The Zonal change argument may hold water here.
The SBHR-MAQ passenger is received at the Bayline PF on priority while three trains (the crowded Kannur passenger, Pondicherry bi-weekly and 12686 MAS SF) all wait for line clearance as the passenger (a 5-coacher but a SR train) has to traverse from the Kankanady branch line to the other end of the Shoranur-Mangalore Central double line to get to the PF1 bayline.
...
more...
Receiving the Gomteshwara Exp at PF 4/5 should require far less effort practically speaking. Short-terminating it at MAJN means no takers for the train at SBHR or KBPR who are forced to take the passenger, half an hour earlier.
Likewise, the extension of 12134 would not be favored by SR as it would further cannibalize the patronage of Matsyagandha.
Such blanket rejection (using the same excuse for the Bijapur special) is not done and SR should be taken to task here.
please wait...Translate to EnglishThe argument about changing zones might make sense here. The SBHR-MAQ passenger gets special treatment and goes to Bayline PF first, while three other trains (the crowded Kannur passenger, Pondicherry bi-weekly, and 12686 MAS SF) have to wait for the tracks to clear because the passenger train (even though it's only 5 cars and an SR train) has to go from the Kankanady branch line to the other end of the Shoranur-Mangalore Central double line to reach PF1 bayline. It would be much easier to just receive the Gomteshwara Express at PF 4/5. If they terminate it at MAJN, nobody at SBHR or KBPR will take the train anymore and they'll be stuck with the passenger train, which comes half an hour earlier. Similarly, extending 12134 wouldn't be good for SR because it would take away even more passengers from Matsyagandha. It's not fair that SR is rejecting these proposals without considering other options, like they did with the Bijapur special. SR needs to be held accountable for this.