met only by our country’s invention Skybus technology, which is pre-certified, - and not by any of the imported technologies.

My sincere advice to you is to send a sincere committed senior officer truly committed to public interest- I am prepared to spare my time without any charges. In about three hours I will give all necessary materials and training inputs to your officer, so that he/she may correctly face the Urban decongestion challenge, and be a leader & executor. Then this officer can explain or do the necessary presentation to the superior decision making authorities in the State. You have to lead, through knowledge. Please do not be led by product sellers.

You can have free metro transport solution- if only you want it!

But for heaven’s sake do not commit the blunder of setting up an elevated conventional metro rail traveling on your head all along the road- a waiting disaster to happen to the innocent road users and adjoining property- that will be a criminal act of negligence knowingly by the powers charged to protect lives and property in the state.

Let us serve wisely!

Yours sincerely,
(image placeholder)
(B.Rajaram)

Sent to
Cabinet Secretary
Government of India

Sunday, March 12, 2006

Sub: Challenge faced by Urban administrators-An objective process to get right solution- refuse to promote metro rail or Skybus or mono-rail or guided buses! Pray Promote public interest!

Urban area administrators today are facing a serious dilemma. They face a choking city and conflicting offers of impossible solutions. In brief they face:

Ø Responsibility to solve current chaotic transport problem

o Roads congested with excessive number of road vehicles

o Low speeds causing pollution and loss of millions of productive man-hours

Ø Inability to increase road space

Ø Lack of funds

Ø Being called administrators – force themselves to depend on “experts” or “consultants” – who are likely to be pushers of vested interests

The solution depends on whom you choose as your consultant.

The technical/ knowledge world has different categories of persons, like all doctors are not the same- all engineers and consultants are not the same. Specialisation has to be distinguished.

For example for solving blood circulation problem, in a large hospital, the Doctor experienced as administrator and procurer of required hospital equipment cannot be the right choice – in case you choose, because he has been efficient in his work, what you get is what is contained in the suppliers marketing literature, as advice. So multiple solutions driven by products, appear.

Levels of technical competence are distinguished by

Ø Research and creative activity

Ø Design as per standards

Ø Execution through

o procurement as per specifications and standards.

o and contract management

Ø Maintenance / operational

Technology Evolution: We must understand difference between a research project & an innovative design to existing standards using well tested proven components.

The dilemma is to take advice from whom?

Ø If you take from Procurers and Project managers you get

o Off the shelf aggressively marketed solution

o Powerful established lobbies blur your view

Ø If you take from proven designers and innovators

o Worried to become a guinea pig in case it is new technology though sounds nice

o Face also violent opposition from established players in the highly competitive market who do have market strength

So one should have norms defined to discipline self to get the right advice

Ø Define what you want

Ø Define the minimum safety requirements to be certified at internationally accepted levels

Ø Hold the consultants/experts accountable and fix penal provisions for any misleading wrong advice

Ø Choose only those who have proven record of design/ technical contributions in their areas

Ø Check for back ground and eliminate procurers and project managers or operational executives even if they had worked for government, from your team of advisors- they are least qualified to render advice, because of their knowledge driven by marketing literature of equipment suppliers.

What do we want, in solving problem of transport?

Ø People: Comfortable. Safe travel at reasonably high speed at affordable prices for the city dwellers

Ø Cargo: City needs cargo supplies- an environment friendly system to eliminate trucks from roads

Ø Services: Municipal house keeping functions to be handled hygienically and efficiently

For People

Ø Easy access within one km to be reduced to 500m on the existing roads

Ø Almost no waiting time( less than 1min) – air condition travel with potential 100kmph speeds

Ø Affordable as compared to existing modes

Ø Assurance of safety not only for those who use the system, but also for road users.

Ø Minimum noise pollution and emissions

Ø Scalability for next 100 years requirement

For Cargo

Ø The system should take care of containerised or bagged cargo and be able to deliver the cities’ cargo to different locations.

Ø If possible can trucks be transported, eliminating them from roads?

City house keeping functions

Ø Since system follows exactly the roads, it is desirable if automated systems can be operated to clean and wash the roads

Ø As the city grows one major concern is management of city refuse- if the system can help automate the removal of containerised refuse of the city, a major hygienic concern is addressed.

As public servants we are concerned as to how to protect public interest. One must insist:

Ø Third party international class safety certification to guarantee:

Ø At no time the system will endanger the lives of commuters

Ø No collateral damage to any road users and properties along the road, because of allowing the system to follow the roads- either elevated or underground

Ø Credible disaster management system for safe evacuation of commuters

Ø Least public/debt support requirement

Ø Consultants or advisors to be made criminally liable for their recommendations, if found to be against public interest.

Objectivity and clarity

Ø Administrators with good intentions should demand that :

o Not a single building, garden, habitat be dislocated by the solution

o Least or almost no land causing dislocation of previous occupant be required

o Only existing transport zone in the form of roadways be utilised- and the city be not disfigured

Ø Solution should not cause further introduction of new road based vehicles on the system, which already is congested.

Ø Remedy chosen shall not be worse than the problem

Administrators cannot abdicate their responsibility to apply mind. Just calling some one as consultant,( not any way accountable for views), then allow wastage of public funds has to be viewed seriously.

As an experienced public servant and the inventor of Skybus technology of India, I have a duty to clarify and state facts, in public interest- technology rights are assigned by me to the Government through a public sector undertaking, (Konkan railway), hence I state in public interest:

First please understand the fact that Skybus metro rail is NOT a research project- but an innovative design project satisfying proven standards of construction and operations applicable to railway systems. So in technical terms Skybus is Pre-certified.

Ø Uses only the existing roadways- but does not occupy the existing traffic lanes.

Ø No demolition of any building or asset required, almost no land requirement

Ø Stations at 1km distance possible, without disturbing any local existing assets

Ø Handles cargo as well as the house keeping functions

Ø Scalable from light railway loads to heavy metro capacity, seamlessly

Ø Controls noise pollution

Ø Has the best disaster management solutions for evacuation

Ø Only railway system which provides guarantee against derailments and losing control from rail tracks, while providing high speed 100kmph speeds.

Ø By design and construction the safest improved railway in the world using well proven, time tested elements satisfying the prescribed international norms.

Ø It is a case of Innovative design project, pre-certified because observes existing standards and NOT a research project.

Ø Valuable experience gained while putting up and testing the Skybus, including handling of a disaster, prove all the points, and post accident safety trials have confirmed the superiority of the technology while being simple.

Ø Actual costs of construction establish that at half the capital cost of current solution, the system provides double the level of performance, compared to conventional metro rail.

Please visit www.atrilab.com to get typical third party consultancy reports prepared for some cities, for financial viability.

Urban administrators are concerned about public Safety & Funding.

Ø Skybus technology is Pre-certified as each and every element and sub-assembly as well as a system satisfies the same safety codal provisions.

Ø TuV Rheinland Germany , the premier undisputed leaders in the world for safety certification, are associated to assure.

Ø Without Government funds nor guarantees for debt, private funds will put up the superior Skybus Metro rail- in a short period of hardly 3 years for a 20 to 30 km network.

Ø Malaysian technology partners are ready to fund the SMART Hyderabad fully, Skybus Accentuated Metro Rail of 20km length.

Ø The technology belongs to India- I as inventor assigned the rights to President of India, through Konkan Railway Corporation- so as State authorities you have comfort of trusting another Public Sector Undertaking for delivering the Skybus Metro to you. The royalty benefits go to people of our country.

Ø The State chooses private BOT operator, and Konkan Railway and associates will provide the technology back up and see that the project is delivered.

So what is the way forward- straightaway adopt Skybus as a favour to me?

NO ! Please do not get involved with promoting any technology product; neither heavy metro rail nor mono-rail, nor guided buses nor Skybus etc etc - but challenge the technical prowess in the country and the world by demanding what is best for the public:

Ø Choose your consultants who are truly knowledgeable, avoiding procurement specialists and maintenance technicians, who may have vested interests or limited by experience.

Ø Do not specify technology- but emphasise your requirements. Demand high speed, safe, mass transit system, scalable for all future ( 100 years), please.

Ø Specify your requirements for the city to serve not only people but provide capability to handle cargo as well as house keeping functions

Ø Ban any dismantling of existing buildings and destroying gardens in city

Ø Demand that the system shall be safe as not to derail nor escape tracks to endanger the safety of the public on the roads & best disaster management– but fix penalties and criminal liability for failing to meet your requirement, as promised.

Ø Promise no Government funding in the name of viability gap funding nor offer any guarantees for raising debt- at the most offer tax concessions.

Ø Provide the Legal frame work through Tramway Act and a safety commissioner, who will verify the international certification papers to assure the best international class safety for public, at the time of commissioning and issue Formal Safety Certificate.

With the above approach, you need not waste your time with non-issues like whether you need a railway or what gauge is to be used or more serious real concerns like from where you should get funds, or whose properties you end up destroying with social and political implications.

You need only route-wise traffic projections and loads to be handled- independent of technology to be adopted, get these figures and call for open bids with the above mentioned requirements to get a BOT operator- your decision will be simple and public interest is best served without tears and fast too.

You can provide affordable air condition travel to all without struggling with details of technology choices nor funding problems, within your own time.

Yours sincerely,

(B. Rajaram)

Circulation:

Hon’ble Prime Minister & Cabinet Ministers Govt.of India, Secretariat/LS&RS, Planning Commission, & Hon’ble Chief Ministers All States.

Cabinet Secretary, Secretary /MOUD, Finance/Chief Secretaries All states, / CVC/ CAG

Press

Saturday, March 11, 2006




 Posted by Picasa

Sunday, March 05, 2006

Dear Sir,

Sub: Safety Certificate concerns about India’s Skybus technology-clarification-choice to create wealth for country or impoverish further our helpless common man

It has come to my notice that States are missing out a historical opportunity to change the lives of urbanites for better by not adopting India’s own Skybus technology, as some consultants not adequately informed, are giving misleading information and advice to states. Skybus actually solved some fundamental safety problems of railway- a solution which world awaited so long- it is not surprising that business interests of outdated technologies are spreading mis-information to prevent adoption of Skybus.

The power of the business interest of the foreign suppliers can be gauged, by the fact that even a good man like Mr Sreedharan, whom I respect, has fallen victim, and is writing to states against the better and safer railway system- which is Skybus.

I consider it my duty to put down the facts in public interest- I have no vested interest- as I have assigned all the royalties which my patent for Skybus will earn, to the Government of India, through Konkan Railway Corporation.

Administrators don’t have time and patience to deeply go through the matter, being too busy, but I pray that, you will be doing service to yourself and your own conscience, if you allocate your precious time and read, what I have submitted herein. You can change lives of the common man, at no cost to the state, provide urban transport using India’a most modern technology- please do not discount what I say, merely because I am Indian. India can lead, please.

Any system/sub-system/component/interface element when used satisfying proven established relevant international/national standards, is considered pre-certified.

1. In a table form it is shown how Skybus is pre-certified, just like metro rail, because all elements in Skybus are made to satisfy existing international safety standards just as a railway.

Matters of Fact: verifiable easily

Description

Conventional Metro rail like Singapore/Kolkata/Delhi

India’s patented Skybus metro rail –rights belong to the country

  1. Railway track-

Rails

Rails

52kg/62kg/m heavy rails as per standards- pre-certified

52kg/62kg/m heavy rails as per standards- pre-certified

Fastenings

UIC standard pre-certified

UIC standard pre-certified

Sleeper-blocks

UIC /Indian Rly standards – pre-certified

UIC/ Indian Rly standards Pre-certified

  1. Track geometry

Gauge/alignment/ twist

UIC/IR standards- pre-certifed

UIC/IR standards Pre-certified

  1. Elevated structure

Pre-stressed concrete/ pile/ open foundations etc

Standard rly codal practices Pre-certified

Standard rly codal practices-Pre-certified

  1. Wheel-sets coned and single flanged

Solid wheel sets

Standard UIC/IR codes of practice Pre-certified

Standard UIC/IR codes of practice Pre-certified

  1. Axle bearings/gearing driving motors –full bogie sets with standard braking

Standard commercially used driving bogies in all world metros to UIC/ISO /IR standards Pre-certified

Same standard UIC/ISO/IR standard driving bogies- pre-certified

  1. Passenger coach load transfer

The loading points on top of the bogie

Springing and damping

The fixed loading points for load transfer – for which the bogie is designed and proven to function over decades Pre-certified

Springing and damping fine tuned for the track geometry over years Pre-certified

The same load transfer points used- no change Pre-certified

Same springing and damping used Pre-certified

  1. Mass distribution diagram

Constant improvement aimed to uniform distribution and keep centre of gravity as low as possible vis-vis the railway track

The centre of gravity is about 1 to 1.5 m above the rail tracks , and all design parameters of track geometry and curving evolved proven standards over decades- standards laid Pre-certified

The mass diagram is improved further, lowering the centre of gravity close to the rail track , relatively improving stability and safety- but still no advantage is taken but the same standards followed- pre-certified

  1. System integrated- safety require-ments

Passenger comfort norms prescribed – more severe than the derailment/ track distortion forces

UIC/Indian Rly standards – dynamic tests shd satisfy –tests show satisfied

Same UIC/IR stds to be satisfied- tests show that these are satisfied

  1. Dynamic safety to be assured during life cycle in worn out condition for springs / wheel sets, increased clearances

New and worn out tolerance limits laid by codes of practice

New and worn out conditions simulated and tests reconfirm that the norms in para 8 satisfied only before introducing the rolling stock. But later no tests are conducted- maintenance manuals followed to observe the tolerance limits for worn elements. Static check only.

In addition to following the conventional rly practice, improved system of daily monitoring to the same rigid standard as done at the time of clearance- with fully instrumented bogies assure much higher degree of safety- unique to Skybus. So dynamic monitoring exists. Far superior to existing metro railways.

  1. Track transfer systems

Movement controlled with signals interlocked to prescribed standards as per UIC/IR

Points crossings position changed with due interlocking with signals IR/UIC/CENELC standards applied. Pre-certified.

Track itself gets shifted in similar manner, safety again assured observing the same interlocking of position of track with signals, observingIR/UIC/CENELEC standards Pre-certified.

  1. Special unique features to be compared

  1. Capacity to handle cargo in the form of containers or carry trucks on roll-on-roll off basis- to decongest roads of trucks
  2. Prevention of railway coach escaping the railway tracks

  1. Prevention of derailments, wheel shall not climb rail

  1. Station

Cannot do

Has to depend on chance, and depend on all elements working as per design- NO positive design feature to hold railway track and wheels together except for gravity-

No special design feature- depends on the till now used gravity only- has the proneness as the existing railways to derail and go out of control when rail breakage takes place or axle /wheel breaks.

Not less than 600m to 1km long

Possible in Skybus technology only

Positive holding together of railway track and the coach provided by design- can never escape tracks

Special feature of derailment arrester prevents wheels from climbing over the rail and the running bogie can never escape the rail track

Max 60m long for 60,000 pphpd

  1. Emergency /disaster management

1.Fire

In underground metro just scary and very little consolation from the thick manuals

In elevated system too, the fire generally entraps with smoke the coach and people are known to suffer asphyxation-further evacuation needs people to lump through the fire and smoke rising – creating problems

The Skybus system has the fire causing electricals and AC systems motors/electricals held inside the concrete box over head separated from passenger coach- any fire and smoke will rise above over head, not affecting the coach. Evacuation is more practical- slides, bridging to another Sky coach easy access to a double decker bus below – create alternate methods of recue.

Additionally fire control inside the closed concrete box is simpler and automatic with built in auto sprinkler /foam systems to be auto activated. This is not possible in other conventional systems.

  1. Getting stuck –failure of power/seizure of axle etc :

evacuation

The train/coaches may get stranded inside a tunnel/elevated structure –how do you evacuate

In underground it is a nightmarish task-

In elevated system, the path provided is too narrow next to track for people to get down the height of wheels and bogie, as we can see in current trains, and path is at rail level making it difficult for people to get down.

There is an easier method of evacuation- in case total power failure- there is an emergrncy generator giving just enough power to take the coach to the nearest station- in case this is not possible- then three modes of evacuation present

1. slides down to the road below- the traffic on road brought to halt by sirens and flashing lights to facilitate

2. In case of seized axle, sideways clearance with simple bridging with another Skybus unit is possible.

3. When height from road below is too much, then a side platform at the floor level of coach- easy to get on- leads to steps to go to Skytop above- where they get a 9m wide path to walk off- or electric vehicles can pick them and ferry to nearest station-in case of senior citizens.

Thus much better superior systems available on Skybus comparatively.

  1. Capacity

20,000 to 80,000 passengers per hour per direction needed- scalable over next 30 years

Meets the requirements with headway of 90 sec min

Meets the requirement with maximum of 3 units forming a 60 m, carrying 1200 passengers every minute yielding 72000 passengers per hour direction or 80m long multi unit can yield 96,000 passengers per hour per direction.

Scalable from 20,000 to 80,000 passengers per hour per direction. These figures are based on the same principles of calculating the headways and through put with current train control systems- advantage of Skybus is it’s short length and capacity to deliver more passengers per lineal metre.

  1. Capital cost

The traffic handling capacities being the same, comparison of cost of creating passenger seat km can be a good comparison- say consider a system to handle 20,000 passengers per hour per direction or 40,000 peak time passengers : cost per a double route/40,000 passengers per hour

  1. Underground metro:Rs 400cr/40,000=

Rs 100,000

  1. Elevated metro rail : Rs 170cr/40,000=

Rs 42,500.

(figures taken from offer received for Mumbai recently)

Skybus technology: Rs 60cr/40,000=

Rs 15,000.

(Actual experimental test track costed Rs35 cr with rolling stock incl station etc- hence Rs 60 cr is per km is practically feasible)

  1. Financial viability need for viability gap funding

When revenues are not enough- Government provides viability gap funding to make project viable for private BOT operators to take up the project

The conventional system has outlived its economic viability & relevance- capital costs so high cannot be viable. Though Government is offering 20% of project cost as gap funding, operators want close to 45% subsidy. So public funding becomes necessary

Financially viable- does not require any Government subsidy. Returns of IRR 15 to 20% make the project bankable, without Government support. Factors for lowered costs:

1.Dead loads reduced

2.Practically no urban land required.

3.No demolotion of any existing structures- as it can handle turning radius of 20 to 40m and even vertical lift if needed.

4.Stations are simple 50 to 60m long and there are no points and crossings

5.Digitally empowered system being derailment free and capsize-free is the safest system, reducing provisions for undefined risks.

  1. Visual acceptance

City scape and along the roads the transport system should not become a grotesque invasion visually

At the 6m height, and heavy concrete wide overhead structure, cuts the 30deg cone formed at eye level of road users, creating a visually grotesque intrusion.

The Skybus fixed structure is at 9m and above from road level, and avoids cutting the cone of visibility for road users, giving free view of city from road level.

  1. Noise pollution

City roads with a train running overheads may suffer additional noise pollution

In case of conventional metro, this has proved to be a major problem for residents, because air borne noise is difficult to control.

In Skybus, the noise generating rail/wheel point is totally enclosed inside the concrete box, cutting off the path of air-borne noise, trapping the same within. Amenable to control and minimize the noise pollution.

2. In my capacity as a professional railway expert, scientist engineer with patents for Skybus metro rail technology, internationally published original research and technical papers, as well as a senior administrator/bureaucrat (35 years) and project manger of having constructed and operated the first BOT project Konkan Railway (1990-2005) , former MD of Konkan Railway Corporation, and as the inventor who assigned intellectual property worth Rs 30,000 cr to the people of the country (as verified by Price-waterhouse Coopers), I swear and state that when we have proven India’s Skybus metro rail technology, much superior to conventional railway, the country is wasting public funds in the name of providing metro rail on the lines of Delhi Metro rail.

3. In summary: I state and hold myself accountable for the veracity of what I claim:

3.1. that India now owns world’s best railway technology in the form of Skybus and Intellectual property earns royalties for the country, as the inventor has voluntarily assigned his rights , there fore Skybus technology is people’s technology and I am working to promote public interest.

3.2. that Skybus is as much Pre-certified as the existing conventional railway system as evident from the table above and for reasons given there in

3.3. that the Skybus technology has additional safety features improving upon and removing the serious lacunae and unsafe features of existing railway used in metro rail

3.4. that the Skybus provides better visual acceptability, because the fixed structure is about 9m above the road level and will not infringe the 30 deg.cone of visibilty .

3.5. that since alternative superior and improved technology Skybus is available duly pre-certified, just as much as the metro rail, which also is getting safety certificate at commissioning stage, under the applicable act of state, for public carriage from TUV Rhienland Germany-

3.6. that it is technically a criminal act to recommend for any technically competent person to still go for unsafe old railway for metro rail.

3.6.1. the lives of travelers are endangered because of possible derailments and capsizing as the railway track and running wheels are not firmly and positively connected to prevent losing control in the old railway technology

3.6.2. the lives of those traveling on the roads also are exposed to added risk of train traveling all along the road overhead, losing control and rolling down on them with disastrous consequences

4. The State authorities constrained by lack of objective technical advice, are in the danger of creating waiting disaster in the name of metro rail facility, a train traveling all along the median of road, may jump rail track and find itself on the road below- acid test for the consultants, which state can use is, just ask for a guarantee that the train will never jump tracks in it’s life time, and in case it does, suffer pain of punishment both for the BOT operator and the consultant, under the relevant Cr.PC provisions.

5. If you don’t get such guarantee, then better don’t adopt that technology. Skybus technology can provide this guarantee.

6. You are in the seat of power given in trust by the common people to decide their fate: it is the choice you have to make:

6.1. adopt conventional old railway technology based Delhi/Kolkata/Singapore metro creating

6.1.1. a disaster-prone system endangering lives of people on the roads

6.1.2. raise a loan and write off public funds to the extent of Rs25,000 cr impoverishing common man, if you execute projects worth Rs 50,000 cr

6.2. adopt India’s Skybus technology creating

6.2.1. the safest railway system in the world, which cannot derail nor escape tracks to fall on the road below

6.2.2. with no requirement of funding nor subsidy from the state, but create wealth of Rs 25000 cr

7. I am in no position of power nor I represent any powerful MNC interest, only an ordinary retired central govt. employee; can only appeal to your conscience, as well as through a copy of this letter, appeal to the country’s most powerful man who seems to influence the states and Government of India, Sri Sreedharan:

Let us serve wisely Sir!

With regards to all the wise-men holding the positions of power to cause change in the destiny of common men,

Yours sincerely,

(B.Rajaram)