Consider the following statements : I. Indian Railways have prepared a National Rail Plan (NRP) to create a 'future ready' railway system by 2028. II. 'Kavach' is an Automatic Train Protection system developed in collaboration with Germany. III. 'Kavach' system consists of RFID tags fitted on track in station section. Which of the statements given above are not correct?

Mentions an explicit long‑range 'vision 2020' for Indian Railways with concrete technical strategies — shows Indian Railways produces named strategic/vision documents with target horizons.

A student could infer that similar strategic plans (like an NRP) with a target year are consistent with this institutional practice and then look for an NRP document or announcement with a 2028 horizon.

Describes 'Setu Bharatam' as a government scheme with a specified completion year (2019) — example of government transport programmes setting explicit deadlines.

Use the pattern that ministries set target years for infrastructure programmes to judge plausibility of an NRP targeting 2028 and then search official releases for a 2028 target.

Describes structured modernization models (PPP, foreign collaboration, Swiss Challenge) for station redevelopment — evidence of organized, programmatic modernization efforts.

A student could treat 'future ready' as modernization and expect an overarching plan (NRP) coordinating such models; then check for a national plan that integrates these approaches with a timeline to 2028.

Explains policy changes (100% FDI in rail infrastructure) to meet capital needs — indicates recent policy-level initiatives to reform and invest in rail infrastructure.

Combine this with the idea of a national plan: if policy reforms aim to attract investment, an NRP could plausibly set a target year (2028) for implementation; student should verify via official policy documents or the Railway Ministry.

Lists planned high‑speed rail corridors and discusses building new corridors — shows planning of major rail projects with corridor‑level timelines.

A student could infer that corridor planning fits within broader national rail planning and thus search those project announcements or the consolidated NRP to see if they reference a 2028 'future ready' goal.

States that one model Indian Railways uses is "collaboration with foreign governments to develop stations," showing an institutional pattern of partnering with foreign governments on rail projects.

A student could infer that India sometimes pursues government‑to‑government collaborations for major rail projects and therefore should check whether Kavach was handled under such a bilateral collaboration (e.g., with Germany).

Gives an example of Indian defence/vehicle production done with foreign (including German) firms or licences, showing precedent for German–Indian technical collaboration in transport/defence sectors.

A student could use this pattern to ask whether Kavach—a safety technology with defence‑style signalling/automation overlap—followed a similar licensing or joint‑development route with German firms or agencies.

Highlights serious safety problems and high accident rates on Indian Railways, implying a strong institutional motive to acquire or develop advanced safety systems like Automatic Train Protection.

Given the safety imperative, a student could look for whether India sought foreign expertise (including from Germany) to obtain or co‑develop ATP technologies such as Kavach.

Describes the very large size and central importance of Indian Railways, implying large‑scale projects and modernization efforts where foreign collaboration is plausible.

A student could combine this with knowledge of international rail technology providers (including German firms) to investigate if Kavach involved such external partners.

Notes that signalling, communication systems and safety measures on Indian Railways are outdated and in need of improvement — implying modernization programs introduce new trackside/vehicle safety tech.

A student could infer that modernization efforts often add automatic safety devices (e.g., track or onboard equipment) and then check whether Kavach is such an upgrade and whether it uses trackside tags.

Describes station redevelopment and modernization models, showing stations and related infrastructure are being upgraded under planned projects.

One could reason station modernization projects are plausible opportunities to install trackside or station-section devices and then look up project specs to see if Kavach involves track-fitted tags.

Mentions electronic tagging (e.g., for wildlife) to track movements and warn railway officials — an example of RFID/ electronic tags being used in railway-related contexts.

Use this as an existence proof that RFID-style tagging is applied in railway contexts, then compare technical descriptions of Kavach to see if it uses similar tag technology on tracks.

Explains a possible future separation between infrastructure (RIC) and train operators (IRTs), implying that installation/maintenance responsibility for trackside equipment would lie with the infrastructure owner.

A student could deduce that if Kavach requires trackside fittings, the infrastructure body would likely install them — so checking which agency deployed Kavach helps test whether track tags were used.