Hello visitor,

The Indian Railway Code for Mechanical Department (Workshops) was published originally in 1940 and subsequently reprinted in 1950, 1970 and 1974.The last revision was in 1991. Due to various reasons such as technology upgradation, proliferation of Railway zones etc, Board have decided to once again revise the code and appointed a Committee consisting of:

Mr. S Dhasarathy - Former Member Mechanical / Railway Board
Mr. M.V. Ramani – Former General Manager, ICF / Perambur and
Mr. S. Parthasarathy – Former FA & CAO / Southern Railway,

The Terms of reference of the Committee are enclosed as Annexure II to this mail. The issues that need clarity and consensus on this assignment are endless and every suggestion on any of them including related issues is most welcome. In addition the committee seeks your focused attention and valuable suggestions to a ready questionnaire, serially numbered so as to facilitate easy cross reference in your replies. The Questionnaire is attached as Annexure-III.

The committee will indeed be obliged to have your views and directions which it believes will enormously benefit the evolution of a useful and workable code.

Please send your feedback, comments and suggestions to spchennai@gmail.com. The suggestions may also be sent to any of the committee members whose addresses including email are given below as Annexure-I. You can also send your replies by post to Secretary to CME/Southern Railway HQrs, Park Town, Chennai 600003.

With thanks and looking forward to your responses,

Parthasarathy

Annexure-II
Terms of reference for the committee

To review the scope of Mechanical Code to encompass all areas of functioning of the Mechanical Department.
To identify items for deletion from the code;
To draft additional chapters encompassing incentive, new technologies, M&P, etc.
Review of matters dealing with organizational structure and delegation of powers.
Subsequent to the last revision of the Mechanical Code in 1991, there have been major changes in the external and internal environment, as a result of globalization, outsourcing, supply chain management, etc. as well as due to technology upgradation, customer focus, changes in functioning of PUs due to basic structural changes under consideration of the Board, proliferation of zones, etc. These changes need to be factored in to the codal provisions;

In addition, the codal provisions are considered to be inadequate in certain major areas, a representative sample of which is as under:-

Disaster Management in IR
Procedure for procurement in PH41, condemnation, accountal, etc.
Clear delineation of role for open line working, etc.
Exclusive responsibilities regarding cranes, diesel locos, etc.
Planning and execution of pure mechanical works like setting up of rolling stock maintenance, repairs to M&P, etc.
Changes in incentive scheme.
Communication arrangement in workshops.
Bulk RSP
Procedure for issuing works contract.

Some of the areas, which are covered in detail and which are now obsolete may be required to be attached only as Annexures:

a. Saw mill accounts (Saw Mills have been closed down as the society does not allow use of wood where other materials can be used)
b. Portion dealing with steam traction, which are of little utility considering the closure of steam traction.
c. Foundry accounts (A large number of foundries in repair shop have been closed).

Areas which need to be incorporated in detail in the revised Mechanical Code.
a. Investment, Planning and Budgeting for Revenue, RSP Works and M&P. This should include preparation of abstract and detailed estimate, sanction of excess over estimate material modification, etc.
b. Expenditure and Budgetary control.
c. Systems for costing.
d. Execution of Works.
e. Commissioning of Rolling Stock, M&P and Works.
f. Handling and cleaning contracts.
g. Procedure of contracts for works including standard conditions, arbitration, etc.
h. Processing of RSP, M&P and Works Programs.
i. Carriage of Railway Materials by alternate methods i.e., road contracts, etc.
j. Scrap disposal in PUs, Workshops and Open Line Mechanical establishments.
k. Inclusion of Appendices regarding Schedule of Powers with respect to Stores, Works and Establishment matters.

The above areas are indicative and the Committee shall go into the revisions required, in detail for the proposed revamp of the code.

Annexure-III - REVISION OF MECHANICAL CODE QUESTIONNAIRE

General:

1. What in your opinion is the most pressing area, in which revamping is required in our workshops?
2. Do you believe that the Code should confine to laying down broad guidelines with boundary conditions giving sufficient executive flexibility or should it be exhaustive and prescribe detailed procedures?
3. The Indian Railway Establishment and Financial Codes have separate supporting manuals, the latter containing greater details and explanatory to the codal provisions? Should the Workshop Code also have a supporting manual?

Scope:

4. Do you feel that the scope of topics covered in the code requires addition / deletion?
5. If the answer is yes to above, what topics do you suggest for deletion / addition?
6. Is there a need to reclassify the present chapter headings 7. Railway Board has suggested certain additions (par 2 (vi) of their letter – attached). Which Topics you suggest for detailed incorporation in the new code?

Organization:

8. Do you feel that the complete workshops organization – covering all departments – including security, to be under unified control- and if so reasons thereof.

Attendance:

The present system has failed to address discipline in attendance and has not provided necessary checks and balances. In the context of emerging security concerns an open or porous Factory gate poses serious threats including to the workmen.
9. Do you feel a ‘Swipe Card System’ or ‘Biometric’ System would eliminate proxy attendance and entry of unwanted elements in shops?
10. Would you suggest swiping the card for every entrance / exit?
11. Do you agree that all employees – CWMs – downwards, should follow the same procedure for entry / exit?
12. Would you suggest that supervisory staff must be held directly accountable for attendance of staff?

Incentive:

RCF & RWF follow a group incentive scheme as against ICF / CLW’s individual based incentive. 13. Would you suggest a uniform system?
14. If so, which do you prefer and why?
15. Should the present job cards be replaced by electronic cards to safeguard against malafide manipulation as also speedy and timely accountal?

Payment:

All progressive institutions including many Railway organizations have switched over to cheque payment/ electronic transfer
16. Do you feel all payments in workshops and running sheds should also be made only through Cheque / Electronic Fund Transfer duly eliminating payments through Cashier.

Job- allowed Time:

A study made in the aircraft industry showed that production of the second batch of aircraft took only 80% of the time taken for the first batch. Manufacture of the thousandth B-29 bomber aircraft took only 3% of the time taken for the first plane. Learning and improvement occur in any repetitive situation like in the Railway workshops. And complex operations become simple on repetition. Instead of periodically scaling down the allowed time, it is kept unchanged illogically and unreasonably: and pegged at 1.96 times the time observed for the first trial. Though the Chittaranjan incentive scheme did provide for a periodic revision of allowed time, it was not made a precondition for payments beyond the prescribed periodicity. It was therefore followed more in the breach. Do you agree that a periodic updating of allowed man hours should take into account--
17. Effect of Learning (Learning Curve Theory)
18. Improvement in productivity of machines due to replacement of old machines with new machines
19. Job simplification / re-design
20. Should such revisions be made a pre-requisite for effecting payments beyond the prescribed periodicity/ machine replacement?

Load Centre Optimization:

This is an area not talked about in the code
21. Do you suggest a Time Study / Process Study / Machine Capacity based Load Centre Optimization
22. If yes, what are your suggestions on this?

Cost Allocations:

Are you satisfied with the present system of:
23. Material Cost Allocation
24. Scrap Credit
25. Labor Cost Allocations
26. Computation of Over heads(on costs)
27. Allocation of cost of consumable items
28. What modifications do you suggest?

Raw Material Norms:

Raw material suppliers periodically modify the sizes of materials supplied. This will have a direct impact on cutting diagrams and raw material norms.
29. Do you suggest a periodic revision of raw material norms for shop manufactured items?

Quality Control:

On in-puts: One of the major problems is inconsistency in the Quality of inputs received from Trade
30. What are your suggestions?

Quality of Out-put:

The Quality of Work Shop out-put can not be said to be consistent or even as per norms – as the standard of inspection for Shop manufactured item – is normally lenient with the inspectors often coming under pressure.
31. Would you suggest a Third Party Inspection- at least for high value/ safety items?
32. Would you suggest a clear definition of the Supervisor’s role for in-process inspection?
33. Do you think inspection organization should be made independent like the safety organization in the railways?

Documentation:

Our entire system of documentation dates back to pre-IT days. Numerous copies of requisitions are prepared and pairing is done at more than one place.
34. Would you prefer an IT based – System with only two copies - one Master Copy with the document originating office and one copy on the move, with a regular computer interface. 35. Or, would you prefer an online system such as the MMIS in C.Rly?

Stores in Shop Floor:

36. Materials in shop sub-stores are not counted as inventory. Should this be part of stores inventory for proper accountal and management corrections?
37. Would you recommend Material in process also to be accounted as inventory – instead of Work Shop Suspense?

Material Usage Norms:

38. Is it advisable to link material drawals with physical out put?
39. Is it necessary to work out material consumption norms for each major activity to control material cost & prevent leakage of materials

Storage and Issue of Materials:

40. Is the present system of detached warehouses convenient and cost effective?
41. Do you suggest Shop Floor Sub Stores for say, 3 days materials requirement – to minimize material movement?

Inspection Standards:

Do you recommend comprehensive and well documented inspection standards for--
42. Approval of Vendors
43. Acceptance of incoming material
44. Inspection of intermediate stages - Is the present system considered adequate for final inspection of out-going rolling stock?
45. If so – why is it ineffective?
46. Are our Testing Labs fully equipped? Do you think they should be upgraded or should we outsource high What are your suggestions to improve this?
47. Would you recommend stoppage of the system of acceptance of rejected material in stead of accepting at reduced prices
48. If such acceptance is inescapable – do you suggest a more comprehensive process of calculation of the financial impact of the reduced quality
49. Would you recommend prescribing a comprehensive QAP for each shop / Repair Unit M & P Replacement:
50. Would you suggest preparation of a 10 year Master Plan to replace M &P – and break it down to convenient – priority based – annual replacement in place of the present system 51. Do you consider the present system to be inadequate? If so, Why?

Cost Reports & Completion Reports:

These take too much time--
52. What are your suggestions to complete above expeditiously and in any case not later than 60 days of completion of jobs?
53. Method of costing for exports and undertaking jobs to outsiders- Any suggestions on this?

Delegation of Powers:

54. What are your views on this?

Vendor Rating:

Incoming quality of material directly impacts the quality of output. Material quality is directly relatable to Vendor commitment to Quality.
55. Do you suggest a Superior system of Vendor rating – with a higher negative weightage for supply delay and rejections and a lower weightage for Right Quality Supply in right time.

Role of Labour
Multi-skilling and grouping of trades

56. To have flexibility in manufacture, optimize output and improve productivity is it necessary to accept multi-skilling, even if it somewhat compromises on higher levels of skill specialization?
57. Do you think that the skills required in Production Units and Repair Shops are different in nature for the same trade and if so what changes do you prescribe in the skill development?

Definition of work content:

58. Do you think it is necessary to clearly define the duties of artisans – for example to include cleaning and related activities – machinist for day to day maintenance of the machine and its cleaning after the work, the welder for setting up weld joints, cleaning of welds and clear cuttings etc.
59. Repair workshops and Production Units have similar activities. While the former has many unions, latter have staff councils. Do you feel both should have same and identical systems if so which one and why?
60. The committee feels that enforcement of discipline and incentive accountal are adversely affected by the unionization of supervisors. What are your views on this? How can we de-link supervisors from the influence of unions but still keeping in tact their grievance redressal system?

Plan heads 41 and 42

61. Do you have any suggestion for modification or elaborations of the existing provisions? 62. Should the code prescribe a procurement procedure specific to these plan heads?
63. Any suggestions for condemnation procedures for machinery in stead of simply on codal life basis?
64. The safety related works got a boost when the SRSF (Special Railway Safety Fund) was made non-lapsable. This enabled smooth flow of sanctioned works without waiting for allocations year wise. Should similar enabling provisions be made in sanction of funds for RSP/Planheads 41/42?

Security

65. The committee feels that RPF being a part of the Railway management may have limitations in controlling not only theft but also entry/exit from workshop gates. Do you suggest entrusting security at Railway workshops to agencies like CISF to have greater effectiveness?

Miscellaneous

66. Do you suggest inclusion of separate chapter on handling and disposal of scrap and particularly hazardous waste material?
67. Should the chapter include environmental aspects and sanitation?

Acts relevant to factories

68. Is it necessary to incorporate a separate chapter outlining Indian Acts relevant to management of the workshops?

Innovation

69. Should there be a chapter in the code on encouraging innovation and the awards/ rewards thereof?
70. Should this include a procedure for placement of trial and development orders outside the tender system for at least non safety items?

Outsourcing

71. Will it be beneficial to include a chapter on decision parameters for outsourcing of works and outsourcing of spares: and the pricing methodology to enable benchmarking of prices vis a vis shop manufacture?
72. Would you consider it beneficial to include a model tender document, model conditions of contract and contract documents with checklists for various types of contracts such as fabrication, works, scrap disposal etc

Ancillary Industries

73. Should we encourage developing ancillary industries for special items to ensure stage inspections and quality conformance?