SilverLine out, central high-speed rail in: The contest over Kerala’s mobility control

Kerala’s renewed discussion on high-speed rail has emerged from the unresolved legacy of the SilverLine or K Rail project, a semi-high-speed rail corridor proposed by the state government and shelved after the Union government refused to grant the required permissions. The contrast between the two proposals reflects changes in technical approach, institutional control, and political alignment rather than a shift in the underlying mobility needs of the state.

The SilverLine project was proposed in 2021 by K Rail, a joint venture between the Kerala government and Indian Railways. The plan was for a 529-kilometre semi-high-speed rail corridor connecting Thiruvananthapuram and Kasaragod, with trains operating at a maximum speed of around 200 kilometres per hour. The project aimed to reduce end-to-end travel time to approximately four hours. It was conceived as a fully dedicated passenger corridor, separate from the existing railway network, with standard gauge tracks and 11 stations across the state.

New proposal, new power centre

The stated rationale for SilverLine was Kerala’s high population density, limited road expansion possibilities, and chronic congestion on both roads and existing rail lines. The state government argued that incremental upgrades to the current railway system would not meet long-term demand. The project was also presented as a catalyst for economic integration across regions and a way to shift traffic away from roads.

Also Read: After Tamil Nadu, Governor-state government standoff erupts in Kerala

However, the proposed new high-speed railway now under discussion differs in both structure and control. Instead of a state-led joint venture, the new proposal is being framed as a Union government-backed project, with the Delhi Metro Rail Corporation assigned to prepare the detailed project report. The corridor currently proposed will run from Thiruvananthapuram to Kannur, covering approximately 430 kilometres, with a possible future extension to Kasaragod.

E Sreedharan’s project outline

“The rail corridor will have stations at intervals of 20 to 25 kilometres, with trains operating at a frequency of every five minutes and running at speeds of up to 200 kilometres per hour. Once completed, the project will significantly ease Kerala’s transport constraints, especially in a state that records one of the highest rates of road accidents in the country. Land acquisition will not be a major challenge, as the project will require only about one-third of the land envisaged for the SilverLine proposal. Around 70 to 75 per cent of the corridor will be elevated, with some sections underground. Under the new land acquisition policy, land beneath elevated stretches can be returned to owners on lease for agricultural use or grazing,” said E Sreedharan, a renowned Indian engineer and politician of Kerala, popularly known as the “Metro Man”.

Public resistance and cost concerns

From the beginning, SilverLine faced opposition. Land acquisition emerged as the most contentious issue. The project required the acquisition of more than 1,300 hectares of land, cutting across densely populated areas. Protests were reported from multiple districts, with residents expressing concern about displacement, compensation, and the impact on livelihoods. Environmental groups raised concerns about wetlands, paddy fields, and ecologically sensitive zones. Questions were also raised about the project cost, estimated at over Rs 63,000 crore, and the debt burden on the state.

Beyond public resistance, the project encountered institutional resistance at the Union government level. The Ministry of Railways repeatedly stated that it had not approved the detailed project report. Technical objections included the choice of standard gauge instead of broad gauge, the proposal for a fully separate corridor, safety issues at road crossings, drainage design in a high rainfall state, and a lack of clarity on integration with the existing rail network. The Railways maintained that any new line should either use broad gauge or be integrated with the Indian Railways infrastructure.

Deadlock between state and Centre

The Kerala government and K Rail rejected suggestions to dilute the project by adding tracks alongside existing rail lines, arguing that mixed traffic would undermine speed and efficiency. This disagreement became a deadlock. While preliminary surveys and social impact assessments were initiated, the absence of Union government clearance meant that construction could not begin. By 2024, the Railways made it clear that permission would not be granted in its existing form.

In early 2025, senior officials and technical advisors, including E Sreedharan, publicly acknowledged that SilverLine could not proceed without a fundamental redesign. The Union government formally communicated that it would not approve a dedicated standard gauge corridor as proposed. The project was effectively shelved, though the state did not issue a formal withdrawal notification.

Unlike SilverLine, the new proposal is being developed within the technical and administrative framework of Indian Railways and the Union government. Gauge compatibility, signalling systems, and safety standards are expected to align with national norms from the outset. This addresses one of the core reasons SilverLine failed to secure approval.

According to E Sreedharan, the cost estimates for the new high-speed rail corridor range from Rs 86,000 crore to Rs 1 lakh crore, higher than SilverLine due to increased use of elevated and underground sections. Funding is expected to involve a combination of central and state contributions, with potential multilateral or institutional financing. No land acquisition notifications or timelines have been announced so far.

Limits of state-led infrastructure

The comparison between SilverLine and the new proposal highlights the limits of state-driven mega infrastructure projects in sectors governed by central regulation. SilverLine was conceived as a Kerala-specific solution but ran into resistance because it diverged from Indian Railways’ technical and institutional preferences. The new project represents a recalibration, prioritising central approval and technical conformity over state-level autonomy.

At the same time, both proposals respond to the same structural problem. Kerala’s north-south mobility remains constrained by geography, congestion, and slow average travel speeds. The shelving of SilverLine did not resolve these issues, but it has reshaped the terms on which solutions are now being considered.

Political ripples in Kerala

The fresh move, however, has caused some embarrassment for the state government, with the Union government seen as advancing a high-speed rail project by bypassing the state and working through E Sreedharan and the Delhi Metro Rail Corporation. Sreedharan, who was the BJP’s chief ministerial candidate in the last Assembly elections, has begun preparatory work for a project that is yet to be formally announced. He has already opened an office at Ponnani, near his hometown, for the proposed high-speed rail corridor.

Also Read: 2026 elections: Can Modi’s early Southern foray gain dividends in TN and Kerala?

“I am not aware of what E Sreedharan is saying at present. As the minister in charge of railways in the state, I have not received any files or official communication regarding the proposed project. A high-speed rail system is necessary for the state, but there is no clarity on the details of this new proposal or on what basis E Sreedharan is making these arrangements. He is the same person who had earlier filed a petition against the construction of the bridge across the Bharathapuzha at Thavanur. It is good that he is now speaking in favour of development projects,” said state minister V Abdurahiman.

The Congress-led Opposition in the state remains divided over the project, with the Leader of the Opposition welcoming the move, while senior leaders K Sudhakaran and Ramesh Chennithala have come out against it.

Uncertain path ahead

Whether the new high-speed rail project progresses beyond the planning stage will depend on financing, execution capacity, and public acceptance.

Unlike SilverLine, it begins with Union government backing, which removes a major procedural obstacle. However, the scale of investment and construction challenges remains significant. The transition from SilverLine to the new proposal marks not an abandonment of the high-speed rail idea, but a shift in who defines it and how.