SAIL was lax in quality control and did not use modern manufacturing methods despite the fact that it had such facilities and uses them for production in other areas, it adds.

Ironically, SAIL had wanted the samples of the rails sent to NML since it was a ``neutral'' body. The preliminary enquiry report by Dr M Mani, Chief Commissioner, Railway Safety (CCRS), had also blamed defective rails soon after the accident.

According to the NML report, there was ``hydrogen intrusion'' in the steel rails that caused flaking and fracturing of the track. SAIL is supposed to have ``degassed'' the steel before supply. For, degassing sucks out gaseslike hydrogen which remain entrapped in the steel in the process of conversion from iron ore. The chances of Railways getting rails with hydrogen intrusion were very high.

The NML report stated that the ``hydrogen degassing'' plant was not being used for rails supplied to the Railways. This plant, however, was being used for the manufacture of other plates that SAIL was exporting.

But Shoeb Ahmad, SAIL's corporate director, said there has been no shortcoming on their part since the Railways have technical experts who sit in the plant where the rails are manufactured, and all technical specifications had been adhered to.

These rails, Ahmad said, were manufactured in 1989-90, and at that time the agreement between the railways and SAIL never asked for ``de-gassing.''

Samples of the affected rail were also sent to SAIL's Bhilai plant and the Railways' Research, Design and Standards Organisation (RDSO) in Lucknow. The RDSO too had found traces of hydrogen in the rail.

``Even a tiny bubble of gas in thesteel can cause serious damage, making it brittle. The point from where the defect originates also weakens the rest of the rail,'' an officer in the Railways' Engineering Department explained.

The NML report also found that SAIL did not have an On-line Ultrasonic Flaw Detector for rails. Sources said it suited SAIL not to undertake ultrasonic testing of the rails in the plant, as SAIL was bound to find flaws in a lot of the rails and would have to dump them in the plant itself, sources added.

However, Ahmed said the railways never asked for anything more than what was being given to them by SAIL. ``The Railways have their experts in our plant. All technical specifications which were part of the Railways-SAIL agreement were followed. ``There had been some improvements in technology which the Railways never demanded. There was no variation in the quality control expected from SAIL by the Railways,'' he said.

Ahmed added that SAIL was being held responsible for something they were not expected to do. Therails have a certain life span after which they needed to be changed but the Railways were not doing it, he said. The ultrasonic flaw detection too was not SAIL's responsibility but that of the Railways, he said.

``Now we have adopted new technology and are also degassing the rails. After all, neither SAIL nor the Railways wants to take a chance with the safety of passengers,'' Ahmed added.