Improvements to Kelani Valley Railway

By PRIYAL De SILVA

Retd. General Manager, Sri Lanka Railways and Past President Institution of Engineers, Sri Lanka

I personally appreciate the queries, clarifications and various issues brought up by the general public, and our members of the Institution of Engineers, Sri Lanka (IESL). This actually shows the enthusiasm built up over the years among the general public and our members, to get involved in national projects. This, I consider a new phenomenon, a great stride as it is, which us seniors found it difficult to inculcate, especially in the younger professionals.

Engineers are technically competent and they are specialists in their own field once they have worked for many years. However, they possess the ability to evaluate and form their personal opinions on any matter related to engineering, having undergone an academic training in the Universities, leading to an engineering degree. Further, in their life span they would have seen in this country or elsewhere in foreign countries, what solutions have been meted out for engineering problems.

The Kelani Valley Railway Line improvement is such a project, where many problems are encountered and need to be resolved in the most economical manner, considering the solution to be sustainable, the return on investment, and the impact of the solution to the country as a whole, in relation to financing of foreign loans.

For over one year, IESL has made a valiant attempt to convince the consultants on certain recommendations made on the feasibility study for improvements to the Kelani Valley railway line. It could be seen that whatever inferences from the forecasts the consultants have calculated, they have recommended the railway line to be elevated up to Homagama, a distance of 23km. At the first sight itself, without disregarding this recommendation, let us pose the question whether other alternatives such as taking the trace at ground level were not considered. This is because the recommended elevated trace is also following the ground trace with all the existing sharp curves. I believe there were two main excuses to recommend elevation; one was the acquisition of land or let me mention in a more prudent way, it is relocation of encroachments presently occupying railway land, and the second is the number of level crossings presently at-grade.

If we take the first issue, the acquisition or relocation, I am sure many of our members and general public would have visited foreign countries, where railways run through populated areas as well as through city and business centers. I am sure in each of these countries you would have noticed that there is a parallel roadway on each side of the railway tracks, especially in populated areas and business centers, for many reasons such as keeping a safe area from those residing and for movement of public. This access is required to approach the railway track by railway staff in case of fire or any other emergency, and for other maintenance purposes. Hence whether, at ground level or elevated, this space requires to be kept mandatorily for above purposes.

Then in case of level crossings at-grade, it is true that there are around 50 level crossings up to Homagama and each of these require to be protected if no alternative solutions can be meted out. Here again I am sure many of you have visited foreign countries, and would have noted that some level crossings are closed completely for vehicular traffic, and only allowed for non-motorised traffic. These can be in the form of level crossing at grade or as underpasses with 2.0 m headway. At other places, vehicular traffic is allowed with a 3.0m headway where cars, vans, and mini-trucks are allowed with separate lanes for non- motorised traffic. The third category is where all vehicles are allowed where these could be flyovers, underpasses, or crossings at grade.

The consultants for the project need to study the level crossings individually, and also infer what level crossings that can be closed for vehicular traffic completely, what are the alternative roads available. Also, what are the level crossings which are more suitable for underpasses, determining them considering the geography of the area, and also with a possibility of raising the track bed by 1 to 2 m. Also, what requires to be converted to flyovers considering vehicular traffic. If the crossing is near a station, the platforms should be split, so that the train always stops after the crossing.

An underpass connects the two platforms, allowing pedestrians, too, to use it to cross the road as well as the railroad. These are much cheaper solutions to congestion at crossings, compared with elevating the line for 23 km.

It is evident that consultants will be able to reduce the cost of the project immensely if they could carry out an in-depth study on each crossing. As a country, what is really required is an economic return on the investment, and the new infrastructure provided should be able to be utilized for any future extensions beyond Avissawella, and should be maintenance friendly and user friendly. It requires the provision of escalators and elevators for stations in the elevated sections required to be maintained, and in case they are not maintained, the general public will suffer when they have to climb 7m (the height of two floors of a building) to the station platform. Such issues have to be addressed by the consultants.