List of ToTs undertaken by CLW
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
After 1960s, IR undertook the first radical shift in motive power technology by adopting three-phase traction technology in step with the emerging global consensus. Accordingly, a ToT agreement was signed on Jul-1993 between Ministry of Railways and ABB Transportation. CLW was mandated to undertake the ToT (not RDSO). A dedicated cell with young engineers was tasked to undertake the complete ToT (know-how) and imbibe know-why as well.The second part of such evolutionary platform designing is seen in WAG-7 class of electric locomotives (1991-92). This development was...
more...

a crest of a journey where in electric locomotives evolved from 2800 hp (1960s) to 5000 hp on largely common design philosophy—with largely indigenous design resources.
This contract aimed at the import of 22 units of 6000 HP freight locomotives and 11 units of 5400 HP passenger locomotives (partly received in knocked down condition). The passenger locomotives were much lighter and were selected to permit operations at 160-200 kmph. These locomotives were not suitable for 24/26 coach train operations, with frequent start/stops, but were designed for shorter but faster trains.
CLW’s design team undertook customisation of 6000 hp freight locomotive in to a passenger class and thus was born WAP-7 class in 2000 (within 1.5 years of the first indigenous locomotive being built as per the ToT). WAP-7 is now the workhorse for long passenger trains. This transfer of technology was acclaimed globally and was discussed as one of the most successful transfers of technology in the world (Enabling Knowledge Creation: How to Unlock the Mystery of Tacit Knowledge and Release the Power of Innovation, Krogh, Ichiko, Nonaka, Oxford University Press).
However, from this high, how we came about being a yachak in just a few years is an alarming matter—have the lessons been internalised? It has lessons for why India lags seriously in platform and product development despite having spent substantial monies.
A key lesson is discerned when we juxtapose Table 1 with the foregoing—there has been immense potential for platform redesign with Indian Railways. CLW and RDSO handled Steam, Diesels and Electrics and delivered locomotives on all the principal gauges, despite having received technology for one gauge. Accordingly, Indian Railways have supplied diesel locomotives and coaches to Third World countries.
Based on the experience gathered as part of the ToT of new generation three-phase locomotives, CLW led the effort in 2001-02 to participate in a mega locomotive supply and rehabilitation of the South African rail operator (Spoornet) and gave viable bids in competition with companies from whom we aspire to take locomotive technology again (this tender was dropped and Spoornet underwent massive restructuring).
It was interesting that while the new technology was being assimilated and the railway engineers were pushing the frontiers in a globally acclaimed effort, in an act of bureaucratic bloodbath, the core design team was disbanded just four years after first locomotive was turned out. The pleas of not letting go the acquired skills were dealt bureaucratically.
Now Indian Railways are again looking at the Japanese for technology for CLW and trying since 2008 for setting up locomotive factories under PPP. In 2008, when the first round of bidding took place, Chinese, who were behind India in the new locomotive technology in 1990s were very keen to participate!
Though the foregoing dealt with just one aspect of railway research (that is of electric locomotives), the story is not very different elsewhere.