B.D. Rampala and the unforgettable 'M1' locomotive
The thirty-year haul
By Ravi Fernando
When the Ceylon Government Railway started dieselization in 1953, the first
locomotive that was introduced was classified as "Class M1". It was built
by Brush Bagnall of Great Britain. Satisfied with the initial locomotive,
the CGR placed an order for another 25 locos.
The engines had beautiful red bodies, weighed 88 tons, and were fitted
with 1000 hp Mirlees V12 engines. These locomotives were initially used
to pull passenger trains all over the country. For upcountry runs, these
locomotives were double headed. The M1 loco is synonymous with Mr. B.D.
Rampala, the much respected chief mechanical engineer, and later the first
Sinhalese General Manager of the CGR. He held this post from 1955 to 1970.
Those who were associated with him recall
the way he maintained discipline in CGR.
When M1 was brought to Ceylon, Brush Bagnall did not carry out proper
test trials due to a different gauge being used in the UK. It is said a
locomotive engineer of Brush Bagnall accompanied this locomotive without
any operating manual. He was reluctant to start the engine and did not
allow anyone else to do so. When Mr. Rampala heard about this, he ordered
his subordinates to start the locomotive.
Fortunately, his assistant Mr. A.R.P. Wijesekera when he was in London
some years earlier had obtained a drawing of the control panel of the M1
loco. The two of them checked all the circuits, fuel system etc. and readied
it for the test run. Mr. Rampala took over the controls with a full 500-ton
load behind him. He started slowly on the slower speed notches and after
reaching Kelaniya Railway Station, shifted the notch to higher speed.
Suddenly a loud noise was heard behind. The drawbar had broken. Mr.
Rampala knew the solution. He summoned his most experienced electrical
foreman and worked out an innovation which was very simple and effective.
In a few hours the loco was on the move with the load.
When the engineer in charge of the M1 locomotive controls, at Brush
Bagnall, Mr.C.E. James, visited Ceylon to observe the modifications done
by Mr. Rampala, a trial run was arranged to Galle with a passenger train.
They reached Galle without incident.
However, after lunch the engine could not be started for the return
journey. A battery contactor had got stuck. The short circuit had heated
the control wires and set off a chain reaction along other circuits. As
usual Mr. Rampala did not panic; he separated the wires of each and every
circuit, held the wires apart with coir ropes and was able to bring the
locomotive back Colombo.
These are incidents which indicate the spectacular innovations introduced
by Mr. Rampala who gained world recognition when he presented papers on
the M1 locomotive at an Engineers Conference in London in 1956.
The Class M1 locomotives ran from 1953 to 1983. There are still some
locomotives lying at the Rampala Workshop, corroded and beyond use. Fortunately
there is one locomotive in the Dematagoda Running Shed in a fairly good
condition. Railway enthusiasts think this locomotive could be rehabilitated.
We hope, as a mark of respect to Mr. B.D. Rampala, the Minister of Transport
Dinesh Guna-wardena will initiate this project.
Inconsistent defence 
Two Sundays ago this newspaper reproduced a lengthy article by Marie Colvin,
the journalist from The Sunday Times, London who was wounded by grenade
shrapnel when she was crawling back from Tiger -held territory somewhere
in the Wanni last April.
I wonder how many readers had the opportunity of reading all three articles
written by her on her Sri Lankan adventure. Had they been able to, they
would have been struck by the historical inaccuracies, inconsistencies,
untruths and tendentious reporting.
When I wrote to her newspaper, The Sunday Times, London in the hope
of setting the record straight, this Rupert Murdoch owned paper refused
to publish my letter, prompting me to take the issue before the Press Complaints
Commission.
The initial reaction of The Sunday Times was that it was unable to respond
in detail until Marie Colvin fully recovered, implying that she had to
be asked for her side of the story.
I am sure most readers would commiserate with her for having lost the
sight of an eye. But these are the risks journalists take when they cover
conflicts or make clandestine journeys across battlelines.
Marie Colvin has done this before and taking such risks is not a new
experience to her. But a few things about her writings, about the attitude
and approach of The Sunday Times that sent her, have worried me from the
time I read her first article in that paper on April 15.
I kept pressing the PCC to inquire from The Sunday Times when it hoped
to reply. The PCC is a creature of the British newspaper industry.
When it seemed rather obvious The Sunday Times was procrastinating I
asked the PCC once more to find out when it would respond to my complaints
of inaccuracy and the refusal to grant an opportunity to reply which are
violations of the Code of Practice of the PCC to which The Sunday Times
is a signatory. In reply to a PCC letter dated July 11, the Managing Editor
of The Sunday Times wrote that Marie Colvin was still recuperating.
At the time the Managing Editor wrote that letter she appeared to be
quite recovered. On July 15, she had written this lengthy article which
was reproduced in Colombo in which she describes how she was interviewed
the previous week by the BBC and how she had been socialising, attending
receptions. Only the Managing Editor seemed to have been out of touch with
her.
I promptly pointed this out to the PCC which contacted the newspaper
and subsequently got a reply on August 10, rejecting my complaint that
it had violated the Code of Practice on two counts.
The reply defends Marie Colvin and the newspaper against incompetence,
inaccuracy and refusing me a right of reply. But it does so, so sloppily,
that it further strengthens public concern over the plummeting standards
of British journalism and journalistic principles.
In rejecting complaints of inaccuracy etc, The Sunday Times gets further
mired in inaccuracy. It says I challenged Ms Colvin on two points. Wrong.
I challenged her specifically on one point and The Sunday Times on the
other.
The reply challenges me on the use of the word ambush in relation to
the way she sustained the injury and quotes the Oxford dictionary in defence.
According to Marie Colvin's published description of the events it was
hardly an ambush. "Bursts of gunfire began across the road about half a
mile away.The search and destroy patrols had come out. I heard soldiers
on the road talking and laughing. One fired a burst from an automatic weapon.
If I didn't shout now they would stumble on me and shoot. I began to shout
'journalist, journalist, American, USA'. The soldier sighted on the sound
and fired'.
Have you ever heard of an ambush where soldiers are talking and laughing,
where the fear is they would stumble on you and not you on them, where
the soldiers fire only as a reaction?
In her first article on April 15, Ms Colvin says she spent two weeks
in the Tiger-held area. In her second on April 22, this becomes "a week".
How inconsistent for an award winner losing a whole week somewhere in the
jungles!
On April 15, she says the war has cost 60,000 lives. On July 15, the
death toll had dramatically risen to 83,000. Within three months Ms Colvin
has singlehandedly vanquished 23,000 Sri Lankans.
Before closing, I must point to this.
In the article reproduced two Sundays ago Colvin says : "we came across
the footprints of tigers and the spoor of elephants".
Footprints of tigers? Must be the two-legged ones she'd been consorting
with and lost one week... |