Iricen.gov.in
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/P |
|2. |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-1 |
|2. |Shri Vipul Kumar, ED/Track-2 |
| | |
Zonal Railways
|1. |Shri A.K.Mittal,PCE/CR |
|2. |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-2 |
|2. |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
|TRACK MAINTENANCE & POLICY |
|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: |
| |In double line section rehabilitation shall be done by restoring to single line working. |
| |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. |
| |Advisor Project’s letter No: 98/W-I/Gen/0/30-Pt. dt. 01-11-2011 |
| |Advisor Bridge’s letter No: 98/W-I/Gen/0/30-Pt. dt. 04-5-2012 |
| |EDCE/G’s letter No: 98/W-I/Gen/0/30-Pt. dt. 20-6-2012 |
| | |
| |Content of the letters pivots around two points:- |
| |Deployment of Basic staff i.e.JE/P.Way, PWSs, Mate, Keymen & Patrolmen on new asset the moment it is opened for traffic. |
| |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: |
| |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. |
| |IRPWM Para 607(2) indicate cut off speed as 100 Kmph. Beyond 100 kmph, it specifies for superior track tolerances. |
| |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. |
| | |
| |Policy Circular No: 7 in Para –10.1 be relaxed marginally for speeds upto 110 Kmph in lieu of 105 Kmph. |
| | |
| |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”. |
| | |
| |PCE/WCR & other PCEs were also of same openion. |
| | |
| |Recommendations: |
| |1. Policy Circular No: 7 in Para –10.1 be relaxed marginally for speeds upto 110 Kmph in lieu of 105 Kmph. |
| |2. 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”. |
|1.13 |Operation of Store module in TMS (SER) |
| | |
| |Issue: |
| |Store Module in TMS is under trial. Divisions of S. E Railway have been advised to start the operation of “Store Module” by different |
| |PWIs. But no module in TMS has been provided for HQ. |
| | |
| |SDGM in view of problems associated with scrap accountals and released P.way material has been reminding for early operation of this |
| |module. |
| | |
| |Discussion: |
| |PCE /SER mentioned that arrangement for operation of Store Module by HQ under login ID of CTE & Dy. CE/TMS be made available and |
| |Full-fledged Store module be made operative. |
| | |
| |Recommendation: |
| |Store module under trial may be finalized early. |
|1.14 |Allotment of suspense fund of Rs. 60.0 crores. (SER) |
| | |
| |Issue: |
| |SAIL bill of more than Rs. 160.0 Cr. (approx.) is pending due to fund constraint. Available stock of Fabricator Rail is also about 50 |
| |Crs. As on date acceptance of debit by different Railways about 62.0 Crs. is pending. Thus, Zonal Railway must expedite the acceptance of|
| |debit on priority. |
| | |
| |Discussion: |
| |PCE/SER mentioned that due to procurement of Rails on account of other Railways, SER is facing financial crunch to release payment to |
| |SAIL as well as to other suppliers. Therefore, to cater this situation at least Rs. 60.0 crores was demanded as suspense fund. Allotment |
| |of suspense fund needs to be explored. It was referred to Board vide letter no. TC/outstanding/Bills/2012-13 dt 07-08-13. |
| | |
| |During further discussion it was brought out that outstanding be informed by SER to Board and Railway Board shall cuts budget from |
| |respective railways and allot the same to SER. |
| | |
| |Recommendation: |
| |SER shall informed outstanding to Board and Railway Board shall cuts budget from respective railways and allot the same to SER. |
|1.15 |Tolerances for Track maintenance (SWR) |
| |Issue: |
| |In IRPWM maintenance tolerances have been specified for comfort and not as safety tolerance. There is a need to specify Safety tolerances|
| |for considering during accident enquiries |
| |Discussed & Dropped |
|1.16 |Extra Clearance needed on Curves (SWR) |
| |Issue: |
| |As per item No.1 of Chapter 1, General, the minimum track centre is defined as 5.3 m. which includes extra clearance needed upto 5 degree|
| |curve. |
| | |
| |However, in Correction Slip No.9 the relevant note a(i) has been deleted. This implies that now for any degrees of curvature extra |
| |clearance is required to be added to 5.3 m c/c. |
| | |
| |Discussed & Dropped |
|1.17 |Extension of Rainy season for Running of CC+8+2 loaded goods trains (WCR) |
| | |
| |Issue: |
| |As per Rate Circular No. 28 corrigendum No.5, dated 26.07.2012 the rainy season has been reduced July to August. |
| |Discussion: |
| |PCE/WCR stated that in W.C. Rly. heavy rain is noticed from 15th June to 30th Sept. This period may vary from zone to zone but the rainy |
| |season as July to August is very restrictive and BOXN or other open wagons loaded with CC+8+2t may further increased and will adversely |
| |affect safety of track and bridges. Therefore, the rainy reason is required to be extended from 15 June to 15th September for running of |
| |CC+8+2t loaded goods trains. In this regard a reference made to Railway Board. |
| | |
| |All other PCEs also stated that the period is varying from railway to railway but as train may cover many railways, period may be fixed |
| |from 1st June to 30th Oct. |
| | |
| |Recommendation: |
| |Rainy season for Running of CC+8+2 loaded goods trains be fixed from 1st June to 30th Oct. |
|1.18 |Incentive to SSE/JE USFD (NR) |
| | |
| |Issue: |
| |After 6th pay commission, incentive to SSE/JE/USFD by way of promotion in Ex cadre post has stopped. |
| | |
| |Discussion: |
| |PCE/NR mentioned that as per Railway Board letter No. 89/Track65-III/K/82 dtd 2/6/1990 (copy enclosed), Item No. C, USFD SSE/JEs were |
| |motivated by giving a promotion on coming to USFD cadre, treating the same as ex cadre posts. But after the introduction of 6th pay |
| |commission and subsequently merging of SSE and JE grades, this monitory benefit no longer exists. Railway Board vide letter No. |
| |E(P&A)I-2010/SP-1/Gen-1 dtd. 3/1/2012 granted a special allowance @ Rs. 2500/- P.M. to vigilance inspectors. Since USFD and vigilance |
| |both are ex-cadre organization, therefore it is suggested that either on entry in USFD organization SSE/JE may be given next higher grade|
| |pay on Ex-cadre basis Or granted a special allowance of Rs. 2500.00 per month. |
| |Recommendation: |
| |This was also recommended last year. Board to expedite to issue of orders either giving higher GP or special allowance of Rs. 2,500/- |
| |p.m. to SSE/USFD. |
|2. TRACK MACHINE |
|2.1 |Additional requirement of staff for IRTMTC & CPOH, Allahabad: (NCR) |
| | |
| |Issues: |
| |IRTMTC/Allahabad |
| |The cadre for IRTMTC at Allahabad was created long back at the time of establishing it. Since then, requirement of staff has increased to|
| |cope up with the increased number of courses required at IRTMTC to cover officers as well as increased strength of track machine staff |
| |over a period of time. |
| | |
| |CPOH/Allahabad |
| |Similarly, number of machines for POH is increasing every year resulting in requirement of addition staff for CPOH/ALD also. Work of |
| |expension of CPOH shed is already in progress to handle increased work load. |
| | |
| |Discussion: |
| |CTE / NCR explained that due to increase in no of machines the extra staff is required at IRTMTC & CPOH/Allahabad but NCR is not having |
| |sufficient money value to create additional posts for IRTMTC & CPOH. It shall be either provided by all zonal railways or Railway Board.|
| | |
| |During further discussion all PCE’s were of the opinion that the required money value for these two units shall the provided by Railway |
| |Board from its bank. CTE / NCR mentioned that a proposal for creation of 19 posts for IRTMTC has been submitted to Railway Board’s vide |
| |letter no. 797-E/MPP/Cre/19-P/IRTMTC/Engg/ALD/D-54 dated 01.04.2013. The approval of same may be expedited. |
| | |
| |Recommendation: |
| |Railway board to expedite the creation of post for IRTMTC by provision of matching surrender from Board’s bank. |
| |Proposal for creation of posts for CPOH/Allahabad be submitted to Railway Board with matching surrender from board’s bank. |
|2.2 |Requirement of more number of track Machines to NCR (NCR) |
| | |
| |Issue: |
| |North Central Railway is having 5 % of route km. of Indian Railway but traffic carried by NCR is 15% of IR’s traffic. After charting |
| |paths for 48 Mail/Express trains, only 29 paths are available for goods trains with two hour maintenance block. As against this 40-43 |
| |goods trains are being pushed into the system having no margin for maintenance block. Thus more machines are required for maintenance |
| |addition. |
| | |
| |Discussion: |
| |CTE/NCR explained that N.C Railway is having two busiest routes of Indian Railways Viz Mugalsarai-Ghaziabad and Bina-Palwal with approx |
| |98.89 GMT on PWL-MTJ (Dn line), 82.63 GMT on AGC-JHS (Dn line) and 88.67 GMT on MGS-ALD section (Up line). Due to heavy traffic, |
| |availability of traffic blocks is poor and it is become difficult to get corridor blocks hence lesser output of track machines. |
| |Therefore 2 tamping machine, 3 BCM, 3 UNIMAT, 3SBCM & 4 UTV are require additionally. |
| |Recommendation: |
| |NCR to send proposal to Railway Board for these additional machine with proper justification. |
|2.3 |Implementation of pilot project of MMU in AGC division of NCR (NCR) |
| | |
| |Issue: |
| |For implementation of pilot project of MMU in AGC division of NCR 72 post for track machine and 52 post for AGC division are required to |
| |be created. |
| | |
| |Order already exists for RBMU by provide matching surrender from Board so no further action required. |
|2.4 |AMC with OEM/authorized dealer (SECR) |
| |Issue: |
| |As per Rly. Board letter No. F(X)II- 2004 PW/8 Dtd. 30.11.2005. PHOD is competent to sanction to enter the AMC with OEM/authorized |
| |dealer up to Rs. 10 Lakhs per item per annum. The term “per item per annum” need to be clarified as it is differently interpreted by |
| |accounts who insist that one AMC with one firm is indicating one item irrespective of the fact that AMC includes number of machine not |
| |only of same types but also of different types. Further, there can be more than one AMC for one machine for different parts of the |
| |machine. |
| |Discussion: |
| |PCE/SECR brought out that Presently, full power is available with GM for sanctioning of AMC for track machines. It takes lot of time to |
| |get the sanction of GM and some times GM also does not agree for AMC. This result in undue delay in getting the AMC done for track |
| |machine in time which ultimately results in poor maintenance of track machine and increase in breakdown of machines. There is need to |
| |give full powers to PCE for AMC of track machine instead of limiting the power to 10 lakh per item per machine. |
| | |
| |Recommendation: |
| |Full powers to be given to PCE for AMC of track machine instead of limiting the power to 10 lakh per item per machine. |
|2.5 |Accommodation facility at Faridabad/New Delhi (SECR) |
| |Issue: |
| |Most of the track machines are purchased from M/s Plasser (India) Pvt. Ltd., Faridbad and with every purchase, there is training of 4 |
| |staff/officers of zonal railway as per the purchase order. However, this training does not include the accommodation facility for the |
| |railway trainees. The accommodation is to be arranged by zonal railway on its own. |
| | |
| |Discussion: |
| |PCE/SECR brought out that Whenever staff goes to Faridabad for one month training & taking delivery of machine or collection of machine |
| |spare parts, staff are facing hardship in staying as no official accommodation/rest house is available for TMO staff at Faridabad, Delhi |
| |or in nearby vicinity. Accommodation for TMO staff should be provided by M/s Plasser (India) Pvt. Ltd., Faridbad and the same should be |
| |included in the agreement with M/s Plasser (India) or TMO staff can be permitted to stay in hotel. During further discussion all PCE’s |
| |were of the opinion that it shall be made part of these contracts. |
| | |
| |Recommendation: |
| |Provision of accommodation to TMO staff by Plasser (India) Pvt Ltd be made part of contract agreements. |
|2.6 |ACQUISITION OF FLASH BUTT WELDING PLANT BY ZONAL RAILWAYS (SCR) |
| |Issue: |
| |Railway should own their Mobil Flash Butt Plant so as to break the monopoly of agencies. |
| | |
| |Discussion: |
| |PCE/SCR stated that Railway Board vide lr.No.2011/Track-I/12/1 Dt.12-9-2011 has advised that the Railways should propose the work for |
| |acquisition of one Mobile Flash Butt Welding Plant in the Railway’s M&P Programme for 2012-13. Though the proposal was submitted for |
| |inclusion in M&P for 2012-13, the same was not considered by Board. Now S.C.Railway has again proposed for procurement of FBWP through |
| |M&P programme 2013-14 vide proposal No. 2130. |
| | |
| |During discussion all PCE’s were of opinion that for scattered welding, Railway shall have to procure mobile FBW plant them self and give|
| |labor contract to operate the same. |
| | |
| |Recommendation: |
| |Railway Board shall consider and approve procurement of one mobile FBW plant per railway in works programme. |
|2.7 |Clarification on the provisions of the SOP for AMC of Track Machines (SER) |
| |Issue: |
| |As per Rly Bd’s letter no. F(X)-II-99/PW/3, dtd.20.10.99 & FX/II-2004/PW/8, dtd. 30.11.05 the sanctioning power for annual maintenance |
| |contract (including track machine) on single tender basis with OEM/authorised dealer of OEM up to Rs 10 lakh per item is with PHOD with |
| |finance concurrence. |
| |At present the phrase “per item” is interpreted as “per contract” which creates hardship. As a result, the sanctioning power of an AMC |
| |containing higher number of machines goes to AGM even though the AMC value per machine is well within Rs 10 lakh. |
| |Discussed & Dropped |
|2.8 |Output of Old Track Machines (SER) |
| | |
| |Issue: |
| |At present there are 43 track machines in SER (Tamper-16, BCM-5, FRM-2, BRM-5, DGS-7, UTV-4, PQRS-2, T-28 – 2) out of which 9 track |
| |machines (Tamper-6, BCM-1, BRM-2) are more than 15 years old and have thus lived their codal life. These machines suffer frequent |
| |breakdowns and it becomes difficult to achieve rated output from these old machines. Thus, the rated output of such machines needs to be |
| |reduced suitably (around 50%) while fixing up the targets by the Board. |
| |Discussion: |
| |PCE/SER suggested that following age factors may be considered: |
| |For machines in the age group of 10-15 years: 0.75 |
| |For machines older than 15 years: 0.50 |
| |During further discussion, it was decided that SER shall give details of output of various machines age wise to RDSO for study and issue |
| |guide lines. |
| | |
| |Recommendation: |
| |SER to give data of output of Track Machines age wise to RDSO for study & issue suitable guide lines. |
|2.9 |Exclusive Corridor Block for Track Maintenance (SER) |
| | |
| |Issue: |
| |Even though in the Working Time Table (WTT) there is provision of corridor block for track maintenance and every month a joint program |
| |for deployment of track machines is signed by PCE and COM still the realisation of corridor block is achieved only partially (about |
| |50%-60%) as goods trains are pushed during the corridor blocks. |
| | |
| |Discussion: |
| |All PCE’s were of the opinion that once a joint programme to made no goods train shall be pushed in block without the approval of PCE. |
| | |
| |Recommendation: |
| |Once a joint programme of deployment of track machine is signed by COM & PCE, no goods train shall be pushed to infringe the block. If |
| |require in exigency, permission of PCE shall be taken. |
|2.10 |Provision of air-conditioned camping coach (SER) |
| | |
| |Issue: |
| |Presently unserviceable passenger coaches are converted into camping coaches for the track machine staff. However, such coaches do not |
| |satisfy all the need of the track machine staff. |
| | |
| |Discussion: |
| |PCE/SER explained that firstly, as the camping coaches are stabled at some station, its toilets are unusable and the track machine staff |
| |have to go outside to relieve themselves. |
| |Secondly, in summer season, the camping coaches become inhospitable and the staffs are not able to take due rest especially after working|
| |in the night block. It is again not practically possible to provide rest rooms with reasonable amenities at all base stations. |
| |Therefore, the expenditure will be much less and the results will be more effective if air-conditioned camping coaches with green toilet |
| |are provided instead. |
| |During further discussion all PCE’s were of the opinion that providing & maintaining Air condition coaches may not be feasible therefore |
| |Air cooled coaches with green toilets be provided. |
| | |
| |Recommendation: |
| |All existing camping coaches shall be converted to Air cooled coaches with green toilets on programme basis. All New camping coaches |
| |shall be air cooled coaches with green toilets. |
|2.11 |Revision in SOP for OH of engines, etc. (SER) |
| |Issue: |
| |At present the provisions in SOP provides for procurement of spares by exercising the powers of stores department and entering into works|
| |contract with OEMs or their authorised representative through AMC. However, there are many other activities such as overhauling of |
| |engines, OH of electrical cables, OH of hydraulic pipelines, OH of tamping banks, etc. which are not usually covered under AMC and need |
| |execution of separate works contract with/without supply items. However, in the SOP there does not exist suitable provisions to cater to |
| |such needs and the same is required to be incorporated. |
| | |
| |GM is fully authorized to delegate powers for works contract. |
| |No further action required. |
|2.12 |Facilities at nominated machine sidings (SER) |
| | |
| |Issue: |
| |At present most of the sidings where machines are stabled are full of vegetation and without proper facilities. At times the machines are|
| |stabled between main lines. As a result it is very difficult to inspect the machines and carry out preventative maintenance. |
| |Discussed & Dropped |
|2.13 |Mechanisation of rail weld fracture attention and scattered rail renewal (SER) |
| |Issue: |
| |MPT 2006 machine was planned for carrying for rails, 10 sleepers and 10 men for attending to scattered renewals with facility for |
| |tamping. At present on SER there is only one machine. |
| | |
| |Discussion: |
| |All PCE’s were of the opinion that this machine should be provided to every DEN/Sr.DEN. |
| | |
| |Recommendation: |
| |One MTP 2006 shall be provided to each Sr DEN/DEN. |
|2.14 |Promotion of track machine supervisors as AXENs/XENs (SWR) |
| | |
| |Issue: |
| |Track Machine supervisors having qualification in the fields of Mechanical, Electrical & Electronics on promotion as AXEN are to be |
| |accommodated in Railways. As these officers will not be having Civil Engineering background, posting them in open line or even in |
| |construction projects may not be appropriate. |
| | |
| |Discussed & Dropped |
|2.15 |Route learning for Track Machine Operators (SWR) |
| | |
| |Issue: |
| |No guidelines are provided in IRTMM regarding route learning for track machine staff. |
| | |
| |Discussion: |
| |PCE/SWR to work out that route learning for track machine staff may be given under SSE/TM instead of Loco Inspectors of Mechanical Dept. |
| |Validity of route learning may also be for a period of 1 year instead of 3 months for LP/ALP (continuous period of absence in a |
| |particular section). |
| | |
| |During further discussion all PCE’s were of the opinion that it shall be done by LI who is well verse with the section. |
| | |
| |Recommendation: |
| |LI shall carryout the route learning. Requirement of LI will automatically taken care of during 6 monthly reviews. |
|2.16 |Need for review of maintenance schedule for camping coaches of track machine (NER) |
| |Issue: |
| |No separate scheduled prescribed for maintenance of camping coaches. Safety branch insisting for same schedule as of passenger coaches, |
| |which is not practicable. |
| |Discussion: |
| |PCE/NER explained that the schedule for maintenance of coaches has been prescribed in lRCA Part-IV. Appendix E Para E-3 (Effective from |
| |01.06.2013) as per which following periodical maintenance is required:- |
| | |
| |Sr. No. Type of schedule Periodicity |
| |i Schedule maintenance “A” Ol Month +/- 3 days |
| |ii Schedule maintenance “B” 3 Months +/- 7 days |
| | |
| |These schedules are to be carried out at nominated washing pits. ln addition to above. IOH & POH are also to be carried out on yearly and|
| |two yearly basis. |
| |No separate schedule for camping coaches has been prescribed. However. Due to limited availability of camping coaches and problem of |
| |movement of coaches from machine site to nominated washing pits and back. the observation of above schedule is practically not possible |
| |and needs to be modified. |
| | |
| |During further discussion all PCEs were of the opinion that Schedule A & B for camping coaches by TXR is not practically possible and |
| |there for shall not be insisted upon. |
| | |
| |Recommendation: |
| |Schedule A & B for camping coaches by TXR is not practically possible and there for shall not be insisted upon. |
|2.17 |Streamlining Procurement of Spares for Track Machines (NR) |
| | |
| |Issue: |
| |At present, spares for track machines for PAC items are being procured against Stores contract for spares or through AMC. The AMC with |
| |the OEM is for emergent/breakdown repairs having a rate contract for spares. For departmental repair/IOH etc, PAC spares are being |
| |procured either through the OEM or authorized dealer through a stores contract with part No. and required quantity. It would be better to|
| |have rate contract for the spares to be used other than for AMC. |
| | |
| |Discussed & dropped |
|Assest Procurement |
|3.1 |Procurement of half set of over-riding switches for need based replacement of damaged/worn-out tongue rail with corresponding stock rail |
| |instead of complete switch renewal:(NCR) |
| |Issue |
| |It has been observed that population of LH turnouts on double line section is normally more than the RH turnouts. Hence, RH half |
| |switches of such LH turnouts get damaged/worn-out at faster rate and require frequent replacement within 09 to 15 months, whereas LH half|
| |switches of such LH turnouts have higher life of 32 to 36 months and remain in track for long. |
| | |
| |Instruction already issued vide RDSO letter No. CT/PIX dated 20/25-05.2013. |
| |No further action reqd. |
|3.2 |Procurement of Track Fittings - Additional Security measures for GRSP & GFN Liners. (NFR) |
| | |
| |Issue: |
| |Now a days a paper slip along with hologram comes in consignment of Rubber pads/GFN liner. The boxes have to be opened at Track depot and|
| |only boxes with paper slip shall be accepted. This is a time consuming exercise as boxes have to opened and then repacked. |
| | |
| |Discussion: |
| |PCE/NFR stated that Railway Board, vide Letter No. 2009/Track-II/22/5/2 dt. 2.9.09 & Dt. 1.2.13 advised as under: |
| |“While accepting the consignment of Rubber Pads/GFN Liner & Polythene dowels, consignee shall open the box and ensure that a paper slip |
| |signed by RDSO Inspector along with Hologram is available as per details on Inspection Certificate. Only those boxes shall be accepted |
| |which are having proper paper slips with hologram. Deviation should immediately be brought to the notice of Divisional Head Quarter |
| |Office, Firm and QA Civil directorate of RDSO. The paper slip along with the hologram shall be preserved with Consignee copy of |
| |Inspection Certificate.” |
| | |
| |To comply with the above, 100% opening of the cartons of GRSP & GFN Liners and repacking is mandatory, which requires labour (i.e cost) |
| |and time. Each carton of GRSP contains a bag containing 500 rubber pads (i.e.1 lakh nos.=200 boxes) and the slip with the hologram stuck|
| |on it. At the centralized track depot, the carton has to be opened, the slip with hologram has to be searched for—it is not always at the|
| |top—and the carton has to be repacked before dispatching it to the field units. This may be reviewed. |
| |It is proposed to specify 10% test check instead of 100% opening of cartons. |
| |Time for the holograms to be preserved should be specified. |
| |During further discussion all PCES were of the opinion that to ensure quality, it has to be ensured that holograms are present in each |
| |box. However, it shall be ensure that holograms are placed at the top of box to avoid removal of all items. Also suitable period be |
| |prescribed for which holograms are to be preserved. |
| |Recommendation: |
| |QA directorate of RDSO to ensure that it shall be place on top of box & suitable period be defined for which it shall be preserved. |
|3.3 |ASSESSMENT OF CAPACITY FOR RDSO APPROVED FIRMS: (SCR) |
| | |
| |Issue |
| |As per the Railway Board’s directives issued vide letter No.2001/TK-II/22/7/7, dt.22.04.2009 the allotment of quantities for RDSO |
| |approved firms should be restricted to RDSO assessed capacity by the Railways while finalizing the stores tender. |
| | |
| |Discussed & Dropped. |
|3.4 |SALE OF RELEASED PSC SLEEPERS FOR USE IN SIDING: (SCR) |
| | |
| |Issue: |
| |Released Class-II sleepers lying unused to be disposed of by sale. |
| | |
| |Discussion: |
| |PCE/SCR stated that approximately one Lakh released Class-II PSC sleepers (released from track renewal works), are lying in the PQRS |
| |Depots occupying the space. This Railway has received requisitions from private parties for sale of released Class-II PSC sleepers for |
| |use in their sidings. The matter has been referred to Railway Board vide this office Lr No.W.456/PSC/US/Cl-II/MF Dt |
| |05.04.11,05.07.11,15.03.12,15.2.13 & 18.07.13 for giving specific approval for disposing Class-II PSC sleepers to private parties. |
| | |
| |Recommendation: |
| |Board may issue suitable guidelines for disposal of released sleepers. |
|3.5 |AMENDMENT TO A.P. VAT RULES, 2005 AND WITHDRAWAL OF INPUT TAX CREDIT ON CEMENT, USED IN MANUFACTURE OF PSC SLEEPERS (SCR) |
| | |
| |Issue: |
| |As per amendment issued by AP Govt, the input tax credit available on cement is withdrawn on concrete sleepers. Therefore reimbursement |
| |has to be given to CSP firms in AP. |
| | |
| |Discussion: |
| |PCE/SCR stated that as per Cl. 13.4 of the contract agreement against Board’s tender No.CS-162/2008, |
| |“ VAT credit for cement per sleeper is to be passed to the Purchaser (by supplier i.e., CSP firms), if the approved source (cement |
| |source) is within the state in which plant is situated.” |
| |As per Cl.3.6 of the contract agreement, while quoting the rates, tenderer should pass on to purchaser (by way of reduction in prices) |
| |the set off/input tax credit that would become available to them. |
| | |
| |Pr.Secy. to Govt. of AP has issued Amendment to G.O. Ms No.1636 dated 18.08.2011 including clause (r) wherein the item “Cement used in |
| |the manufacture of RCC and PCC Pipes, Cement Poles and pre-stressed Railway Concrete Sleepers” is included in sub-rule (2) after clause |
| |(q) in Rule 20 of AP VAT Rules, 2005 due to which the input tax credit which was available to the contractor/sleeper firms earlier is now|
| |not available to them. This amendment in AP VAT Rules, 2005 is applicable to all the CSPs situated in AP. |
| | |
| |Proposal sent to Rly. Board requesting for reimbursement of input tax credit on cement vide lr No.W.456/PSC/Policy/Vol.I/2009-12 Dt |
| |09.02.12, 27.02.12, 11.10.12 & 27.02.13 with financial implication of Rs.36.10 per sleeper and overall financial implication of Rs. |
| |1,80,50,000/- . |
| | |
| |Recommendation: |
| |Board may issue suitable instruction on reference made by SCR. |
|3.6 |PERIODICAL REVISION OF P.V.C. FORMULA: (SCR) |
| | |
| |Issue: |
| |PVC formula being kept for various P.Way items may become distorted/ineffective over a period of time due to abnormal changes in the |
| |market conditions for certain component/components. Certain other conditions like non-publication/incorrect publication of Indices etc. |
| |may also make the PVC formula incorrect/ineffective. Periodical revision of PVC Formula by a Committee of CE/TPs may be required for all |
| |the Track items. |
| | |
| |Item shall be discussed in CE/TP seminar. |
|3.7 |Instructions for dealing with the Tenders and P.Os for those firms, who have been de-listed or the production of whom have been stopped |
| |during the course of execution of P.O or during the process of finalising tender (SCR,NR) |
| | |
| |Issue |
| |Many times the production and inspection of the firms are temporarily stopped by RDSO, whereas such firms might have submitted their |
| |tenders. The eligibility criteria does not prohibit awarding of the tender to such firms. Hence, it becomes difficult to take a decision|
| |on the tenders submitted by such firms. |
| | |
| |Similarly, if a firm gets delisted or its production has been temporarily stopped by RDSO, the instructions are not clear that how to |
| |deal with extension of Delivery Period or closure of P.O. of such firms. |
| |This item be discussed in CE/TP seminar |
|3.8 |Revision of power with respect to approval of Non-Stock Demand/ Requisition by PHOD. (SER) |
| | |
| |Issue: |
| |Raising the power of SAG officers for Non-Stock Requisition from 10 Lakh to 25 Lakh. |
| | |
| |Discussion: |
| |PCE/SER mentioned that Generally, Non-stock requisitions are prepared on the basis of item and quantity as sanctioned in the ‘Estimate’ |
| |and does not require further much scrutiny. Process of approval of such indents from HAG level results in wasteful work, delay and no |
| |value addition. |
| | |
| |It is suggested to streamline the process and for early approval of the indents, the power of SAG officers for indents approval need to |
| |be raised from Rs.10 lakh to 25 Lakh. |
| |A proposal for enhancement of the power of SAG officers for Non-Stock Requisition (Indents) from Rs.10 lakhs to 25 lakhs with FA & |
| |CAO/GRC’s views/comments was submitted to Railway Board. All PCEs also agreed to raise the limit to 25 lakhs. |
| | |
| |Recommendation: |
| |Board may raise the power of SAG officers for Non-Stock Requisition from 10 Lakh to 25 Lakh as proposed by SER. |
|3.9 |Delay in supply of Rubber Pads due to delay in inspection (SER) |
| | |
| |Issue: |
| |Railway Board has approved the regular use of Composite Rubber Pad (T-6618 thickness 6mm) in place of normal Rubber Pad(T-3711 thickness |
| |6mm). |
| | |
| |Inspection of this item is to be done by M&C/Directorate of RDSO and not by the QA-Civil Directorate. Despite personal chasing with M&C |
| |Directorate, there has been abnormal delay (actual response time 2 to 3 month) in carrying out inspection probably due to shortage of |
| |inspecting official with the M&C Directorate. |
| | |
| |Discussed & Dropped |
|3.10 |Problem in finalization of tenders of P-way fittings to L-1 tenderer (SER) |
| | |
| |Issue: |
| |In few tender cases it is observed that L-I Tenderer though RDSO approved Part.I ,quotes for part quantity with rates comparatively low |
| |than the prevalent market rate. Sometime quantity offered is as low as 10% of the Tendered Quantity. Generally, the lowest rate, even |
| |though unreasonably low, quoted by L-I tenderer are accepted for (quoted) part quantity and counter offer is given for balance quantity |
| |to the tenderer who has quoted for the full tender quantity. In most of the cases the counter offer is rejected and finally Tender is |
| |discharged for major quantity, leading to short procurement of material. |
| | |
| |Discussed & Dropped |
|3.11 |Modification of IREPS software (SER) |
| | |
| |Issue: |
| |Existing IREPS software is not designed to cater the full information desired for evaluation of rates offered by tenderer. |
| | |
| |Discussion: |
| |PCE/SER suggested that the software programmer of IREPS developed by CRIS may be modified as under :- |
| |Option for drawing should have drop down menu/scrolling. |
| |It is possible only to have details of POs for the last six months at a time only. It will be better to have P.Os for one year time |
| |period. |
| |It is not possible to give remarks like rates given in the P.O are not to be referred for future Tender etc. for want particular item. |
| | |
| |All PCEs also of the views that these modifications be carried out. |
| | |
| |Recommendation: |
| |These modifications shall be carried out in IREPS. |
|3.12 |Contract Condition for Track Fittings Supply Contracts (SER) |
| |Issue: |
| |Existing Condition:-Only firms, who are having valid registration with NSIC for items tendered are exempted from paying the cost of |
| |tender form. |
| |The item is under consideration in CE/TP seminar |
|3.13 |Contract management of tenders accepted by Rly. Bd. (SER) |
| |Issue: |
| |In contracts for Concrete Sleeper which were accepted by Railway Board, Zonal Railways were given authority to extend/refix the delivery |
| |period with the concurrence of FA &CAO, in cases where the suppliers were not at fault vide Railway Board letter No.2008/RS(G)/779/8 |
| |dt.14.08.2001. This authority was withdrawn by Board vide Director/Track(M) letter No. 2008/TK-II/22/11/8 /pt dt.03.10.2011. Now Zonal |
| |Railways have to write to Railway Board for extension of D.P. |
| |The authority extended earlier to Zonal Railways be restored for better contract management. |
| |This item be discussed in CE/TP seminar |
|3.14 |Lack of competition in procurement of P.Way materials e.g. SEJ from Pt-I firms (SER,SWR) |
| |Issue: |
| |Presently, there are two designs of modified SEJs against each only one Pt.-I firm is enlisted; however for each design, five vendors are|
| |enlisted in Pt-II. |
| |This item be discussed in CE/TP seminar |
|3.15 |Production capacity of RDSO approved vendors. |
| | |
| |Issue: |
| |Mention of production capacity of approved venders in Master list creates confusion in finalization of tender. |
| | |
| |This item be discussed in CE/TP seminar |
|LEVEL XINGS/ROB/RUB |
|4.1 |Maintenance of Drainage System, lighting, etc. (SECR) |
| |Issue: |
| |In terms of Rly. Bd.’s letter no. 2006/CE-IV/Misc.-2(RUBs) dtd 18.04.12, the responsibility for the maintenance of road passing through |
| |subway, lighting, drainage system, diversion road and any other allied works will rest on State Govt. |
| | |
| |Discussion: |
| |PCE/SECR stated that in most of the cases state Govt. do not come forward for maintenance of above said items. This has become a |
| |bottleneck in the whole process of construction of LHS by Railways. |
| | |
| |During further discussion, it was agreed that maintenance to remain with State Govt. In case of any problem with particular State Govt, |
| |matter shall be referred to Board. |
| | |
| |Recommendation: |
| |Maintenance to remain with state govt. If there is problem with any particular state govt, then the matter shall be referred to railway |
| |board to be take up with concerned state govt. |
|4.2 |Speed Restriction at Box Pushing Site and other bridge works (SECR) |
| | |
| |Issue: |
| |As per Railway Board’s directives, SEC Railway has planned to construct RUB/LHS works to eliminate all LCs in a big way. This railway is |
| |adopting Box Pushing technique selectively keeping in mind various operational difficulties. |
| | |
| |Discussed & Dropped |
|4.3 |INCREASING THE NORMS FOR SANCTION OF LSWP WORKS UNDER PLAN HEADS 30 AND 32 (SCR) |
| | |
| |Issue: |
| |The norms laid down for sanction of PB/LAW works is 3 for bridge works (Plan Head 32) and 5 for ROB /RUB works (Plan Head 30).Whereas, |
| |the norms for sanction of LSWP works is uniformly fixed as 2 for all the Plan Heads including Plan Head 30 and Plan Head 32. |
| | |
| |Discussed & Dropped |
|4.4 |INCREASING THE NORMS FOR PLAN HEAD 2900: (SCR) |
| | |
| |Issue: |
| |Earlier no limit was fixed for sanction of new works under plan head 2900 under LSWP but this year limit of 1 cr in precribed is IRPSM. |
| | |
| |Discussed & Dropped |
|4.5 |Guide lines for converting single lane ROB in to double lane ROB on 50:50 cost Sharing Basic (ECR) |
| | |
| | |
| |Issue: |
| |Various Railway Boards guidelines exists for winding of 2 lane ROB with 4 lane ROB but no guideline exists for winding single lane ROB to|
| |double/multiple lane ROB. |
| | |
| |Discussion |
| |PCE/ECR brought out that Various single lane ROB exists on this Railway. Due to increased traffic state Govt. demands double/multiple |
| |lane ROB at new location on 50:50 cost sharing basic. Engg. Code and various Railway Board guide lines cover for double/multiple lane. |
| |Existing single lane ROB is more than 70-80 years old and traffic on the ROB justify for widening of ROB |
| | |
| |Recommendation: |
| |Board may like to issue suitable guide lines for converting single lane ROB in to double/multiple lane ROB on 50:50 cost sharing basis. |
|MANPOWER PLANNING |
|5.1 |Structural changes in P.Way organisation after merger of Sr.PWS with JE/P.Way and order of career progression of Track men |
| |(RB,WR,SCR,WCR,NR) |
| | |
| |Issue: |
| |With the order of career progression of Trackmen and merger of category Sr.PW’s with JE/PWay, the following categories in the sequence |
| |of hierarchy will now be existing in field on P.Way maintenance side- |
| |SSE/P.Way, (ii) JE/P.Way, (iii) Track Maintainer Gd-I (exiting Mate & Keyman), (iv),(v) &(vi) Track Maintainers Gd.-II,III,&IV (exiting |
| |Trackman) |
| | |
| |With the above mentioned cadre structure available now in field and elements of modernsiation, mechanization and outsourcing of some |
| |activities already in-built, it would be desirable to re-define the duties for all categories, maintenance practices and additional |
| |supervision required in field. |
| | |
| |Board’s had already asked railways to make a proper working model, using the present revised cadre structure from Track Maintainer |
| |Grade-IV to SSE/P.Way in respect of existing sectioned strength on your Railway may accordingly be advised to Board for crystalising the|
| |thoughts and issuing of finally approved model & duty list for implementation on Indian Railways. |
| | |
| |Discussion: |
| |PCE/WR mentioned that as per Boards order merger of Sr PWS with JE is to be expenditure neutral with reference to 5th pay scale. This |
| |will result in about 9% reduction in supervisory post in WR. As already recommended in TSC, it shall be based on 6th pay scale. |
| | |
| |He also mentioned that in present system Sr.PWS are working with unit which were formed after merger of two gangs. There are many units |
| |which have only one Mate or even no Mate, Now if Sr.PWS are removed from unit then units will be required to be split in original gangs.|
| |In such a case withdrawal of Sr.PWS from unit will create state of deficient supervision of Mates over gangs working. Therefore the |
| |merger will have far reaching consequences and will require structural changes in P.Way organisation in field. |
| | |
| |PCE/SCR also added that the issue of career progression and working conditions of Trackmen on Railways was reviewed and |
| |Restructuring/Reorganization of staffing pattern in Trackman cadre has been issued vide Railway Board’s letter No E(NG)/1-2012/PMS/1 |
| |dated 17-08-2012 (RBE No 91/2012). The existing categories of Trackmen/Gatemen/Trolleymen/ Watchmen/Keymen in Pay Band- I with Grade Pay|
| |Rs 1800/- and Mates ( P.Way) in PB-I with Grade Pay Rs 1900/- in the Permanent Way side of Civil Engineering Department of Indian |
| |Railways have been restructured, to be operated as a unified cadre of Track Maintainer from Grade-I to IV with Grade Pay varying from |
| |Rs 2800/- for Grade-I, Rs 2400/- for Grade-II, Rs 1900/- for Grade-III and Rs 1800/- for Grade-IV. |
| | |
| |As per Para.3 of the said letter, the detailed duties/responsibilities attached to each post in the revised pattern and corresponding |
| |changes in Permanent Way Manual/Safety Manuals, training modules etc., will be notified separately by Civil Engineering Directorate. The|
| |same are yet to be issued. In the absence of these instructions, there is confusion in implementing the above restructuring orders. |
| | |
| |He further mentioned that |
| | |
| |The existing staff in Trackmen / Trolleymen / Gatemen / Watchmen /Keymen categories are all clubbed and placed in the unified category|
| |of Track Maintainer. At present, the wages for the staff working in Trackman/Keyman/Trolleyman categories are charged under the head |
| |‘Expenditure on Repairs & Maintenance of P.Way & Works’. Whereas, the wages of Gateman are charged under the head of ‘Expenditure on |
| |Traffic Expenses‘. As such, with the proposed unification of Gatemen / Trackman /Trolleyman / Keyman/watchman categories as Track |
| |Maintainer Gr-IV, clarification needs be given on this aspect for proper allocation of the heads. |
| | |
| |From the instructions issued vide Board’s letter it is not clear about the placement of Keyman & Gatemen in the revised pattern. If |
| |these two categories were also placed in the category of Track Maintainer Gr-IV with G.P 1800/- in the revised pattern along with |
| |Trakman/ Trolleyman/ Watchman, lot of resistance/reluctance will be found in filling up the vacancies in these categories, as staff are|
| |reluctant in general to carry out the strenuous duties of Keyman and hard duties of Gatemen. |
| | |
| |The Yard Sticks for the post of Track Maintainers in the revised pattern should be clearly issued, as the present Yard Sticks for |
| |Gateman, Trackman, Trolleyman, Mates, Keyman & Watchman are different. If all these posts are clubbed into one category of Track |
| |Maintainer Gr-IV, then Yard Sticks as well as duty lists should be clearly issued by means of correction slips to the P.Way Manual. |
| | |
| |In the light of the existing instructions governing promotions of the staff, clarification also needs to be issued on the point |
| |‘whether, employees in Track Maintainer- II category in G.P 2400/- who are just promoted from the category of Track Maintainer- III can |
| |be promoted as Track Maintainer- I immediately without observing the two (02) years residency period in the category of Track |
| |Maintainer- II. |
| | |
| |The mode of selection/promotion also requires to be modified as recommended by 84th TSC. |
| | |
| |Percentage of Trackman Grade I & II be modified suitably so as to accommodate Mate, Keyman & Gateman. |
| | |
| |He also agreed with views of PCE/WR for merger of Sr PWS with JE and mentioned that Orders may please be issued for |
| |restoration/finalisation of all the selections (which could not be finalised and cancelled in the light of the proposed merger), so that|
| |vacancies in the category can be filled. |
| |PCE/WCR mentioned that as per Railway Board guidelines the track maintainer Gr.- I percentage is 3%. Mates and keymen in WCR as on date |
| |are 10.76% of the total trackmen. Therefore percentage of track maintainer Gr.- I to be increased from 3% to 10.76%. In the new |
| |designation of Track Maintainer the Keymen are refusing the promotions as there is no financial benefits for moving along the track. |
| |Hence, it is recommended that percentage of Track Maintainer in higher grade to be equal to 11% at least of total Trackmen cadre. |
| | |
| |During further discussion EDCE/G mentioned that a letter already written to all PCEs vide letter no. 2013/CE-I/GNS/29 dated 04/03/2014 |
| |for suggesting a proper working model, using present revised cadre structure from Track Maintainer-IV to SSE/P.Way in respect of |
| |existing sectioned strength on the Railway may accordingly be advised to Board for crystalising the thoughts and issuing of finally |
| |approved model & duty list for implementation on Indian Railway. |
| | |
| |Recommendation: |
| |Instruction may be issued for calculation of financial implication of merger of Sr PWS with JE based on 6th pay commission. |
| |The percentage of Track Maintainer-IV be increase to 11% to match with existing posts of Mate & Keyman. |
| |The revised instruction be issued for charging expenditure after merging of cadre for track maintainer working for Track work & at Level|
| |crossing to appropriate head of Repairs & Maintenance of P.Way & Works & Expenditure on Traffic Expenses. |
| |The mode of selection/promotion also requires to be modified as recommended by 84th TSC. |
| |The Yard Sticks for the post of Track Maintainers in the revised pattern should be clearly issued, as the present Yard Sticks for |
| |Gateman, Trackman, Trolleyman, Mates, Keyman & Watchman are different. |
| |All Railways shall advice a proper working model using revised cadre structure from Track Maintainer-IV to SSE/P.Way in respect of |
| |existing sanction strength on the Railways so that Board may issue a final model & duty list for implementation on Indian Railway. |
|5.2 |Permission of outsourcing of P.Way activity. (ECR,NWR,NFR,SCR) |
| | |
| |Issue: |
| |After completion of new projects comprising of GC, new lines, doubling etc. deployment of additional man power required for maintenance.|
| |As creation and manning taking time permission for outsourcing be allowed. |
| | |
| |Discussion: |
| |PCE/ECR stated that a number of projects are in progress on this railway comprising Gauge conversion, New lines doubling etc. which are |
| |at various stages of completion. Some of the projects have been completed by construction organization and handed over to open line. |
| |For maintenance of such sections deployment of additional new manpower is required. |
| | |
| |So far the railway has adhered to the policy of creation of posts with matching surrender only. However at present this Railway is not |
| |in a position to provide matching surrender, resulting in delays in sanction of these posts & difficulties in proper maintenance. Since |
| |maintenance of new assets cannot be ignored for procedural complications for creation of maintenance posts, the requirement of matching |
| |surrender may be delinked for creation of maintenance posts for new assets, as both are independent requirement. |
| | |
| |PEC/NWR also stated that in NWR, most of the MG sections has been converted to BG. Similarly, doubling of ‘B’ route of this railway has |
| |also started in the past few years and Rewari-Alwar & Ajmer-Phulera-Jaipur-Bandikui has become double line section and balance is in |
| |progress. |
| |This has necessitated the creation of additional posts of trackman and other P.Way maintenance staff for upkeep of newly created assets.|
| |However, required posts are not being sanctioned or sanctioned partly. |
| |Besides above, 16% vacancies exist in trackman cadre with reference to BOS and BOS itself is short by 26% from MCNTM requirement. With |
| |reference to MCNTM requirement, availability of trackman on this railway is short by approximately 38%. |
| |Due to shortage of Manpower, the case for outsourcing of track maintenance activities for the newly commissioned doubling was mooted. |
| |NWR HQ Finance has observed that the proposal is not covered by any policy guidelines of the Board and ‘The expenditure on this |
| |proposal will be kept under observation in Finance until a final decision on the subject is available from the Railway Board.’ |
| |In view of the above, Board should issue suitable guidelines for outsourcing of track maintenance activities beyond 20 activities |
| |mentioned in Para 8.10 of MCNTM report and Re-appropriation of funds from the saving of staff cost due to vacancies to contractual |
| |payment for track maintenance shall also be permitted. |
| |He further mentioned that Difficulty is being experienced in funding matching surrender for creation of posts for new assets as such |
| |Railway Board should permit creation of posts for maintenance of additional assets like new lines, doublings and gauge conversions |
| |without condition of matching surrenders. (Ref: NWR’s letter No. 110-E/Engg./1/ Creation/NWR dated 26.04.2013) |
| |PCE/NFR, SCR and other PCEs also echoed similar concerned. |
| | |
| |During further discussion EDCE/G explained that recently a letter signed by ME addressed to GMs have been issued vide letter no. |
| |2011/CEDO/SR/15/O/vol.I dated 16/12/2013 drawing attention of GM that it is the responsibility of General Manager to ensure of making |
| |available all requisite arrangements including manpower through departmental staff as well as through outsourcing as per needs, for |
| |maintenance of all assets including Track, so as to ensure safe running of trains. |
| | |
| |If railways still finding difficulty in processing the proposals of outsourcings then they can refer the matter to Board. |
| | |
| |Recommendation: |
| |Railways having any problem in this regard shall refer the matter to Railway Board. |
| | |
|5.3 |Track patrolling should be outsourced: (NWR) |
| | |
| |Issue: |
| |Due to large no. Of vacancy track patrolling should be allowed for outstanding. |
| | |
| |Discussion: |
| |PCE/NWR stated that the large number of vacancies exists in the gangs. Sometimes, the numbers of Trackmen available are not even |
| |sufficient for track patrolling (monsoon/winter/summer). After the Trackmen are deployed for patrolling, hardly anybody is left for |
| |maintenance of track and to take care of emergency. We are also aware that it is very difficult to fill up the vacancies. We have |
| |permitted outsourcing of USFD and many defense establishments have outsourced even the security of their buildings, etc. In view of |
| |this, it is suggested that track patrolling should also permitted to outsource. |
| |During further discussion, all PCE’s had requested that where two men’s are employed for patrolling, at least one man can be outsourced |
| |to start with. |
| | |
| |Recommendation: |
| |Board is requested to consider & where two men’s are deployed for patrolling, at least one man can be out sourced to start with. |
|5.4 |Creating centralized training facility for senior supervisors (IRICEN) |
| | |
| |Issue: |
| |The senior supervisors are back bone of maintenance of civil engineering assets particularly the track. It essential to train & expose |
| |them in latest technology. For this development of centralized training of institution under the control of IRICEN is essential. |
| | |
| |Discussion: |
| |SPT-1 IRICEN explained that one centralized institute for training of senior supervisors is already sanctioned at pune by utilizing the |
| |old campus of IRICEN. The training of senior supervisors already started by making a makeshift hostel for 30 beds. Work of regular |
| |conversion of hostel is in progress for 30 beds. Balance hostel for 50-60 beds will be converted after vacation of library wings by |
| |division. Board has been requested to allow hiring of hostel, accommodation till such time. Also as the permanent sanction of faculty |
| |will take time, all PCE’s was asked to provide posts temporary for 2 years. Posts are received only from NR, NCR, WR, ECR & SER. A |
| |reminder was written to other railways for provision of posts. |
| |During CGE seminar & also in Advisory committee meeting, this item was discussed and it was concluded that only one institute may not|
| |be sufficient for training of senior supervisors of all zonal railways. Therefore atleast another 3-4 institutes shall be developed |
| |each taking care of 4-5 railways. |
| | |
| |During further discussion, it was suggested by all PCE’s that presently we shall concentrate on stabilizing the facilities being |
| |developed at pune and presently only specified courses shall be run for SSE’s at Pune. All PCE’s agreed to provide the required posts. |
| | |
| |Recommendation: |
| |Board to expedite approval of hiring of hostel accommodation. |
| |Central Railway shall vacate the library bock early and complete all infrastructure works required for senior supervisory wing at the |
| |earliest. |
|5.5 |Modification in policy regarding 10% intake at trackmen to other department (NWR) |
| | |
| |Issue : |
| |Due to acute shortage of manpower in the trackman category, it is not possible to relieve trackmen to other department against the |
| |policy of 10% intake. |
| |Discussed & Dropped |
|5.6 |Inclusion of Gang Mate in Liberalized Active Retirement Scheme for Guaranteed Employment for Safety Staff (LARSGESS) (NWR) |
| | |
| |Issue: |
| |LARSGESS scheme was initiated to GP of Rs.1900/- but gang mate who is drawing GP of Rs.1900/- was not notified to be included in this |
| |scheme. |
| | |
| |Discussion: |
| |PCE/NWR explained that the LARSGESS scheme regarding employment of the ward of Railway employees on seeking voluntary retirement was |
| |introduced for safety categories in Indian Railway and the benefit of the scheme was extended to trackmen, gatemen, trolleymen and |
| |Keymen with grade Pay of Rs. 1800/- in Civil Engineering. |
| | |
| |In terms of Railway Boards letter No. E (P&A) I-2010/RT-2 dt. 28.06.11, the scope of LARSGESS scheme was further enhanced to Grade Pay |
| |of Rs.1900/- also. Though the inclusion of Grade Pay of Rs. 1900/- in the scheme was notified, the list of categories to which this |
| |facility was extended was not amended. Gangmate who is also drawing the Grade Pay of Rs. 1900/- is not figuring in the list of |
| |categories of civil Engg. Deptt. as listed in the Railway Board’s letter dt. 11.09.2010 & 24.09.2010. Due to this omission, Gangmates |
| |are not able to avail the facility of the LARSGESS scheme. Keymen/trolleymen /trackmen & gatemen, on being promoted as Gangmate become |
| |ineligible for the benefit of LARSGESS scheme. Due to denial of benefit of LARSGESS scheme on promotion, employees are showing |
| |reluctance in getting promotion as mate. |
| | |
| |To remove this anomaly, it is suggested that Gangmates (re-designated as Track maintainer Grade-III vide Railway Board letter No. |
| |2010/CE-1/spl./GNS/15 (Pt.) dt. 17.08.2012) should also be included in the LARSGESS scheme. |
| |This matter has been referred to Railway Board by NWR vide letter No D.O. No. W/632/1/ LARSGESS Dated: 19 .08.2013. |
| |During further discussion EDCE/G asked that railways shall check which category particularly in drivers are getting LARGESS benefit. |
| | |
| |Recommendation: |
| |1. Board shall consider the inclusion of Keyman and Gangmat in LARGESS scheme. |
| |2. Railways shall check in which grade in other deptt LARGESS scheme is applicable, particularly driver category and send the details to|
| |EDCE/G. |
|5.7 |Incentive to Keymen. (NWR) |
| |Issue: |
| |The Grade Pay of key men and trackmen is same i.e. Rs. 1800/-. Because of this, there is reluctance among trackmen to become Keymen. |
| |There is an urgent need to give some incentives to key men. They may be given a walking allowance. |
| |Discussed & Dropped |
|5.8 |Yardsticks for P.Way Supervisor (PWS). (NWR, SCR) |
| | |
| |Issue: |
| |At present, there is no yardstick prescribed for PWS over Indian Railway. To have proper yardsticks for creation/jurisdiction of the |
| |PWS. |
| | |
| |Discussed & Dropped |
|5. 9 |Sanction of Revenue Posts (NWR) |
| | |
| |Issue: |
| |Presently, most of the posts are being charged to works despite the very nature of the post is for maintenance. As a result, the cadre |
| |is being affected despite creation of new lines. Further increasing of work charged provision in the works is a short term solution and|
| |the creation of Revenue posts will only strengthen the cadre. |
| | |
| |Discussion: |
| |PCE/NWR explained that work-charged SAG and JAG/SG posts are in operation since 10 to 15 years and are regular in nature. They should be|
| |correctly sanctioned as Revenue posts. It may not be possible to extend the currency of presently operated 59 nos. of posts, currently |
| |being operated over NWR further for want of funds. These posts are required for regular maintenance of the assets and thus should be |
| |correctly charged for regular maintenance of the assets under revenue. Railway Board has been requested in this regard vide letter no. |
| |W/E/260/1/2/Gaz. dated: 25.05.11. |
| | |
| |During further discussion, it was revealed that similar situation exists in all railways and all Railways shall send proposal to railway|
| |board to convert of these posts to revenue posts. |
| | |
| |Recommendation: |
| |1. All Railways shall send proposal to Railway Board for conversion of work charged posts of regular in nature to revenue post at the |
| |earliest. |
| |2. Railway Board shall consider the proposal of railway and approve conversion of these posts to revenue posts. |
|5.10 | CREATION OF GATEMAN POSTS (SCR) |
| | |
| |Issue: |
| |Matching surrender shall not be insisted upon for creation of gateman posts |
| | |
| |Discussion: |
| |PCE/SCR explained that at present gate keepers posts are being created for newly manned level crossing gates based on matching |
| |surrendering of posts and surplus bank. But gate keeper posts are to be created without linking to matching surrendering as is being |
| |done in other departments such as construction of new crossing stations and introduction of new trains. Moreover the expenditure |
| |incurred on gate keepers is charged to operating demand head (9-G-250). |
| | |
| |During further discussion, all PCEs were of the opinion that for new assets, matching surrender shall not be insisted upon. |
| | |
| |Recommendation: |
| |For new assets post shall be sanctioned without matching surrender including manning of Level Crossings. |
|5.11 | CREATION OF SEPARATE CADRE FOR GATE KEEPERS (SCR) |
| | |
| |Issue: |
| |Due to increase in no. of manned gate as well as enter locked gate separate cadre from gate man required. |
| | |
| |Discussion: |
| |PCE/SCR stated that South Central Railway is having 1416 manned level crossings and 705 Unmanned as on 01.04.2013. 326 Unmanned Level |
| |Crossings have been identified to be manned in next two years and thus 326 more manned level crossings will be added up. |
| | |
| |The total gatemen cadre in S.C .Railway including traffic and engineering gate is expected to be in the order of 5600. The Indian |
| |Railway may have over 1.00 lakh (approx.) gatekeepers by 2014-15. |
| |He further stated that it is difficult to fill up these large no’s of gate man posts due to unwillingness of trackman to work as Gate |
| |Keepers. It will therefore be more appropriate to attached these posts with operating department as their jobs in similar to train |
| |passing staff so that they can have further avenue of promotions. |
| |On further discussion, it was suggested that this proposal may not be agreed to by operating department and a special allowance of Rs. |
| |2,000/- be given to gate man. |
| |Recommendation: |
| |Gate keepers shall be given special allowance of Rs. 2000/-. |
|5.12 |SURRENDER OF VACANCIES OF TRACKMEN FOR CREATION OF POST OF TRACKMACHINE STAFF (SCR) |
| | |
| | |
| |Issue: |
| |Railway board letter No.2010/CE-1(Spl)/GNS/8 New Delhi dated 26.05.2010 issues Instructions that trackman posts may be surrendered to |
| |create Track Machine posts only. Whereas, RB letter No.2004/CE-1/GNS/1 dated 18.04.2007 letter by ME specified that no surrender of |
| |trackmen to be made (being safety category) and if made, may be revoked. |
| | |
| |Discussion: |
| |PCE/SCR stated that either earlier instructions of ME letter dated 18.04.2007 may be revoked or latest letter dated 26.05.2010 may be |
| |cancelled. In SCR, around 598 km of track has been added without creation of manpower i.e., trackman. The above mentioned letter to |
| |surrender track man posts is contradictory, as on one end we are requesting for creation of trackmen posts and on the other we are |
| |surrendering trackman posts for creation of track machine posts. This results in confusion. Posts are created neither for newly created |
| |assets nor for track machine but posts of trackman get surrendered. Hence, suitable instructions may be given to create track machine |
| |posts without surrendering trackman posts. |
| | |
| |During further discussion all PCE’s were of the opinion that the both issues creation of gang man post for new assets and matching |
| |surrender for creation of post for Track Machine are different and shall not be clubbed together. Track Machine required for existing |
| |assets will require surrender of gang man on 1:1 basis since it reduce the requirement of gang. However machines required for new |
| |assets, no matching surrender shall be insisted. |
| | |
| |Recommendation: |
| |Track Machine required for existing assets shall require surrender of gang man on 1:1 basis since it reduce the requirement of gang. |
| |However for machines required for new assets, no matching surrender shall be insisted. |
|5.13 |MANPOWER REQUIREMENT OF TRACKMEN AS PER MCNTM FORMULA ACCOUNTS OBSERVATIONS (SCR) |
| | |
| |Issue: |
| |While vetting the Manpower requirement for Track maintenance as per MCNTM norms as on 01-04-2011, associated Accounts has made the f |
| |observations that formula was approved in 2002 and as per Para 4.15 of report required review every 5 years to incorporate the effect of|
| |mordenisation. |
| | |
| |Discussed & dropped |
|5.14 |SPECIAL INCENTIVE SCHEME TO KEYMEN (SCR) |
| |Issue: |
| |As there is no monitory benefit in terms of scale upgradation for Keymen as compared to the Trackmen due to the merger of scales in 6th |
| |pay commission, volunteers for the promotion to the post of the Keymen are not coming forward to fill up vacancies. Keyman is the most |
| |essential post, which cannot be kept vacant, considering safety aspect. |
| | |
| |Discussion: |
| |PCE/SCR mentioned that as per Para 167 of IRPWM and the selection procedure in vogue, cadre of Keymen shall be selected from the |
| |existing cadre of Trackmen. |
| | |
| |The selection of key men is from the cadre of either Spl. Grade Trackmen/ Sr. Grade Trackmen. Trackmen will work in a group under the |
| |direct supervision of a gang mate/ Supervisor (P.Way) and the safety of the track shall be taken care by the supervisor concerned. |
| |Whereas, key man shall look after various duties envisaged through paras 168 to 171 of the IRPWM and he is directly responsible for the |
| |safety of the track. In absence of the gang mate, the key man shall look after the duties of gang mate. Para 168(i) envisages that key |
| |man shall inspect by foot his entire beat once in a day both the tracks and bridges and return along the opposite rail to that taken on |
| |outward journey in case of single line. On double line the key man will carryout one round of inspection in the morning by going along |
| |the up line and then returning along the down line or vice versa. |
| | |
| |In the 6th CPC and also as per the recommendations of Joint Committee formed to resolve issues of Package and Career Progression of |
| |Trackmen (circulated vide RB Lr No: ERB-I/2010/CE-I(Spl)/GNS/15 dt:28.06.11), the cadre of Trackmen, Trolley men/Gate men/Watch men are |
| |kept on par with Key men and categorized as Track Maintainer Grade IV in the pay scale of `5200-20200 in GP 1800. |
| | |
| |In these circumstances, as there is no additional monitory benefit though shouldering higher responsibilities, trackmen are reluctant to|
| |accept the promotion to the cadre of Key man. |
| | |
| |In view of the higher responsibilities being shouldered and working in hard & critical conditions, additional incentive to the tune of |
| |30% of the basic pay, similar to running staff may be granted in view of the harder duty they are performing in hazardous working |
| |conditions. |
| | |
| |On further discussion, it was clarified by EDCE/G that the presently as per percentage of Track maintainer Grade I & II fixed, Keyman |
| |will be in Grade I & II. Further it is being perused to increase these percentages so that Mate & Keyman falls in Grade I. |
| | |
| |Recommendation: |
| |All Mate & Keyman shall be placed in Track Maintainer Grade I. |
|5.15 |SPECIAL ALLOWANCE TO P.Way STAFF POSTED AT JUNGLE/REMOTE LOCATIONS (SCR) |
| | |
| |Issue: |
| |Some of the places where P.Way staff (Trackmen) are being posted are situated in very remote/jungle areas like Makudi, Whirgaon in |
| |Secunderabad division, Amalakhurd,Gurhi,Ratnapur,Tukaithad,Dabka, Dhulghat etc., in Nanded division for operational convenience and safe|
| |maintenance of track. |
| |Discussion: |
| |PCE/SCR explained that at most of these places, the minimum facilities like schooling, hospitals, market etc., that are required for the|
| |staff to reside with their family members are not available. As a result, staff posted at these places is living alone keeping their |
| |families at far off places where they felt it convenient in the interest of the welfare of their family members. Thus, they are forced |
| |to put up two establishments which will cause not only financial hardship to the employees but also may result into their sickness due |
| |to unhealthy living conditions prevailing at these areas as most of them with their meagre salary are not in a position to bear the |
| |additional expenses. Hence it is observed that there is large number of absentisum and also cases of trackmen leaving the job and also |
| |getting removed from service. |
| | |
| |He suggested that a special allowance of (around 30% of basic pay) to these staff may motivate their spirits as it will help the |
| |employees in meeting the additional expenditure incurred for the reasons mentioned above. |
| | |
| |Recommendation: |
| |SCR to send detail Proposal to Railway Board. |
|5.16 |REVISION OF TEMPORARY WORK CHARGED ESTABLISHMENT PROVISIONS IN TRACK RENEWAL ESTIMATES (SCR) |
| | |
| |Issue: |
| |The existing provisions towards temporary establishment charges in Track renewal estimates prescribed by Railway Board vide their letter|
| |No. 2000/E&R/400/2, dt. 12.10.2000 were as below: |
| |Complete Track Renewal (CTR) |
| |1.80% |
| | |
| |Through Track Renewal(TRR) |
| |1.35% |
| | |
| |Through Sleeper Renewal (TSR) |
| |2.25% |
| | |
| | |
| |Due to implementation of 6th Pay Commission, the existing provisions have become grossly inadequate and serious difficulties are being |
| |experienced in even continuing the existing work charged establishment for the same quantum of work. |
| | |
| |Discussion: |
| |PCE/SCR explained that the present temporary establishment charges are fixed in year 2001-02 and not revised further. Therefore serious |
| |difficulties are being experienced in even continuing the existing work charged establishment for the same quantum of work. |
| | |
| |An exercise has been carried out and minimum temporary establishment charge required in Track renewal estimates by considering the No. |
| |of mandays available in old sanctioned estimates of CTR(P), TRR(P) & TSR(P) for the year 2002-03 v/s that of the year 2012-13 has been |
| |worked out as below: |
| |Complete Track Renewal (CTR) |
| |3.01% |
| | |
| |Through Track Renewal (TRR) |
| |2.31% |
| | |
| |Through Sleeper Renewal (TSR) |
| |4.23% |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| |All PCEs agreed with temporary establishment charges suggested by SCR. |
| | |
| |Recommendation: |
| |Boards letter dated 12/10/2000 to be reviewed and temporary establishment charges be reviewed as suggested by SCR. |
|5.17 |Creation of posts for new Assets (ECR, NFR, SCR,WCR) |
| | |
| |Issue: |
| |After completion of new projects comprising of GC, new lines, doubling etc. deployment of additional man power required for maintenance.|
| |As now matching surrender is not available and also these requirements are for additional assets, creation of post shall be delinked |
| |from requirement of matching surrender. |
| | |
| |Discussion: |
| |PCE/ECR stated that a number of projects are in progress on this railway comprising Gauge Conversion, new lines, doubling etc. which are|
| |at various stages of completion. Some of the projects have been completed by construction organization and handed over to open line. |
| |For maintenance of such sections deployment of additional new manpower is required. |
| | |
| |So far the railway has adhered to the policy of creation of posts with matching surrender only. However at present this railway is not |
| |in a position to provide matching surrender, resulting in delays in sanction of these posts & difficulties in proper maintenance. |
| | |
| |Since maintenance of new assets cannot be ignored for procedural complications for creation of maintenance posts, the requirement of |
| |matching surrender may be delinked for creation of maintenance posts for new assets, as both are independent requirement. |
| | |
| |PCE/NFR also stated that NFR caters to the requirements of 8 States of the Northeast besides the politically and strategically sensitive|
| |areas. A large number of LC gates are needed to be manned in accordance with the target set by Railway Board. In addition a number of |
| |National Projects are in progress in this region comprising Gauge Conversion, New lines etc. which are at various stages of completion. |
| | |
| |So far the railway has adhered to the policy of creation of posts with matching surrender. However, in view of huge number of new |
| |activities/new lines coming up, this Railway is facing difficulty in creating additional posts with matching surrender. Nearly 500 posts|
| |are required for manning of level crossings and 400 posts for new lines opened. Similar may be the position on other railways. Therefore|
| |need for 1:1 surrender for “new assets” should be abolished or provision of money value for new assets be made available from vacancy |
| |bank of Railway Board. |
| | |
| |PCE/SCR, WCR and all other PCEs also expressed same views. |
| | |
| |Recommendation: |
| |Creation of posts for new assets shall be allowed without matching surrender. |
|5.18 |Reduction in Man-Powers (WCR) |
| | |
| |Issue: |
| |CRB directive vide letter no. 2012/E & R /2 (2)/1 dated 29.10.12, for 1% reduction in sanctioned strength. |
| | |
| |Discussion: |
| |PCE/WCR stated that Since 1989, this railway has surrendered 3476 posts, including 2282 safety category posts. Thus, there is shortage |
| |of gang strength by 1774 nos. with respect to MCNTM formula considering complete mechanization of track while available track machines |
| |are inadequate to introduce complete mechanization. It is therefore not possible to surrender posts and a clear directives is solicited |
| |from Board to avoid such situation. All PCEs were also of the opinion that 1% reduction shall not apply to safety category. |
| | |
| |Recommendation: |
| |1% reduction shall not apply to safety categories. |
|5.19 |Emergency allowances to Trackmen (WCR) |
| |Issue: |
| |In emergencies, trackmen are attending the track beyond their duty hours but there is no provision of additional allowances as being |
| |given in Mechanical department. |
| | |
| |Discussion: |
| |PCE/WCR stated that a provision should be made for giving allowance to Trackman as per Mechanical department equivalent to breakdown |
| |allowance when they going to attend any emergencies which may cause detention of traffic if not attended. |
| | |
| |On further discussion all PCEs express view that at least Track man attending track is case of emergencies beyond duty hours be paid |
| |allowances as per break down rules. |
| | |
| |Recommendation: |
| |Track man attending track is case of emergencies beyond duty hours be paid allowances as per break down rules. |
|5.20 |Training Allowance of Trainers- Enhancement (NFR) |
| |Issue: |
| |Before 6th CPC the rate of Training Allowance was 15% of basic pay both for the Training Institute of Non-gazetted staff and CTIs. After|
| |6th CPC, the rate of Training Allowance of Faculty Members of CTIs has been increased to 30% while the rate at Training Institute of |
| |Non-Gaztted staff remained as 15% as before. |
| | |
| |Discussion: |
| |PCE/NFR mentioned that normally, a SSE(P. Way & Works) gets a good amount of TA for working in the field where as the same staff gets |
| |only Rs 3500 to 4000/- as Training Allowance for working at the Training Institution as Trainer. It is difficult to choose the best |
| |talent from field to work as trainer at Training Institute of Non-gazetted staff. Therefore, suitable increase in training allowance may|
| |be considered. All PCEs were of the view that the training allowance be increase to 30% in this case also. |
| | |
| |Recommendation: |
| |The training allowance shall be increased to 30% for faculty of training institutes of non-gazetted staff also. |
|6. Tenders & Contracts |
|6.1 |Introduction of P-Way Zonal contract and USSOR for P.Way items (NWR) |
| | |
| |Issue: |
| |On the lines of existing zonal contracts, P.Way zonal contracts should also be introduced on the Railways may be for a period of two |
| |years, at a time. This will facilitate better maintenance of the track. Detailed schedule of rates for P.Way items need to be complied |
| |and issued for uniform adoption over Indian Railway. |
| | |
| |Being issued & therefore no further action required. |
|6.2 |Delegation of Powers for sanction of estimates (NWR) |
| | |
| |Issue: |
| |Full Delegation of Powers for sanction of estimates to GM to avoid delay in execution of work. |
| | |
| |Discussion: |
| |PCE/NWR stated that in order to avoid delay and to expedite the execution of projects, it is suggested that the powers to sanction the |
| |estimates, detailed or revised, without any limit for increase on account of escalation or otherwise, should delegated to the GM for all |
| |plan heads except new line, doubling and gauge conversion projects. |
| | |
| |All PCE’s also agreed with proposal of NWR. |
| | |
| |Recommendation: |
| |Power of sanction of estimates shall be delegated to GM without any limit. |
|6.3 |CORRECTIONS TO ENGINEERING CODE – PARA -1102 (SCR) |
| | |
| |Issue: |
| |Power of carrying out work without sanction of estimates shall be extended. |
| | |
| |Discussion: |
| |PCE/SCR explained that as per Engg Code para 1102(iv) the monitory limit for placing work order without getting Estimate sanctioned in |
| |Rs. 2 lakhs. This limit was fixed way back, since then the quantum and value of works increased substantially. Modification is required |
| |to be done to this Para by Railway Board for enhancement of monetary limit from Rs.2 lakhs to Rs.4 lakhs. This has already been referred |
| |by S.C.Railway to Railway Board Vide letter no.W.496/Policy/ Vol.VIII, dated 24.07.12. |
| | |
| |During further discussion all PCE’s asked to increase this limit to Rs. 5 Lakhs. |
| | |
| |Recommendation: |
| |Power of carrying work without sanction of detailed estimate be increased to Rs. 5 Lakhs by modifying the para 1102 (iv) of Engg. Code. |
| | |
|6.4 |COST OF TENDER FORMS – COLLECTION OF SALES TAX/VAT (SCR) |
| | |
| |Issue |
| |There are RTI applications on non-collection of Sales Tax/VAT on sale of Tender documents for works tender. Railway Board needs to |
| |clarify whether Sales Tax/VAT to be collected on sale of Works tender documents including tenders downloaded from Internet. |
| | |
| |Discussed and dropped |
|6.5 |EMPOWERMENT OF FIELD ORGANIZATIONS-OPERATION OF MINOR VALUE ITEMS BEYOND 100% (SCR) |
| | |
| |Issue: |
| |Board clarification required on operation of Minor value items beyond 100%. As per Board’s letter no. 2007-CE1-CT-18-Pt.31.12.10 and as |
| |per clause 42 the variation beyond 100% has not been clearly defined and Finance & CAO/C are having differing views. This has already |
| |been referred to Board. |
| | |
| |Discussion: |
| |PCE/SCR stated that as per Board letter dt 31-12-2010, for minor value items variation upto 100% is permitted. In construction, if |
| |variation is more than 100%, then negotiations are being done, whereas as per finance vetting variation beyond 25% of minor value item is|
| |treated similar to major value items. This is contradictory to GCC, which may lead to legal disputes. |
| | |
| |Recommendation: |
| |Board may issue clarification on this matter. |
|6.6 |APPOINTMENT OF ARBITRATOR (SCR) |
| | |
| |Issue: |
| |As per GCC clause 64 (3) (a) (ii) GM is empowered to nominate one Account officer in panel of Arbitrators. However, as per section 10 of |
| |Arbitration Act 1996 no such restriction has been placed. In one case Hon’ble high Court of A.P has appointed panel of Arbitrators in |
| |which none of the Arbitrator is from Accounts. This is contrary to GCC clause and Agreement conditions. |
| | |
| |SC Rly suggest that appointment of arbitrators to be done as per A&C act-1996 and there should not be any compulsion of including one |
| |Finance member in case of AT panel. |
| | |
| |Discussed & Dropped. |
|6.7 |SERVICE TAX ON SITE WORKS CONTRACTS (SCR) |
| | |
| |Issue: |
| |Non-payment of service tax @ 12.36% for through weld renewal work with Mobile Flash Butt Welding Plant. |
| | |
| |Discussion: |
| |PCE/SCR stated that Railway Board has been requested to issue the guidelines for payment of service tax to TWR work with MFBWP vide |
| |lr.no.W.509/T/Vol.XII dt. 14.05.2012, 14.02.13. |
| | |
| |Recommendation: |
| |Board may clarify the issue early. |
|6.8 |MANDATORY SUBMISSION OF EARNEST MONEY DEPOSIT (SCR) |
| | |
| |Issue: |
| |In a number of cases, it is observed that after issue of advance acceptance letter, the firms are not accepting the same. Due to |
| |non-availability of deposit in monetary terms available with Railways, it is becoming difficult to recover EMD/SD from the firms. |
| | |
| |Discussed & Dropped. |
|6.9 |REAL TIME EXPENDITURE OF VARIOUS WORKS TO BE INTEGRATED WITH ACCOUNTS EXPENDITURE MODULE WITH IRPSM TO KNOW UPTO DATE EXPENDITURE. (SCR) |
| |Issue: |
| |Delay in updating expenditure on various works in IRPSM at the end of every month work-wise. |
| | |
| |Discussion: |
| |PCE/SCR stated that this is resulting in delay in knowing the upto date expenditure on real time basis. Also some times executive |
| |agencies are not updating the position regularly. Hence it is proposed to integrate the expenditure position of works with Accounts |
| |Department Expenditure module to know the expenditure as and when incurred for a work. EDCE/G stated that this is already is process at |
| |Board level. |
| | |
| |Recommendation: |
| |This needs to be expedited. |
|6.10 |NEED FOR ADDITIONAL POLICY GUIDELINES REGARDING PERFORMANCE GUARANTEE SUBMISSION. (SCR) |
| | |
| |Issue: |
| |The implementation of the extant provisions on Termination of agreement for Non/Delayed submission of Performance Guarantee within the |
| |stipulated 60 days has led to contractual problems and even litigations in a few cases of S.C.Railway, in addition to hampering the work |
| |execution. |
| |Discussed & Dropped being a WSC item. |
|7. Safety Issues & Accidents |
|7.1 |Suitable mechanism for taking corrective action on detection of Critical alarm from WILD (NCR) |
| | |
| |Issue: |
| |A suitable mechanism must be in place for taking corrective action on detection of Critical and Maintenance alarm from WILD so that |
| |stipulation of JPO to get the suspected stock detached and attended at the next TXR point is followed. |
| | |
| |Discussion: |
| |CTE/NCR mentioned that WILD has been developed by RDSO with Board's approval after long study and field validation. Installation of WILD |
| |is a pre-requisite for running of CC+8+2T / CC+6+2T loaded trains. Accordingly, Board has instructed for quick installation of WILD after|
| |introduction of CC+8+2T / CC+6+2T trains. |
| | |
| |Para 05 of the JPO dated 29.07.08 approved by Board (MM, MT & ME) for action to be taken in case of Alarm of WILD stipulates that the |
| |WILD equipment reading of ILF and wheel impact will be continuously monitored by the TXR staff of the installation and whenever the same |
| |reaches the critical alarm level set as per the RDSO’s letter no. R2/58/WFD/vol.7 dated 03.10.2006, it shall be treated as unsafe for |
| |sustained operation. The suspected stock shall be detached and attended at the next TXR point which is supposed to be around 15-50 Km |
| |from the equipment. In case, there is no TXR point within next 50 km, the suspect stock shall be detached at the next convenient |
| |station/yard within 50 Km. Under no circumstances, the suspect stock shall be permitted to ply for more than 50 Km. |
| | |
| |Also it is evident from Para 1 of the ‘Committee of executive directors at RDSO for review of threshold limit for WILD on 22.09.06’, that|
| |the defect detection by WILD is not limited only to wheel flats but the excessive loads on rails could be result of various other defects|
| |in rolling stock and these have to be properly checked and concluded by Maintenance / Inspecting officials of Mech Deptt. But, total 626 |
| |critical alarm were detected, from Apr’12 to Mar’13 at four WILD locations (MGS-I, MGS-II, BINA, ET), out of which only 105 detachment |
| |were done and 521 rolling stock were allowed to run. This situation may not only cause damage to track but it may also lead to Safety |
| |hazard. |
| | |
| |Therefore, a suitable mechanism must be in place for taking corrective action on detection of Critical and Maintenance alarm from WILD so|
| |that the above stipulation of JPO to get the suspected stock detached and attended at the next TXR point is followed. |
| | |
| |Recommendation: |
| |The wagon must be detached and checked thoroughly for all defects & attended at next TXR point. |
|7.2 |Revised Proforma for measurement of Rolling stock after Accident (NCR) |
| | |
| | |
| |Issue: |
| |The existing Proforma for recording of measurements of Rolling stock after Accident are much diluted as compared to that of track |
| |parameters. |
| | |
| |Discussion: |
| |CTE/NCR mentioned that as per Board's directives, the revised Proforma for recording of measurement of Rolling stock after Accident have |
| |been finalized after number of deliberations by the committee of Sr.EDs/EDs in RDSO. These have been submitted to Railway Board for |
| |approval vide DG/RDSO DO No. GE/GEN/Revision of Proforma (Accident) 17.06.2010. Adviser (Safety) Railway Board has acknowledged with a |
| |positive note vide his DO No. 2009/Safety(A&R)/1/1 dated 6.07.2010 and forwarded these Proforma to Civil Engg and Mech. Engg Directorates|
| |in the Rly Board. But, approval from Railway Board is still awaited. These may be finalized early for uniform adoption over all zonal |
| |Railways. All PCEs also requested to expedite approval of revised performa. |
| | |
| |Recommendation: |
| |Issue of revised performa shall be expedited. |
|7.3 |Installation of WILDs (NWR) |
| | |
| |Issue: |
| |Delay in installation of WILDs |
| | |
| |Discussion: |
| |PCE/NWR stated that four locations have indentified on NWR for installation of WILDs. However, no action has been taken by Mechanical |
| |Deptt. in this regard so far. Even if the WILD has not been found completely reliable, as learnt, it is advisable to install them just |
| |like decision to install fog safe devices which is also not completely fool proof. That way, different weigh bridges are also likely to |
| |give different weights. Installation of WILDs, even on trial basis, will be a big deterrent for overloading and defective wheels. If the |
| |Mechanical department is not ready to install them, the responsibility may be given to the Engineering deptt. Recently, a defective wheel|
| |tyre resulted in to 10 rail fractures and 4 IMR rails on Sawaimadhopur-Jaipur-Phulera section. |
| | |
| |This matter has been referred to Railway Board by NWR vide DO letter No. W/631/Trial/Loose addressed to Additional Member civil |
| |Engineering Railway Board. All PCEs were of the opinion that matter may br expedited at Boards lecel. |
| | |
| |Recommendation: |
| |Matter may be perused at Boards level to expedite the installation of WILDs. |
|7.4 |ASSEMENT OF QUANTITY OF GREASE GRAPHITE (SCR) |
| | |
| |Issue: |
| |Assessment of grease graphite by SCR for various activites, what is compilation on other Railways. |
| | |
| |Discussion: |
| |PCE/SCR stated that assessment of grease graphite for maintenance of PSC/LWR and BOX “N” Routes track has been done in South Central |
| |Railway for the activities mentioned below: |
| |ERC greasing |
| |Greasing of liner contact area |
| |Lubrication of gauge face of straight track on BOX ‘N’ Route |
| |Greasing of gauge face on curves |
| |Greasing of Points & Crossing and Turn in curves |
| |SEJ’s lubrication |
| |Greasing of Joggled fish plates and plate screws. |
| | |
| |So far, the real assessment has not been done by any Railway. Based on the Circular / Manual provisions i.e. IRPWM Para No. 250(3), 427, |
| |1411(5) and LWR 6.2.6, the frequency of greasing laid down in manual but, the actual quantity of grease required for Km/TP, P&C, SEJs, |
| |ERC/LCA and curves etc not given in manual provision. |
| | |
| |In SCR assessment for the consumption of grease graphite for various activities has been made by a committee of JAG officers based on |
| |various field trails. |
| |On further discussion it was decided that Other Railways also to examine this issue. SCR shall make yard stick & sent to Board for |
| |adoption on all Railways. |
| | |
| |Recommendation: |
| |1. All other Railways also to examine the actual consumption of Grease Graphite. |
| |2. SCR shall make yard stick for the consumption of grease graphite for various activities & send to Board for adoption on all Railways. |
|8. Miscellaneous |
|8.1 |Problem being faced with IRPSM (NCR) |
| | |
| |Issue: |
| |General Managers of the Railways are responsible for safe & efficient running of trains and providing satisfactory service to the |
| |customers including passenger amenities. The works related to train running, safety, passenger amenities and other plan heads are |
| |required to be carried out on the basis of necessity. Due to acute shortage of funds it is not possible to sanction even those works |
| |which are urgently required for safety & operating efficiency. Development of Model stations, Modern Stations & Adarsh Stations is also |
| |suffering for want of funds. In different Plan Heads, very few works are shortlisted & processed for sanction on IRPSM. |
| |The problem has been further compounded by a tight ceiling limit, crippling restrictions on re-appropriation of funds from one work to |
| |another work and un-necessary control by IRPSM. |
| |Discussion: |
| |PCE/NCR mentioned that Web based programme IRPSM is good as management tool for monitoring sanction of works & progress of works, but at |
| |the same time this should not become a handicap for the Zonal Railways. The works sanctioned at Zonal & divisional level primarily are |
| |safety and reliability improvement works which are sanctioned depending upon the need. There should be no cap for time limit and also no |
| |ceiling on amount (within the powers delegated to GMs/DRMs). |
| |Also the physically completed works may be transferred to a separate tray/column where CR is pending so that such works do not appear as |
| |works in progress and do not add up to total sanctioned cost and expenditure. |
| |This restrictions imposed by letters issued by directorates have diluted the authority of GMs & DRMs who are responsible for safe and |
| |efficient operation of trains and have to maintain proper public interface. |
| |It is therefore suggested that – |
| |Norm for sanctioning of works shall be raised from 2 to 3 if it cannot be done away. |
| |Normal system of sanctioning works in LAW book & DLSW by 30th April may continue. However GMs should have the authority to open the IRPSM|
| |with their ID for sanction of works under GM's powers and DRM's powers at any time. |
| |Powers to sanction safety related works in PH-16 (Traffic Facility Works) may be enhanced to 2.5 Cr. as these works generally require |
| |minor yard alterations involving Track, S&T and TRD works. |
| |GMs should be allowed to re-appropriate the funds between one plan head and another without any limit if source of funding is same and |
| |within the total allotment. |
| | |
| |This will help Zonal Railways in sanctioning of urgent works related to safety and operating efficiency, effective utilisation of funds |
| |and faster execution of works within the funds available to the Railways. |
| |Recommendation: |
| |Norm for sanctioning of works shall be raised from 2 to 3 if it cannot be done away. |
| |Normal system of sanctioning works in LAW book & DLSW by 30th April may continue. However GMs should have the authority to open the IRPSM|
| |with their ID for sanction of works under GM's powers and DRM's powers at any time. |
| |Powers to sanction safety related works in PH-16 (Traffic Facility Works) may be enhanced to 2.5 Cr. as these works generally require |
| |minor yard alterations involving Track, S&T and TRD works. |
| |GMs should be allowed to re-appropriate the funds between one plan head and another without any limit if source of funding is same and |
| |within the total allotment. |
|8.2 |Conversion of Standard Type-IV quarters into Type-V quarters by adding one room (SECR) |
| |Issue: |
| |Acute shortage of type-V quarters is being felt in the railway with more and more officers becoming eligible for type-V quarters. |
| |Therefore, the structurally sound existing standard type-IV quarters may be allowed to be converted into type-V, by adding one more room |
| |to it so as to meet the demand. |
| | |
| |Discussion: |
| |PCE/SECR explained that as per Para 1904 of Engineering Code “ No expenditure should be incurred on building housing or on making |
| |alterations and for additions to the existing houses for officers without the specific and prior approval of the Railway Board except to |
| |the extent of expenditure not exceeding Rs. 10,000/- on essential new works ……” |
| |It is suggested that above instructions of Engg. code may be revised and suitable power may be delegated to zonal railways for |
| |undertaking the alterations as detailed above, to minimize the problems of scarcity of type V quarters. |
| |During further discussion, it was brought out that this matter is under process at Boards level. |
| | |
| |Recommendation: |
| |Matter is under process at RB’s level. Issuing of Instructions may be expedited. |
|8.3 |Enhancement of power for long term leasing of railway land to Govt. Department (SECR) |
| |Issue: |
| |As per Railway Board letter No. 2001/LML/13/53 dated 04-10-2001 & 30-07-2003, GM is empowered to sanction leasing of Railway land having |
| |value up to 5 lakhs whereas in case of licensing of land the GM has full power. Presently almost every case of leasing of land for ROB /|
| |RUB is required to be referred to Railway Board. In this process lot of time is consumed and commencements of projects get delayed. |
| |Discussed & Dropped. |
|8.4 |Policy on licensing railway land for commercial plots etc. (Master Circular) (SECR) |
| | |
| |Issue: |
| |Increase in minimum value of annual license fee. |
| | |
| |Discussion: |
| |PCE/SECR as per Para 3.1 (a) to (e) of Railway Board’s letter No. 2005/LML/18/8 dated 10-02-2005 annual license fee has been fixed as a |
| |certain percentage of land value and minimum value has been prescribed as Rs. 1000/- per annum for a plot of maximum size of 100 Sqm. |
| |vide Para 6.1 of the above letter. The minimum license fee fixed is very meager compared to the present day market value of land. |
| |Hence, the minimum license fee prescribed needs to be revised to realistic level. During further discussion, everybody agreed that this |
| |shall be increased to Rs. 5,000/-. |
| | |
| |Recommendation: |
| |The minimum license fee shall be increased to Rs. 5,000/-. |
|8.5 |Enhancement of powers of Sole Arbitrator: -(SECR) |
| |Issue: |
| |As per clause 64 (3) (a) (i), where the total value of all claims in works contract does not exceed Rs. 10 lakhs, Sole Arbitrator shall |
| |be appointed. The numbers of arbitration cases are on rise. Therefore, nominating arbitral tribunal of 3 officers for claim amount |
| |exceeding Rs. 10 lakhs affects the efficiency of Railway. |
| |Already increased to Rs. 25 Lakhs, no further action required. |
|8.6 |Ceiling limit on expenditure for maintenance of officer Railway quarters.(NER) |
| | |
| |Issue: |
| |Ceiling limit on expenditure for maintenance of officers quarters fixed way back & needs revision |
| | |
| |Discussion: |
| |PCE/NER explained that vide Railway Board’s letter No. 94/LM(3)/10/8-Policy dated 27.05.1994, the ceiling limit for addition & |
| |alternation in officer railway quarters has been fixed Rs. 10,000/-. Further the ceiling limit for estimated expenditure on a single |
| |housing unit (including that on repair/maintenance) has been fixed as Rs. 20,000/-. In case such expenditure is estimated to be more |
| |then Rs. 20,000/- prior approval of DRM/HODs concerned is required. |
| |Due to inflation and increase in cost of construction it is necessary revise the above ceiling limit. During further discussion it agreed|
| |that the ceiling for addition & alteration needs to be increased to Rs. 2 lacks and for repair & maintenance be increased to Rs. 5 Lacks.|
| |Recommendation: |
| |The ceiling limit for addition & alternate shall be increased to Rs. 2 lacks and repair & maintenance shall be increased to Rs. 5 lacks. |
|8.7 |Engagement of RITES/IRCON/KRCL as supervisor consultant (WR) |
| |Issue |
| |As per guidelines circulated vide Rly. Bd. letter No. 97/CE-I/BRO/158(Policy)PT-II dt. 16.07.09, RITES/IRCON/KRCL are required to be |
| |engaged as supervision consultant by road authorities for supervision of work of ROBs/RUBs in railway limits. However, it is seen that |
| |supervision charges being levied by RITES are substantially high and are much more than the cost we usually adopt in our estimates. As a |
| |result the Road authorities are time and again cribbing not only about the rates charged by them but also about quality of supervision |
| |being provided by such agencies. These instructions require a review. |
| |Discussed & Dropped. |
|8.8 |Pests and Rodents control in trains: (NWR) |
| | |
| |Issue: |
| |Responsibility of pets & rodents control in train entrusted to Engg deptt. |
| | |
| |Discussion: |
| |PCE/NWR stated that the task assigned vide CRB’s D.O. letter no. 2000/M (C)/141/7 Vol. I, dated 03.06.2005 to Engineering Department for |
| |overcoming menace of rats in coaching complexes, passenger yard, station & other terminal building to Engineering department needs review|
| |on the following consideration. |
| |Presently the work is being carried out by Mechanical Department. This would be a duplication of work. |
| |The root cause of the problem is throwing waste and eatables by passengers and vendors for which Mechanical Department shall take action |
| |to provide suitable number of dustbins in such coaches and commercial Deptt. to arrange for its collection & disposal of predicated |
| |locations |
| |Selling of eatables on platforms has to be avoided by commercial Deptt. |
| |In any case removal/eradication ( as the case may be) of rats and stray animals like dog, pigs, cows and bulls from the stations premises|
| |as well as colonies should be rightly entrusted to medical deptt. |
| |In this regard a letter of NWR, W/493/1/works/rats & cockroach, dated 19.07.2013, addressed to Additional Member (Civil Engg.), Railway |
| |Board, letter No. W/632/1/Pt. III dated 19.07.13 addressed to EDCE/G Railway Board have already been written. |
| |During further discussion all PCEs agreed that it is not a responsibility of civil Engg. Deptt. and to be done by mechanical, medical & |
| |commercial deptts. |
| |Recommendation: |
| |Responsibility of pets & Rodents control in train & at station be entrusted to Mechanical, Medical & Commercial deptts. |
|8.9 |REAL TIME PASSENGER AMENITY WORKS COMPLETED/IN-PROGRESS AT A STATION TO BE INTEGRATED TO PAMS MODULE (SCR) |
| | |
| | |
| |Issue: |
| |Representations are being received regularly from MPs, MLAs & Public Representatives about provision of Passenger Amenity works. To |
| |comply these representations, it is proposed to integrate IRPSM sanctioned works with their status station-wise to facilitate easy |
| |retrieval of these works. |
| | |
| |Discussion: |
| |All PCEs suggested that facility of retrieval of sanction work be provided station wise in IRPSM. |
| | |
| |Recommendation: |
| |To reply these representations, it is proposed to integrate IRPSM sanctioned works with their status station-wise to facilitate easy |
| |retrieval of these works. |
|8.10 |Payment of service charges to Municipal Corporations/ Municipalities / Local Bodies in respect of Central Govt. Properties. |
| |(SCR) |
| | |
| |Issue: |
| |Weather service charges are payble for plateform, workshop station etc. |
| | |
| |Discussed & Dropped |
|8.11 |To reduce the detention of Ballast Rakes and reduce workload of Sr.DEN/DEN/AEN for measurement being done after arrival of Rakes in the |
| |sections: (SER) |
| |Issue: |
| |SER has been taking almost 80% of their total requirement of ballast from Eastern Railway quarries in BOBYN wagons. Almost 25 to 30 rakes|
| |per month of ballast supply is being taken from Eastern Railway quarries such as PAKUR/RAJGRAM/BAKUDIH. |
| |Lot of detention to Ballast Rake is taking place due to requirement of Measurement of Rake at destination point to ensure supply of good |
| |quality of the ballast. As ballast is being supplied in BOBYN wagons, considerable time of Sr. DEN/DEN/AEN & PWIs is being consumed in |
| |Measurement and sieve analysis of ballast on daily basis. The time spent on ensuring good quality of ballast can be saved and utilized |
| |for other better engineering activities. |
| | |
| |shall be discussed in next CTE seminar being part of Last CTE seminar. |
|8.12 |Quick disposal of Vigilance cases related to Class-I officers: (SER) |
| | |
| |Issue: |
| |It is seen that quite often Vigilance cases take around 5 years in its finalisation against Officers. During this period, not only the |
| |officer concerned is put to many times undue suffering resulting into low morale althrough but also Administration loses the officer on |
| |such a long stretch of time as he cannot deal with any paper having financial angle. Nowadays there is hardly any post which does not |
| |involve any financial matter. Rather it is on increase with time due to outsourcing of more and more activities. |
| | |
| |Discussed & Dropped |
|8.13 |Power of Renewal of licenses of Railway land (SER) |
| |Issue: |
| |At present, all cases of renewal of Rly land license are finalized in HQ. |
| |Discussed & Dropped. |
|8.14 |Re-designation of USFD Category (WCR) |
| |Issue: |
| |USFD, SSE / SE / JE to be made as a separate category and they should be |
| |designated as SSE / SE / JE USFD and this cadre should be different from P.Way cadre. |
| | |
| |Discussed & Dropped. |
|8.15 |Schedule of Dimension (WCR) |
| |Issue: |
| |“Minimum horizontal distance of any building on platform from Centre line of track to.” |
| |(i) From 305 mm from above platform 3430 mm above rail level is 5330 mm.” |
| |In existing station island platform width are limited to 8 to 10 m. Therefore |
| |compliance of SOD cl no 7 (a) (ii) cannot be ensured therefore site specific relaxation power to be given to PCE/CBE. |
| | |
| |Discussed & Dropped. |
|8.16 |LAND Details in TMS module of Indian Railways (WCR) |
| |Issues: |
| |In TMS module of Land following should be included:- |
| |(i) The land width on either sides of track may be shown for ready reference. |
| |(ii) Plan No. may be renamed as Railway Plan No. to distinguish from Revenue Plan |
| | |
| |Discussed & Dropped being taken care in pilot project of Land management system. |
|8.17 |Powers Delegation for Re-appropriation for GM (WCR) |
| |Issue: |
| |Currently all cases Re-appropriation of more than Rs. 3 Crore within the same |
| |Plan Head and within the same source of fund under Road Safety works — Level |
| |Crossings, ROB/RUB and Track Renewal and of more than Rs. 1 crore under the other Plan Heads required Railway Board’s sanction. The |
| |process takes very long time. |
| |General Manages may therefore be delegated full powers of Re-appropriation |
| |Within the same source of fund. |
| | |
| |Discussion: |
| |All PCE’s were of the opinion that full power of re-appropriation be delegated to GM. |
| | |
| |Recommendation: |
| |Full power of re-appropriation be delegated to GM. |
|9. Bridges |
|9.1 | Minimum Sizes of Minor Bridge: - (SECR) |
| |Issue: |
| |As per correction slip No. 25 to Indian Railway Bridge Manual 1998 issued by Board vide their Letter No. 2011 |
| |/CE-I/BR/BSC/81/Seminar /17.12.2012 , it is advised to provide minimum clear span of 1 m and minimum headway as 1.2 m for |
| |the new bridge to facilitate proper inspection & maintenance . |
| | |
| |Recommendation: |
| |This item shall be referred to BSC by the Zonal Railway. |
|9.2 |Mapping of Bridges to check suitability for passage of 25 T axle load on Bridges: - (SECR) |
| |Issue: |
| |In S.E.C. Railway, 531 Bridges of span 6.1 m and above have been identified for 25T analysis. Out of these bridges, only 71 bridges could|
| |be analysed and necessary action is being initiated for rebuilding/jacketing. For the balance 460 bridges, drawings with foundation |
| |details are not available and thus analysis could not be made. |
| | |
| |Discussion: |
| |PCE/SECR mentioned that Mapping of foundations for balance bridges is required for 25T analysis and no technical method is available for |
| |exact mapping of foundations. One agency (M/s Geodynamics) has been engaged by this Railway which mapped the foundations by parallel |
| |seismic method but they could not give footing details and thus base area of foundation cannot be calculated correctly. Thus suitability |
| |of foundation for 25T could not be checked. Suitable method for mapping of unknown foundations and analysis for 25T may please be |
| |suggested. |
| | |
| |Recommendation: |
| |SCR can do mapping of representative Bridges and suggest suitable methods. |
|9.3 |Provision of FOB with Ramp at Platform for passengers with disabilities and elderly passengers (SECR) |
| | |
| |Issue: |
| |As per Railway Board’s guide lines issued vide letter no. 96/LM (B)/2/404 dated 30.12.1998, the minimum gradient of FOB ramp shall be 1 |
| |in 12. |
| |The long length of slope of Ramp along with 2m width of landing at an interval of every 9m length, occupies a lot of precious space on |
| |the existing platforms which in turn lead to severe congestion and inconvenience to the passengers especially unreserved second class |
| |passengers as the ramps generally extend towards the end portion of platforms. Apart from this the aesthetic & beautiful view of station |
| |also gets disturbed. |
| |Discussed & Dropped |
|9.4 |Width of FOB at different category of stations (SECR) |
| | |
| |Issue: |
| |As per the revised guidelines of passenger amenities, “New FOBs should be at least 6m wide at A1, A & C category stations wherever |
| |feasible. New FOBs at A1 & A category stations should be compatible for installation of escalators.” |
| | |
| |Discussed & Dropped |
|9.5 |Revision/Modification in the standard width of RCC slab over openings. (WCR) |
| |Issues: |
| |Reduction of width of RCC slab. |
| |Standard agreement format for construction of ROB on PPP mode. |
| | |
| |Discussed & Dropped |
|9.6 |Widening of clear width of PSC/RCC slab and deck slab of PSC/Composite girder: (SER) |
| | |
| |Issues: |
| |RDSO has issued standard type of PSC/RCC slab and deck slab of PSC/Composite Girders with clear width of 4.5m (for DFC and 25 ton loading|
| |also). While working of BCM at present, bridge portions are normally left out where deep screening is done manually later. This results |
| |in rough running over bridges at times. In order to have continuous and smooth working of BCM, minimum clear width of 5.0m for slab is |
| |required on bridges. |
| | |
| |Already approved by Railway Board, No further action required. |
|9.7 |Bringing of Bridge Cadre under safety category (SER) |
| | |
| |Issue: |
| |The SE/Bridges and JE/Bridges are treated as safety category. The various technical staff who are working under SE/Bridges are not |
| |considered to be of safety category. This classification is affecting the work study, bench marking etc adversely. Due to this non |
| |classification, retirement vacancies are getting surrendered and fresh recruitment are not being carried out. |
| | |
| |Discussion: |
| |The matter was discussed in last CBE seminar 2012 and it recommended that proposals duly approved by GM may be sent by Zonal railways. |
| |However the same is not yet received from any zonal railway. Zonal railways may expedite sending proposal to Board. |
| | |
| |Recommendation: |
| |Railways may send proposal duly approved by GM early to Board. |
|9.8 |Integrated Drawings, Estimates and Contracts for Building Works (SER) |
| |Issue: |
| |A new building work includes works for Electrical cabling, wiring, and fitting of electrical equipments like fans, lights, AC etc. Due to|
| |finance insistence currently combined estimate is made but at drawing and contract stage the activity is generally taken up separately. |
| |At times civil works start at site whereas electrical drawings are still under finalization. This results in heavy rework at final stage |
| |of construction. |
| |To avoid this it is proposed that for all new building works a combined contract for civil, Elect and S&T works should be made |
| |compulsory. |
|9.9 |Standard type plan of staff quarters (With Green Building concept) (SER) |
| | |
| |Issue: |
| |Large numbers of staff quarters are being constructed in Railways on replacement account. At present the standard type plans are mostly |
| |derived from RSDO drawings of 60s to 80s vintage. |
| | |
| |Recommendation: |
| |Zonal Railways are competent to do them self & hence no further action required. |
|9.10 |LS outlay for works in Pink Book to eliminate multiple re-appropriation exercises (SER) |
| | |
| |Issue: |
| |Presently Railway Board allots individual fund outlay for each work costing more than Rs 2.5 Cr in Pink Book. While Railways demand fund |
| |for each work as per progress forecast as part of budget exercise, it is mostly seen that outlay is given uniformly against each work. |
| |Due to this some works likely to be completed in current financial year get affected due to lack of fund whereas at the same time outlay |
| |remains unutilized against other works where progress is slow. |
| | |
| |Presently GMs are only empowered to re appropriate upto Rs 1 cr from each work under same PH and allocation. Thus large no. of re |
| |appropriation proposals are being processed by Railways and sent to Railway Board. |
| | |
| |Discussion: |
| |PCE/SER stated that it is proposed that (1) Fund allotment for works appearing in Pink Book also should be given as Lump Sum which can be|
| |further distributed work wise by PH coordinators. (2) There should be no limits for re- appropriation by zonal railway with same PH and |
| |allocation except the specific works identified by Rly. Bd. This will ensure adequate funding for fast track works. |
| | |
| |Recommendation: |
| |GM shall be given power of re-appropriation with same plan head & same allocation. |
................
................
In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.
To fulfill the demand for quickly locating and searching documents.
It is intelligent file search solution for home and business.