Analysis of Track Linking

in Railway Projects
ANDREW GEORGE CHERIAN CE14M102
UNDER THE GUIDANCE OF
DR. KOSHY VARGHESE
 INTRODUCTION
A typical railway construction project involves the construction of embankment,
bridges, structures, railway tracks, overhead equipment and signaling systems.

The track linking activity has about 25.5% share in the overall project cost. Out of
this track linking activities, the most important is the rail welding activity which
requires the welding machine which itself is a 6.5 crore equipment and is a shared
resource across projects.

As these projects are linear in nature and highly labor intensive, there tends to be
a lot of site level issues which tends to obstruct the smooth flow of these activities.
 Objective

To analyze the various factors affecting track linking activities in railway projects

To find a possible solution to the problems and improve the flow of equipment
across projects.
 Methodology
Sources of data:
1)Field study
2)Semi structured interviews
3)Analyzing data from current projects
4)Questionnaires
 COLLECTIN
FIELD
G
STUDY &
ATTRIBUTE
LITERATUR ANALYSIS
S
E REVIEW
GROUPING
ATTRIBUTES
INTO MAJOR
INTERVIEW FACTORS
VALIDATION
OF
PRELIMANARY LIVE SITE
DATA
OBSERVATION
S
FINDING
WAYS TO
INTERPRETI
TACKLE
NG RESULTS
THE
ISSUES
 Contd.
1) Conduct field study to study the sequence of activities and to compile a list of factors affecting track
laying.
2)Conduct a series of semi structured interviews with site supervisors, site engineers and planning
engineers to get different perspectives on the list of factors complied in step 1.
3) Analyze the data from current projects
Carry out productivity analysis on various activities

Carry out cost comparison of mechanized and manual methods of track laying

Preparing a CPM based plan & comparing with actual site plan and actual progress and
interpreting results.
 Contd.
4) Conducting a questionnaire survey and get more responses to strengthen the studies and
analysis done in step 1,2 and 3.
5) Compiling all the data from different sources and converge to a conclusion.
 PILOT STUDY
FLASH BUTT WELDING MACHINE
For rail welding, we use Mobile FBW (MFBW) machine. This machine is a welding unit
fitted on a track chassis along with a generator. It is can be either a road only vehicle or
road and rail vehicle. These equipment in India have to be approved by RDSO before
being deployed to any IR construction site.

There are two types of welding that is carried out in site, they are:
 Cess welding:

in this the rails are paired on the

formation and welded to make
panels using road welding
machine.
 Track welding :

in this after the formation is

completed, bottom ballasting and
sleeper laying is also done the
rails are placed on these sleepers
and clipped. When such rails are
welded it is called track welding.
This reduces the number of welds
that can be done in a day because
it involves extra work like de-
clipping and more time for
alignment of rails.
 WORK SAMPLING IDLE TIME
Non availability of
paired rail

machine shifting
3%
no approach road
VA 17%
NVAN non availabilty of
44% 3% 45% tools
51% NVA

14% bad quality rail

shortage of labour
7%
5% 10%
difference of
opinion between HQ
and site

The distribution of idle time was found out by counting the number of days by which the welding activity
was affected by at least 1 hour because of the respective factors.
 Contd.
per weld= + subcontractor wage per joint
Cost

No welds to be done per day =

=40 welds per day.

 CYCLE TIME ANALYSIS
1. FROM RAIL STOCK
2. LOADING AND UNLOADING OF 34 RAILS -5 hours
3. PAIRING OF 34 RAILS -2hours
4. GRINDING OF 1 PAIRED RAIL -4minutes
5. ALIGNING OF RAILS FOR WELD -1minute
6. WELDING -3 minutes/weld
7. CHECKING WELD STATUS -INSTANTANEOUS
8. CLEANING THE FLASH -15seconds
9. MOVING THE MACHINE TO NEXT RAIL -30seconds
10.PROFILE GRINDING -3minutes
 CONTD.
Considering the rails are paired

Cycle time for the welding process= Time for aligning the rails + Time for weld +
Time for cleaning the flash+ Time for moving the machine to the next joint
location.
= 1 +3 + 0.25 + 0.5 mins
=4.75 mins
Considering a total working duration of 6 hours, we get that a maximum of 75
weld per day and incorporating an efficiency factor of 80%, it can be brought
down to 60 joints per day.
 Planned
productiviv
ity

No. of
welds
per
machi
ne

DPR FOR A TYPICAL MONTH

CUMULATIVE DPR

Achievable
productivity

Planned
productivity

Actual
productivity
 CONTD.
It was observed that to load ,unload 34 rails from stock point to site (500m) it took 5 hours.
And to pair those rails properly with a backhoe loader and an experienced operator it took
2hours.

And extrapolating this data to a whole working day with 8 hours only 45 rails would be
unloaded to site and it would again take more time to pair them.
 Analysis of work front availability
due to preceding activity
For rail pairing in terms of cost= meters of rail paired_______
per day cost of HYDRA+ Backhoe+ operators+helper
=22*13/(5000+4000+1000+300)
=0.028m/Re
For welding activity in terms of cost= meters of welded panel_____
per day cost of FBW+welders+
helpers
= 42*13/(45000+1066+1500)
=0.011m/Re
 CONTD.
Even though welding activity is twice as costly as rail pairing activity ,

Welding activity is being delayed because of the less productive rail pairing.

Thus for improving the productivity of track laying activity rail pairing is to be well planned
and executed.
 Efficiency of the process

The welding operation when considered separate is an automatic activity, which

is preprogrammed and needs no human intervention, and takes only 200
seconds.
By considering the whole process from rail grinding to moving the welding
machine to the next joint location at 80% efficiency, it should take only 5.9
minutes. By taking into account the hourly machine reading for 20 days, we get
that on an average there is an inefficiency of 37.27% for the whole process ,
which is contributed by site level factors.
Date No. of Time reqd at Time Excess %
Welds 80% actually time inefficien
efficiency taken taken cy
22-09-15 30 3.0 4 1.0 25.8
23-09-15 40 4.0 6.5 2.5 39.1
24-09-15 34 3.4 6.5 3.1 48.2
25-09-15 40 4.0 6 2.0 34.0
26-09-15 27 2.7 5 2.3 46.6
27-09-15 35 3.5 5.8 2.3 40.3
28-09-15 20 2.0 3.5 1.5 43.5
29-09-15 36 3.6 5.5 1.9 35.2
30-09-15 30 3.0 4.4 1.4 32.5
01-10-15 52 5.1 7.1 2.0 27.5
 Factors through Literature
review
Shortage of skilled and unskilled labourers
Design changes and delays
Fluctuating prices of materials
High waiting time for work front
high waiting time due to rework
Land acquisition
Environmental impact of project
Poor site management and supervision
Utility relocation delayed (utility conflicts)
Errors in plans or specification
Differing site condition
Weather
Owner requested changes
Utility relocation delayed (Non utility conflicts)
Work permit issues
Delays in environmental planning
Payment item do not match scope of work
 Factors through Field study &
Interviews
Rail pairing issues
Lack of space during yard works
Rail consumption during welding
Lack of support/coordination
from sub contractor
Lack of consumables at site
Lack of continuous work front
Lack of materials needed for
Earthwork/non availability of
borrow area
Forced to carry out track welding
Rework
Improper stacking of materials at site
Not mechanized to the extent possible
Unavailability of Welding Machine
Access road problems
Delays in bridge works creating
fragments of stretch
Labor shortage
 lack of lack of
materials support/ Not
Improper rail Lack of
needed for unavailab coordina mechani forced to Access lack of lack of
stacking Delays in consum space Rail
earthwork/n ility of tion sed to carry out road consum continuo Labour
of Rework bridge ption during pairing
on Welding from the track problem ables at us work shortage
materials works during yard issues
availability Machine sub extent welding s site front
at site welding works
of borrow contract possible
area or
FBW in

charge 1
FBW in

charge 2
FBW in

charge 3
Site Engg 1
Site Engg 2
Site Engg 3
Site Engg 4
Planning

Engg 1
Planning

Engg 2
Planning

Engg 3
Planning

Engg 4
Planning

Engg 5
P-way Engg 1
P-way Engg 2
HQ 1
HQ 2
Percentage 18.75 18.75 25 25 31.25 31.25 37.5 37.5 37.5 43.75 50 56.25 68.75 68.75 75
weightage 3 3 4 4 5 5 6 6 6 7 8 9 11 11 12
 SITE LEVEL ISSUES

LESS SKILLED LABOUR Forced to carry out track welding

IMPROPER MICRO
Improper Rail Pairing SCHEDULE

Labor shortage
Less planning skills
Sub contracted
labor Poor Site Management Delays in
bridges Lack of look ahead
Fragmented Work front plan Ambiguity in equipment availability
Less training Lack of support from
subcontractor
Less Mechanization
Lack of access roads
Lack of consumables at site DPR analysis not done DELAYS IN TRACK
LINKING ACTIVITIES
Planning team
Execution Productivity is not recorded
Team

Material Work allocation

procurement

Sub contractor No corrective plans

LACK OF NO PROPER
COORDINATION MONITORING
 Analysis of scope of Mechanization
of track linking
By considering the equipment required for all the track linking activities like rail shifting, rail
pairing, sleeper shifting, bottom ballast, top ballast, ballast spreading & compaction, rail
laying and clipping and rail welding, total hours working hours required for finishing the scope
of work for a section of a site was found out. Using the owning and operating cost for each
equipment per hour, total equipment cost required for manual method and mechanized
method of track linking were found out.
MANUAL
METHOD

TRAILE LOADE ROAD RAIL EXCAVAT ROLLE LABOU

HYDRA R R TRUCK LORRY OR R R FBW Total
1599.6 1711.6 1786.82 1339.291 2234.355
HOURS 85 92 3 113 189 360 288 3456 738
O&O
per hr 900 800 700 375 375 700 800 400 1000
143971 136935 125077 502234.1 837883.1 23040 138240 800276
Cost 6 4 6 675 957 252000 0 0 738000 3
SLM Method
RAIL
HYDR TRAILE LOADE ROAD RAIL EXCAVATO ROL THRE
A R R TRUCK LORRY R LER SLM ADER FBW Total
1202.6 1202.6 1786.8
Hours 21 21 23 1585 2234.35 360 288 998 288 738
O&O
per hr 900 800 700 375 375 700 800 1400 750 1000
10823 962096 125077 837881.2 2304 13972 21600 73800 75610
Cost 59 .8 6 594375 5 252000 00 00 0 0 88
Percentage cost savings in using mechanized method 5.519033
 Quantifying interview results
The attributes from interviews were grouped into factors manually.
These were analyzed based on counts.
To get a proper rank on to those factors, an impact rating should be given.
For this, loss of money incurred per day to the series of activities were
considered as an analogue to severity and frequency of these factors were
considered. Combining both of these an impact rating could be assigned.
This would be based on data from interviews, field visit and project data.
 Based on loss of work at
Based on loss of work at BOQ rates as observed
BOQ rates during field study
lack of materials needed for earthwork/non availability lack of continuous work front 2558880
of borrow area 320114.4 Lack of space during yard works + rail pairing 947520
lack of continuous work front 319860 Rail pairing issues+lack of support/coordination from
unavailability of Welding Machine sub contractor+lack of continuous work front+Labour
215358
Shortage 744480
Delays in bridge works 184500 rail consumption during welding+lack of support from
Lack of space during yard works+rail pairing 157920 sub contractor 253123.2
Rail pairing issues+lack of support/coordination from unavailability of Welding Machine 215358
sub contractor+lack of continuous work front+Labour Improper stacking of materials at site 191760
Shortage 93060 forced to carry out track welding 189842.4
forced to carry out track welding 63280.8 lack of consumables at site/hr 119850
rail consumption during welding+lack of support from Not mechanised to the extent possible
sub contractor 63280.8 0
Improper stacking of materials at site 47940 lack of materials needed for earthwork/non availability of
Not mechanised to the extent possible 39247.2 borrow area
0
lack of consumables at site/hr 23970 Delays in bridge works 0
Rework 0 Access road problems 0
Access road problems 0 Rework 0
 BASED ON RESPONSES FROM SITE
Factors/Attributes Root Cause Impact
Rail pairing issues leading to reduced productivity of FBW Poor supervision Very High
Lack of coordination with sub contractor poor site planning High
Not mechanized to the extent possible,eg not using Sleeper laying machine and Rail threading
machine. poor site planning High
Access road problems leading to equipment not being able to work, by getting on to formation.
Eg. FBW machine, hydra for rail shifting and pairing poor sit eplanning High
Delays in bridge works creating fragments of stretch causing machine to be shifted. Eg poor sit
earthwork and welding equipments eplanning,rework High
Rail consumption during welding +Lack of support/coordination from sub contractor leading to
improper rail pairing Poor supervision Medium
Lack of consumables at site especially for welding leading to idle time/reduced productivity of
FBW machine poor site planning Medium
Lack of continuous work front for any of the activities. poor site planning Medium
Rework causing delaying in track linking activities as a whole. poor site supervision Medium
Lack of space during yard works leading to loss in FBW productivity poor site planning Low
Improper stacking of materials at site poor site planning Low
Labour shortage Low
Forced to carry out track welding instead of cess welding, due to any reason. Very Low
Lack of materials needed for Earthwork/non availability of borrow area No response
Unavailability of Welding Machine, No response
 Main factors affecting Track
Linking
From these various sources it can be concluded that the most
important factors are:
Rail pairing
Lack of continuous work front
Delay in bridge works
Less mechanization
Access road issues
Lack of Coordination
Thank
You