In a written response to a question posed by MP Jagadish Shettar in the Lok Sabha, Minister for Railways Ashwini Vaishnaw addressed the status and future plans concerning the Vande Bharat semi-high-speed train services between Belagavi and Bengaluru, as well as the Hubballi-Pune sector.
Jagadish Shettar sought clarity on:
(a) Measures being planned to extend the Vande Bharat service from Bengaluru to Belagavi, given the successful trial runs on the route, which would be a natural extension of the current Dharwad-Bengaluru Vande Bharat service.
(b) Specific details regarding such measures.
(c) Plans to increase the frequency of the Hubballi-Pune Vande Bharat Express, which currently operates triweekly, to a daily service.
(d) Details of these plans, if any.
Minister’s Response
In his reply, the Minister stated that the Bengaluru-Belagavi sector is currently served by 15 pairs of regular trains, while the Pune-Hubballi sector benefits from 17 pairs of regular trains, including the 20669/20670 Hubballi-Pune Vande Bharat Express, which operates three days a week. Additionally, a special train serves the Pune-Hubballi route.
On the specific matter of extending or increasing the frequency of Vande Bharat services, the Minister highlighted that such decisions are part of an ongoing process, contingent upon traffic justification, operational feasibility, and resource availability. He noted that Indian Railways continuously evaluates and adjusts services to meet passenger needs.
Interestingly, the Minister’s response did not specifically address Shettar’s pointed queries about the timeline for introducing the Belagavi-Bengaluru Vande Bharat service or increasing the frequency of the Pune-Hubballi Vande Bharat Express. The statement appeared more like a generalized explanation, akin to the standard responses often provided by automated systems.
This lack of direct answers raises questions about whether other factors are influencing the decision-making process. Even with the query coming from a Member of Parliament belonging to the same party as the Minister, there seems to be a hesitation to provide clarity, hinting at possible involvement of “invisible hands” shaping the outcome.