The story of how “for want of a nail…. a war was lost” finds painful reflection in the report of a task force the railway minister set up to probe the mishap that befell the Indore-Patna Express near Kanpur in November in which over 150 passengers were killed. In sharp but appreciable contrast to most accident inquiries, no “dramatic” theories were propounded for that devastating derailment, instead  focus was drawn to the overlooking of some of the “basics” of track-maintenance and supervision. What should “shock”, but is unlikely to do so in a system that has become increasingly top-heavy, is that elementary track-fittings like bolts and fish-plates had “perished” with age, but had not been replaced because they were in short supply:  only 30 per cent of the requirement was provided. To put the gravity of the situation into perspective, the report pointed out that only a fraction of the resultant incidents ~ one in 29  according to one calculation ~ proved serious enough to register as   accidents. Could there be a more serious indictment of the railway management? For how long have the upper echelons of the management been permitted to get away with neglecting their core duties? Has their laxity not assumed a criminal dimension: a stark reality that has been covered-up by a series of “fanciful” explanations for  mishaps? The task force recommended making up the shortages of simple but critical equipment on a “war footing”, but simultaneously advocated a better deal for the lowly keymen and patrolmen whom it hailed as the “last frontier of track safety”. It suggested a 30 per cent special allowance for such personnel and a special drive to fill those “unpopular” posts. 
The task force noted that the communication systems of personnel in the field were seldom fully serviceable and called for a thorough overhaul of the supervisory system: in short it  flayed officers for not “getting their hands dirty”. What holds true for track-maintenance has its parallels in other spheres of railway operations too. Engine-drivers were some years ago re-designated “loco-pilots” but no marked improvement in their working/living conditions was seen. Without getting drawn into ugly comparisons with airline pilots, it would be fair to ask if the pay and allowances of “running crew” are commensurate with the responsibilities they shoulder. Simply contrast the housing provided to officers with engine-drivers and guards and a sick picture presents itself. All that has eroded the sense of professional pride that dominated the railwaymen of yesteryear and caused chests to swell when standing on the footplate as a mail/ express train entered its home  station on schedule. Should Suresh Prabhu re-inject some of that  “spirit” into the system,  his job will be at least half-done.