Government of India
Ministry of Railways
PROCEEDINGS
OF
PCE SEMINAR
20th - 21th March, 2014
Indian Railways Institute of Civil Engineering
Pune
PROCEEDING OF PCE SEMINAR HELD AT IRICEN
ON
20.03.14 to 21.03.14
PRESENT
Railway Board
Top of Form
1. / Shri Surinder Pal, EDCE/P2. / Shri Alok Kumar, EDCE/G
3. / Shri S.K. Agarwal, ED/B&S
4. / Shri A.K. Lahoti, EDCE/G
5. / Shri Anurag, Dir/B&S
RDSO
1. / Shri S. K. Pandey, ED/Track-12. / Shri Vipul Kumar, ED/Track-2
Zonal Railways
1. / Shri A.K.Mittal,PCE/CR2. / Shri Jitendra Kumar, PCE/ECR
3. / Shri J.S. Gupta, PCE/ECoR
4. / Shri A.K. Jha, PCE/ER
5. / Shri A.K. Harit, PCE/NR
6. / Shri O.P. Agarwal, PCE/NER
7. / Shri M.S. Lakha, PCE/NFR
8. / Shri Pankaj Jain, PCE/NWR
9. / Shri V. Shrihari, PCE/SCR
10. / Shri R.K. Agarwal, PCE/SER
11. / Shri Ved Pal,PCE/SECR
12. / Shri S.S. Narayanan, PCE/SWR
13. / Shri S. N. Agrawal,PCE/WR
14. / Shri D.D. Dewangan, PCE/WCR
15. / Shri Sanjiv Roy, CTE/NCR
IRICEN
1. / Shri R.C. Boolchandani, Sr. Prof./Bridge-22. / Shri R.P. Saxena, Sr. Prof./Engg
3. / Shri N.C. Sharda, Sr. Prof./Track-1
4 / Shri S.K. Garg, Sr. Prof./Works
Shri. Boolchandani SPB-2/IRICEN welcome the participant on behalf of Director. He mentioned that very exhaustive agenda have been sent by all PCE’s. During two days we will have a meaning full discussion and appropriate recommendation will be brought out & submitted to Railway Board.
Shri Subodh Jain, Member Engineering also attending the seminar on second day and address the participants. During his address he stressed on following points.
1. A landmark building has been constructed for IRICEN as a Green Building which other want to emulate.
2. Indian Railway has to modernize to keep pace with time.
3. We have to upgrade continually and a proper road map have to be developed for making continuous improvement and also lowering down the cost of maintenance.
4. Land shall be protected by all means and land utilization shall be optimized.
5. More and more transparency shall be brought out in our working.
6. Proper procedures shall be made to have accountability & quality control in outsourcing.
7. A comprehensive plan has to be developed for Maintenance and Rehabilitation of assets through mega blocks. For this we may have to restored to single line working in case of double line section and closing of line in case of single line section.
MINUTES OF AGENDA ITEMS
1.1 / Access/Switching over to Operating frequency to the Walki-talki sets provided to Engg. Supervisors (NCR)
Issue:
The walkie-talkie sets presently provided to Engineering supervisors have only one frequency on which only Engineering to Engineering both way communication is possible. But, there is no access to Operating frequency, not even for one way communication (i.e listening).
Discussion:
CTE/NCR stated that communication required with Operating/Running for exchange of information as well as extension / cancellation of traffic block with exchange of private numbers. Also, the Operating/Running staff may be alerted in case of any unusual noticed by the P.Way Inspecting officials during their inspection, requiring suspension of traffic or imposition of SR.
At times, information about approaching trains may be required by the Inspecting officials for their personal safety viz during Push trolley inspection over sharp curve / steep gradient/cutting with poor visibility and bridges without adequate trolley refuses etc.
Therefore switching over to operating frequency on walkie-talkies of engineering supervisors is to be extended.
During discussion all PCE’s were of the opinion that it may not be feasible to extend this facility to engineering deptt, therefore mobile may be provided to trackmen so that he can communicate in case of emergency.
Recommendation:
Mobile may be provided to trackmen so that he can communicate in case of emergency.
1.2 / Provision of the improved SEJs in lieu of 120 mm/190 mm conventional SEJs at the far end approach of the bridge, as given in para 4.5.7.1 (IV) of LWR manual (NCR)
Issue:
Presently LWR on bridges can be permitted with 120mm/190mm conventional SEJ at the far end approach as per LWR manual para 4.5.7.1. Improved SEJ can also be permitted as an alternative to this as it have better capacity to absorb expansion, contraction & creep of rail.
It is a TSC item therefore no further action required.
1.3 / Review of Joint Inspection of Points & Crossings and Track Circuits (Docket No. N/245/1/5 dated 21.04.1998) (NCR)
Issue:
Instruction exists for periodical joint inspection of interlocked points by SSE/JE with their counterpart of S&T deptt. Existing standard format of NCR does not incorporate S&T items adequately.
Discussion:
ED/II/RDSO informed that a draft performa is already circulated to railways but no remarks are received. He requested Railways to send remarks early.
Recommendation:
RDSO has already circulated draft standard proforma. Railways to send remarks so that standard proforma can be finalized.
1.4 / Replacement of crossing sets PSC sleeper of 1 in 12 & 1 in 8.5 on main line (SECR)
Issue:
Life of crossing sleepers shall be specified separately.
Discussed & Dropped
1.5 / Periodicity of shoulder screening of PSC sleeper track by machine (SECR)
Issue:
Periodicity of shoulder screening in PSC sleeper track by machine
Discussed & Dropped
1.6 / Adoption of new Technology for instant detection of rail/weld failures (NWR)
Issue:
Large no. of trackman required from patrolling & sometimes they injured by running train. To avoid this, track circulating even in block section be done to check rail/weld failures.
RDSO is already doing trial based on USFD technique. No further action required.
1.7 / Removal of DFW(R)s (NWR,SECR)
Issue:
As per Clause No 8.14 of Manual for Ultrasonic testing of Rails & Welds DFWRs welds has to be removed within 03 months of detection. In case non removal within 3 months a speed restriction of 100 Kmph needs to be imposed for passenger trains.
Discussed & Dropped
1.8 / MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTADING BETWEEN MINISTRY OF RAILWAY (MOR) AND M/s.RAIL VIKAS NIGAM LIMITED (RVNL) (SCR)
Issue:
As per para No.11.6 of the MoU, all assets will be deemed to be taken over by the Railway immediately after commissioning. Deficiencies if any present at the time of commissioning will be made good by the contractor fixed by the RVNL within the framework of separate MoU to be drawn between RVNL and the Railway at the time of commissioning as per the practice being followed by Railways between Open Line and Construction Organisations.
Discussion:
PCE/SCR brought out that various sections completed by RVNL are being commissioned without creation of staff for maintenance. As per Para 4.3 (7) of Policy Serial Circular No. 7 for opening of sections and sanction of sectional speed on Indian Railways issued by Railway Board in October, 2012, the Chief Engineer (Con.) shall ensure the availability of necessary staff before applying for CRS sanction. This is not followed in practice. In this regard, a letter was addressed from PCE/SCR on 06.08.2013 to Additional Member(Civil Engg.)/Railway Board for advising RVNL/CAO(C) to ensure the same before submitting CRS application.
Vide Railway Board’s Lr.No:2012/CE-I/CT/O/16 dt. 20.06.2012, the maintenance contracts for new lines/doubling etc. executed by RVNL/Construction Organisation are to be awarded by the concerned Open line organisation in advance to the opening of sections for train operation.
All PCEs were of the opinion that it is practically not feasible for Open Line organisation to fix up agency in advance. RVNL/Construction shall fix up outsourcing contract atleast for 2 years after commissioning including the deficiency to be made up. The maintenance can be charged to revenue.
Recommendation:
Maintenance contract shall be fixed up by RVNL/Construction for 2 years that should include the deficiency. The maintenance can be charged to revenue.
1.9 / Practical method for Formation rehabilitation (SER)
Issue:
RDSO has given consultancy for rehabilitation of weak formations in S. E. Rly. One of the items suggested by RDSO for formation treatment is provision of 1m thick blanket on top of the formation. This is practically impossible as complete block of a line for quite some time is impracticable. Hence, a method which is practical and can be executed in field should be suggested by the RDSO
One of such proposal is procurement &use of Formation rehabilitation machine.
Discussion:
All PCE’s were of the opinion that longer blocks shall be given for formation rehabilitation work by restoring to single line working so as to ensure quality work by proper supervision. Also Where ever doubling is planned rehabilitation shall be sectioned concurrently and executed by construction organization.
Recommendation:
1. In double line section rehabilitation shall be done by restoring to single line working.
2. Where ever doubling is planned rehabilitation shall be sectioned concurrently and executed by construction organization.
1.10 / Track centre for multiple lines (New construction) e.g. 3rd line, 4th line etc: (SER)
Issue:
A number of works for construction of 3rd & 4th Lines are being sanctioned. As per the present instructions the track centre of 3rd/4th Line is being kept nearly equal to 5.3 m. This distance is found to be inadequate in field.
Now it has been recommended in TSC as 7.8m, Bd.’s order are still awaited.
Discussion:
All PCE’s were of the opinion that Boards order on TSC item for increasing the track centre to 7.8 mm may be expedited and correction slip be issued early.
Recommendation:
Boards order on TSC item for increasing the track centre to 7.8 mm may be expedited and correction slip be issued early.
1.11 / Creation and manning of posts for maintenance of new lines/doubling created by Construction/RVNL Organisation including manning of Level Crossings (SER)
Issue:
Railways are failing in creation of posts and their manning needed for track maintenance of newly created P. Way assets. This again is having a severe repercussion in ensuring safety of track thereby the safety of train running.
Discussion:
PCE/SER stated that Railway Board has issued following letters on Maintenance of New P.Way Asset being created by Construction Organisation or RVNL Organisation.
a) Advisor Project’s letter No: 98/W-I/Gen/0/30-Pt. dt. 01-11-2011
b) Advisor Bridge’s letter No: 98/W-I/Gen/0/30-Pt. dt. 04-5-2012
c) EDCE/G’s letter No: 98/W-I/Gen/0/30-Pt. dt. 20-6-2012
Content of the letters pivots around two points:-
(A) Deployment of Basic staff i.e.JE/P.Way, PWSs, Mate, Keymen & Patrolmen on new asset the moment it is opened for traffic.
(B) Deployment of trackman for maintenance of P.Way asset after opening for traffic.
However Railways are not able to create even these posts on the date of opening to traffic and deployment of duly trained man power against these posts whichis required to be in place.
Proposals for creation of posts of SSE/JE/P.Way, PWS & few Trackmen have been sent earlier by Divisions but kept pending by Personnel and Finance Deptt of HQ for the desired money value/ matching surrender from the Engg Deptt which is no longer available in the Divisions and or in HQ.
Besides this 128 posts of Gateman are yet to be created for 20 already manned LCs [Manned temporarily by Trackman] and 26 LCs proposed for manning.
Pending creation of these posts, it would not be possible to take over and maintain new assets created by Construction/RVNL Organisation.
The impasse on creation of these essential safety category posts such as Supervisor, Mate, Keyman, Gatekeeper, Patrolmen and Protection Trackmen required primarily to facilitate train running and to ensure basic safety of track needs to be resolved and addressed. Such bare minimum safety category posts have to be created for new assets by de-linking it from vacancy bank or matching surrender formula as is being done for running staff such as Drivers & Guards.
All PCEs have also expressed that similar situation exists in all Railways and no matching surrender shall be insisted for posts required for new assets. Yearly reviews are being carried out by all Railways as per MCNTN formula and there are deficiencies in all Railways based on this. Till such time matter is resolved atleast bare minimum post required shall be allowed to be created without matching surrender.
Recommendation:
1. No matching surrender shall be insisted for posts required for new assets as yearly reviews are being carried out by all Railways as per MCNTN formula and there are deficiencies in all Railways based on this.
2. Till such time this matter is resolved atleast bare minimum post required shall be allowed to be created without matching surrender.
1.12 / Revision in Policy Circular No.7 and criteria for track tolerances speeds up to 110 Kmph (SER, WCR)
Issues:
(i) Policy Circular No: 7 para-10.1 specifies cut off speed as 105 kmph indicates that speed can be raised beyond 105 Kmph only if track tolerances are maintained as per tolerances specified in Para 607(2) of IRPWM.
(ii) IRPWM Para 607(2) indicate cut off speed as 100 Kmph. Beyond 100 kmph, it specifies for superior track tolerances.
(iii) Para 618 (4) of IRPWM specifies cut off speed as 110KMPH for high speed routes for recording of defects through OMS.
Discussion:
PCE/SER stated that on Gr. ‘A’ route between Howrah and Jharsuguda (Length of approx 500 Route Km) on SER, the maximum permissible sectional speed is 110 Kmph for last 10 years though the track tolerances are not confirming to tolerances specified in Para 607(2) of IRPWM.
As per Policy Circular No: 7 (para 10.1) meant for raising speeds, track for speed more than 105 Kmph should be maintained to tolerances specified in Para 607(2) of IRPWM. This criteria if followed is going to restrict the speed on many routes.Moreover, while giving the JSC for a new category LHB coaches to run on the above Gr. ‘A’ route at 110 Kmph, CRS has observed as to how the speed of 110 Kmph is proposed when in the section track tolerances are not confirming to tolerances specified in Para 607(2) of IRPWM.
PCE/SER further suggested that following changes be made in Policy circular 7 & Para 607(2) of IRPWM.
(i) Policy Circular No: 7 in Para –10.1 be relaxed marginally for speeds upto 110 Kmph in lieu of 105 Kmph.
(ii) The stipulation in Para 607(2) of IRPWM that “standard of maintenance of track for sanctioned speeds above 100 Km/hour and up to 140 Km/hour on BG track” may be replaced with “standard of maintenance of track for sanctioned speeds above 110 Km/hour and up to 140 Km/hour on BG track”.