Train 18 series, part 13...are the designs ready to start manufacture?

Around January 18, 2018, the technical outline of Train 18 was being revealed by the Designs Centre (DC) in greater clarity day by day. I would be called by the CDEs to look at this drawing or that model. Not being too much involved in the technical nitty-gritty, I would at times find the detailing strange; after all as in charge of numerous technical projects in distant past, I was used to rather a disorderedly way of working and this new found order in the DC was something welcome but offbeat. Pouring over drawings has never been my forte but 3-D models are easier to review. I would also like to think that I was indeed contributing to the design build up of the train in some way, albeit vicariously.

How many coaches should the train have? All the trains of IR have a configuration stipulated by the Railway Board. But here we were, trying to bring in a whole new concept of rolling stock and there would be total lack of clarity on these details; I could not expect a clear answer in any given time frame. For argument sake, if I did the proper thing and took the matter to Board after the sanction, there would be a barrage of questions and hardly any quick answers. Questions? Yes,

Where would the train run?

Who will maintain the train and where to base the maintenance shed?

Are we geared to use such a train?

Are the passengers ready for such a train?

You have a sanction of 2 train sets of 12 coaches each (for that was what the sanction said without any great thought behind it) so why deviate?

Why a chair car train to begin with, why not 24-coach long distances train?

Why limit at 160 km/h, why not 200 km/h?

How many classes?

Unless the target section of operation is spelt out, what can we decide?

Have we identified the target ridership and fare structure? Without that, how do we decide the number of coaches/

Is it not too expensive?

And then the supreme questions,

Why not the moon? Or, Why do we need a train set at all?

I think the poet Abbas Rizvi attended many meeting in railways for how else would he cover it so well:

Ajeeb turfa-tamasha hai mere  ahad  ke  log,

Sawal karne  se  pahle  jawab  mangte  hain

Well, we did well not to chivvy this chimera of questions and abandoned the route along the propriety of action, unlike the poet Saidi, who somehow derived pleasure in all the indecision and vacillation:

Is se  behtar  aur jawab  kya  hoga

kho gaya  wo  mire  sawalon mein 

We had no intention of getting ensnared in a volley of queries and observations and let the project go for a six. The likely outcome of asking the Railway Board would be nothing short of a spiral of debate and discussions with phalanx of officers who had nothing to do with our time lines. I consulted two very respected Operating officers (names held back) with only limited boundaries; we have only one section with 160 km/h, a part of the Delhi-Bhopal route so a Shatabdi there would be the starting point, given surely that the train would be beneficial in the range of 120-160 km/h speed range as well. Over a couple of rounds of deliberations, we arrived at a 16-coach configuration which would notionally replace an 18-coach Shatabdi rake with two power cars and two locomotives on each end; such a Shatabdi does not run at present but if did, to cater to 16 passenger-carrying coaches, you would need this 18 coaches+2 locomotives configuration to take care of the traction power of approx. 10000 hp and hotel load for 16 air-conditioned coaches. In Train 18, of course, all the equipment for 10000 hp and full hotel load would be provided under the board of the 16 coaches.

Without going into too many technical details, let me give an idea of main technical features of Train 18 that were frozen already:

•      Stainless steel car body

•      LHB design shell as base but with several modifications

•      16-coach chair car type configuration

•      160 km/h speed with 180 km/h test speed**

•      Maximum design axle load: 17tonnes (aiming for 16.5 tonnes)

•      Starting Acceleration: 0.8 m/sec²

•      Peak deceleration: 1 m/sec²

** An undeclared understanding with the consultants was that without compromising on medium speed features, we would aim to make the bogie fit for higher speed operations with change of gear ratio, brake disc material, two types of additional sensors and some essential components; this concept alone, if successful, would have a far reaching impact on rolling stock development when Indian Railways actually start going for speeds above 160 km/h, say 200 km/h operating speed.

The configuration worked out after interaction with the manufacturer of electrics was a classic 4-coach basic unit:

1.  Driving Trailer Coach (DTC with Battery & charger, Compressor)

2.  Motor Coach (MC with Traction Converter & Brake Chopper Resistors)

3.  Trailer Coach (TC with Transformer, Auxiliary Converter, Pantograph, VCB)

4.  Motor Coach (MC withTraction Converter, Brake Chopper Resistors)

The concept included 50% motoring, that is, packing eight coaches out of sixteen with traction motors; this had been finalized to get the desired acceleration and therefore a 4-coach basic unit would have two motor coaches.

The first thing the DC presented to me was the finalized model of the nose and the sidewalls; the nose had gone through multiple Computational Flow reviews and sidewall was provided with windows which would have a continuous glass in the exterior for aesthetics. Have a look:

Since these designs were going to be the key to how the train exterior would look like, it was also presented to a wider group, including manufacturing officers, and the same were soon approved. Orders were in place and according manufacturing clearance was now a matter of days. 

We were going to provide automatic plug doors with a sliding step for the first time on an IR train. This had to be designed and manufactured by a German company in association with our car body consultant and ICF, a mini project in itself. The finalized model was almost ready baring some minor issues by this time:

One of the outstanding features of Train 18 was going to be the novelty that the entire floor board was available for use and amenities of passengers with no power or hotel load equipment mounted over board. A feature not seen on any train on IR, this would afford much larger space for passengers. A clear requirement which followed was that passengers should be able to walk from one end of the train to the other in total comfort unlike our present system of wobbly vestibules. This would give a new experience to the travelling public, lifting the train a couple of notches in passenger-friendly perception. A wide sealed gangway had to be designed to suit our coaches and this was underway with one of the manufacturer in the field with a facility in Bangalore. A series of meeting had taken place with them as their time line was not meeting our requirement and we did not want to compromise on quality. The gangway would also have an external fairing to improve the elegance of the exterior and to help reduce air drag as well. The design finalized was as depicted below:

Another design which impacted the design of the car body was finalization of the roof-mounted air-conditioning unit. We had already ordered the equipment with a clear mandate that the air-conditioning system of the train must be a quantum above what was in use on LHB coaches. The status of equipment on LHB coaches was not happy at all as a large number of suppliers had entered the field although they did not have the right competence and even the attitude. We could not afford callous handling of such an important part of the train. It required the manufacturer to complete the design in synergy with the consultant, the manufacturer of electrics  and ICF’s electrical and mechanical groups; any one of these falling behind would need a great deal of impelling. Our ordering decision proved to be correct as the manufacturer selected coordinated well in developing the designs for which the preliminary CFD results are shown below:

There was another challenging issue: design of the unit and ducting in the pantograph coach which made the head room below it very low and the ducting with its diffuser and transition had to be very sleek to afford optimum air-conditioning performance. It required several iterations but the final design met the flow specification well; this would not have been possible had we ordered on some other regular IR approved manufacturer, even if he had a good supply record. The complexity is denoted here in these 3-D models, showing the low roof part and transition areas:

I will continue reviewing these the finalized drawings and models, or let us say seemingly-finalized drawings and models in next posts; I, however, must declare here that the information I am sharing here does not encroach on the IPR of ICF as this information is available in public domain in some way or the other. But for now let’s revert to the main story of Train 18; around January 18 we were reaching a point in time when I was building up great pressure to start manufacture. “Let it not be premature. If we start now, precious fabrication and assembly spaces would be blocked for too long time with the preliminary manufacturing activity moving very slowly.”, Sri Trivedi, the PCME told me and Sri Shashi Bhushan, the Chief Workshop Manager/Shell agreed. Their argument was not incorrect, it made sense in the interest of enhanced production level that we had imposed upon ourselves. There was going to be a whole lot of experimentation and trial & error for Train 18 manufacture, in spite of our best attempts at near perfection in downstream processes and the respective stations would remain near static for a long time. Fortunately, infrastructural works were in hand in a big way and many new platforms for fabrication and assembly were getting created. I took a review of station occupancy for regular production, accounted for the enhanced production that we were aiming at in 2017-18 and found that it was possible to allot couple of stations for Train 18 even if it meant that the work would be excruciatingly slow in the beginning.

Who would lead the Train 18 shell manufacture? Apart from the officers directly responsible for manufacture of shells, I was clear that we needed an exceptionally committed officer to head the day to day manufacturing as well as coordination. Sri Ravichandran, Production Engineer/Shell chose himself. I had found him to be an extraordinary officer with a great mechanical mind; he was also very well qualified in the field of welding. The problem was that many of his colleagues did not like him as he always had an attitude and even arrogance. On behest of some and not wishing to be found wanting as the man leading the new-found espirit de corps, I even tried to reason with him; this against my natural grain because I knew I was trying to chide an able man.

I remember his stout denials and realized the futility of the exercise. Shakespeare’s Nestor in Troilus and Cressida could go aside and show amusement as the proud Ajax says, “I do hate a proud man as I hate engendering of toads” but I had no such druthers; I just meekly advised him to show some deference, if not reverence,   to authority, even if the said authority was not so competent.

I decided to overlook that as here was a man who stood out magnificently in the middle of mediocrity; some arrogance could be excused. I relied a great deal on the judgement of Sri K.N.Babu, the Secretary/ICF, who was no fan of him but he too seconded his name readily. Sri Ravichandran it was. There we were, the leader in place and waiting for the first weld to be done on the under frame fixture in the shop.

Remembered Macbeth saying, “Now, good digestion wait on appetite. And health on both!”…I thought we had a good appetite and ready for digestion.

(to be continued...)