Train 18 series 20...some more on design and train’s progress

I keep digressing so much; I must come back to some core design and manufacturing issues. As I write, I am faced with a dilemma a novice chronicler would perhaps always face. What to write and what to ignore or eliminate? I am not intending to let this story be followed only by those who understand design and manufacture of railway coaches, or rather not merely that but engineering processes as such. So going too much into niceties of design and manufacturing would be too esoteric. I have, therefore, been trying to bring in design and manufacturing issues and solutions only in dribs and drab and that too in a rather cursory, not elaborate, manner. I am trying to build this narrative around a mosaic of all issues usually encountered while executing a project of this magnitude. Handling of human resources is always the key and that has taken precedence over knotty technical aspects in my story such that neither are diehard rail fans disappointed nor are those with wide interest in things Indian find it stodgy.

To make sure that the entire floor space of the train would be available for use of passengers with a wide gangway, all equipment had to be mounted underneath the floor, i.e., mounted below the under frame members. This had never been attempted earlier in a coach in India. The complexity of the design and subsequent manufacture can be depicted through a simple model of one of the under frames, which had a multiplicity of gobs of equipment packed in it; and imagine, there were six such types in the train of sixteen coaches! 

A large number of newly designed equipment including a wholly new system of 25KV transmission, under-slung converter, more powerful transformer, auxiliary convertor, a state of the art computerized brake system, automatic sliding and plug doors with retractable steps, efficient air-conditioning system, passenger information and passenger talk back systems, CCTV network etc. Were, inter alia, equipment which were of a new generation and obviously new design. Most of this, rather all these systems, not only needed mechanical compatibility but also an electrical and electronic marriage with the newly developed heart of the train, i.e., the traction control and management system. These system integration exercises were not something new for the ICF team but this time the intricacy as well as the time line had a much greater degree of difficulty.

As I have written earlier, the ordering was done very quickly and smoothly; that was, however, half the story. Having ordered, convincing the selected suppliers, who frequently depend on some other agencies for sourcing components, to deliver the outline envelope drawing and then the equipment took some effort on the part of the design team members.

We had gone for the best or near best suppliers with proven credentials. We had ordered for two rakes only; components like high speed Pantograph, roof-mounted 25KV cable and isolator systems, solid state devices etc. were required in small numbers/quantities. Many a time any extent of assurances or incentives to these suppliers did not work in our favour to get the material on time. There was also the issue of dealing with competing suppliers within the team and this had its own disadvantages as dynamics amongst them, at times, time becomes unpredictable, governed by some extraneous factors; I know it may sound frivolous but I left all this this as the sole preserve of the cool and composed, Mr. Tranquillity, Sri D.P.Dash, the Chief Design Engineer/Elect. And I was told he handled it smoothly, frequent pin pricks et al. All I know is that he was able to create a synergy amongst all such vendors and sub-vendors to minimise the tussles at various stages of manufacture. At the end of the day, the takeaway here once again is that it is all about positive human interaction; it matters the most and works most of the time.

After the shop floor meetings, all the participants were invited for dinner at my bungalow. One ticklish issue was solved during dinner after the main representative of one of the competing firms forced me to sing Jim Morrison of the Doors with him. The participants had to suffer some fervid but pathetic singing and I am sure this time it was not Firaq but Morrison turning in his grave. And soon, Sri Dilip, the Dy. Chief Mechanical Engineer/Design, would do his monstrous pirouetting and shaking and all the left over problems of the day would vanish in thin air.

Sri Srinivas, the Chief Design Engineer/Mech. was struggling with some issues with the toilet as soon as the first coach was provided with one. The toilet was meant to be a unique combination of vacuum evacuation with bio-tank. Someday India would see the prevalent system of vacuum evacuation from toilets to collection tanks which are further evacuated at maintenance depots but many roadblocks, some real and some perceived, have kept this system out of our trains. Be that as it may, the toilets were  designed to look and function, conceptually, as under:

The problem being battled by Sri Srinivas was the size of the wash basin and location of the touch-free tap. While the manufacturer insisted that what he had  developed and supplied conformed to European standards and also as specified by ICF. An army of ICF team members had a different opinion. Most of them had used the wash basin in the prototype toilet and found all sorts of difficulties, like the size being adequate for a proper Indian style kulla (mouth rinse) as well as a South Indian hand wash, angle of bend for an average Indian, alignment with the mirror and so on. I was requested to check myself which I did immediately and after some mock kullas and hand washes, decided that the design had to be reworked. The manufacturer protested but soon agreed to Indianize the design. New moulds for FRP items and their manufacture and heavy rework by ICF were involved; this set us back by some 10 days but then, there were other things setting us back as well.

Some other issues, which were being addressed in parallel, were, 1) the design somehow incorporated a small ramp in gangway area; now, this had come for a lot of criticism in the first air-con EMU manufactured by ICF. This had to be modified. Eventually, the coupler height was reduced to 940 mm against the standard 1105 mm for IR; both the driving end, however, provided for 1105 mm to cater to the requirement of haulage by a locomotive in any unforeseen situation. By the way, the fully sealed double layer gangway needed more end-to-end space and the overall coach length had earlier been reduced by 440mm (23100 against 23540), 2) automatic plug door with sliding foot step required that the design and manufacturing jigs be redone, shifting the doorway to coach ends to accommodate the sliding step, 3) due to low roof in TC with Pantograph, a very sleek AC duct was redesigned to maintain head room for luggage rack, and so on.

A recap, before I talk a bit about design and manufacture of the bogie, which, to my mind was the most crucial part of the project.

Let me state in broad terms as to what had been achieved so far:

·      Recognizing the immense potential of team ICF, we had started with the concept on our own and put it together for the decision-makers to understand the doers to appreciate.

·    We  the sanction from the then CRB, Sri A.K.Mital, in the face of stiff opposition. Opposition? Yes. And reverting to the theme of internecine warfare between departments in IR, opposition by whom? By Mechanical department; the department, incidentally, set to benefit the most if Train 18 became a success! Such is indeed the state of affairs in IR. So what was needed to be done, I can say without batting an eyelid, was to ignore these jealous naysayers, top to bottom, and that was done in toto. 

·      We got a multi-disciplinary team going without any departmental wrangles and squabbles. 

·      We appointed consultants where our own capability was suspect but kept detailed design totally with respective design wings of ICF; we did not allow any disabling ToT(transfer of technology)  and all the IPR (intellectual property rights) was the property of ICF.

·      Got the blessings of the one who mattered and understood what we were up to; in this case, the then CRB, Sri Ashwani Lohani, who had been consistent and unwavering in supporting us. 

·      Any negativity or lack of courage of conviction was eliminated through some crackerjack handling by senior team members; a whole lot of equipment were ordered on single tender! We never tendered for tendering sake (tendering without an eye on delivery, as many of us unfortunately do and do it even today as I write).

·      We ensured that we had a leader in the 2nd IC, first Sri L.C.Trivedi (current GM/ECR, earlier PCME/ICF) and then Sri Shubhranshu (the next PCME/ICF), without which it would have been extremely difficult to execute the project.

·      We treated participating industry as partners. We held key pep up meetings first in Design office and later on shop floor.

·      We monitored time lines very closely at the level of GM/PCME level.

·      We involved RDSO Train Set and Testing directorates as they would be testing the train for roadworthiness, safety, ride quality and oscillations etc; in fact, creation of the Train set directorate is an offshoot of this project, pushed strongly by ICF with a view to consolidate our effort in an organization which could act as the wellspring for train sets in future.

·      And above all, we all made conscious efforts to keep the morale of the entire team very high with free flowing smiles and only occasional frowns.

Thanks to a Press & Media workshop held at ICF at the instance of the then CRB, a buzz had already been created in respect of Train 18. Although the workshop was held to educate the participants on various aspects of legacy, strengths and working of IR, some special interest by the former in the projects of ICF was natural. Extensive coverage had, therefore taken place on Aaj Tak/India Today, Zee Business, Door Darshan, Financial Express and Times of India etc. This generated some additional pressure for early turnout.

Enough hype and publicity. The proof of the pudding is in the eating! When would we able to serve the pudding? Hey, did you catch me agreeing with Mr. Ford when he said, in Shakespeare’s The Merry Wives of Windsor that it was better to be three hours too soon than a minute too late? I was now learning to change tack and quote Frair Lawrence from Shakespeare’s Romeo and Juliet, rather shamelessly, “Wisely and slow. They stumble that run fast.” Was Shakespeare an inspiration for business leaders or the last resort of those who bluster a lot but manage poorly? Take your pick!

Were we worried? No and not without reason although someone would soon show me the mirror, perhaps through the poet Dagh:

Aap ka  aitbar  kaun kare,

Roz ka intezar kaun kare.**

** Who is now willing to believe you, who would keep waiting for you?

(to be continued...)