Start manufacture of Train 18 guys, pronto!

Calling the train Train 18 was not enough. I had got neat mini display stands indicating the time line of all major projects and asked everyone to place one on their respective desk. The display had around 12 important rolling stock projects at any given time with Train 18 in pride of place; the time lines had to be revised frequently but it was there, loud and clear to all.

One day around mid-November 2017 before our umpteenth meeting with the car body consultants, I found Srinivas sitting in his room with shoulders drooping, looking visibly flustered. He said that the number of iterations in the designs, whether with the consultants or vendors, was proving to be a nightmare. Our designers and drafters had to rework on the detailed drawings repeatedly. In addition, there were some components which were imported and required changes after validation and analysis either at the vendors’ place or at ICF. He was worried that this was the quagmire we were in even before the actual manufacture of Train 18 platform had started at ICF. He wondered aloud if the same cycle of morass would repeat once a prototype was applied on the platform at ICF. I told him not to forget that his men were breaking new grounds and that this was a learning process which would hold them in good stead in future, that is, for the Train 20 project. The Train 20 project, the aluminium-body train was then set to take us another quantum up the league of modern railway systems. It is another matter that vested interests later got that project derailed, driving India back by another ten years.

Srinivas was partly placated. His problem was that he had to make the engineering 3-D model containing the key points to enable manufacture of under frame, sidewalls and roofs at ICF as also incorporate description of all components which defined and communicated parts of the complete design to other interested parties, within ICF and outside. He mentioned that as it was, the basic 3-D model and key drawings, which were the top level assembly drawings defining the concept in all its details, were made with incomplete information and, on top of that, issuing final detailed drawings with inadequate or tentative information could lead to major chaos.

To put things in perspective, let us understand what detailed manufacturing drawings mean at ICF. The practice at ICF is to start with 3D models which are the starting points but they have to be used in conjunction with 2-D drawings; these models are a good visual representation of the desired item but do not contain all the information that drawings do. The 2-D drawings, which are made after the 3-D model is finalized, must have enough orthogonal views describing the component fully with reference to the parent assembly drawing, dimensions evenly distributed, structured and not duplicated, drafting standard, material, specification, manufacturing tolerances, surface roughness, treatments and coatings, and revision details etc. A detailed 2-D drawing is a specific engineering tool that shows all the information and requirements needed to manufacture an item; it is more than simply a drawing, it is a diagram in engineering language that communicates all concepts as well as information. Making these drawings with say, mounting dimensions or envelope of some child component detailing not fully frozen, can disturb the applecart of the entire assembly.

Srinivas repined that ideally it was not a good practice and no major rolling stock manufacturer would proceed to issue drawings with incomplete information, lest it causes problems and rework in future. I told him that we had to do with what we had and take risks; not only order components but also start components/details level manufacture at ICF. Too risky, he said. I knew what he was saying but nevertheless, told him shamelessly, “Of course, it’s risky but you have to do with a calculated and calibrated risk. Remember, Rome was not built in a day, for sure, but you have to build your Rome in days, not months. If you do not start manufacture in January, the train would not be ready by July ’18, our unofficial target date for turnout.” I knew that the gentleman was merely expressing his exasperation; he was more devoted to the time line than me, and his occasional outburst was all in the game.

The ‘Train 18 out in 2018’ goal was forcing the vendors also to work tirelessly. I would frequently get calls from key vendors apprising me of the status, a kind of FIR before someone from the DC flagged an issue. The work continued even as information flowed from various quarters and we were well on way to start manufacturing in January or at least in the early months of 2018. 

The meeting with foreign consultants was always very interesting. It would go on without a break from 9 AM to 9 PM, which, they were not so accustomed to. Srinivas always ordered pizzas for lunch in the middle of technical discussions. Occasionally, a consultant would fall sick, perhaps due to overwork but we conveniently blamed it on the change in content and pattern of meals. Invariably, those falling sick would come back cured for the meetings within a day or two; we had managed to Indianise them. Whenever these consultants and participating suppliers came to say final bye to CDE/M, the latter would start conducting another round of discussion on in-house made tea/coffee for another two hours. Once at one of the concluding sessions I asked if the visitors had gone around Chennai and nearby places of interest. The poor chaps replied that for that to happen, I had to advise the CDE/M to loosen a bit and go easy. In one of the meetings, an ICF designer asked a Polish consultant during the makeshift lunch, “Why don't you bring along with your girlfriend next time to Chennai?” The Polish gentleman quipped, "What? In this madness with you guys! You want her to leave me for good?”

Around January ’18, the technical outline of Train 18 was being revealed by the 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 nucleus, 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 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. Our experience in Board before the sanction was that when would prepare simulations and present our case with some comparative data, it would mostly be overlooked. 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 two 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?

When these questions became too exasperating, when I was challenged aggressively, with many declaring the concept quixotic; I would merely say, “The proof of the pudding! So please wait for some months!”

The poet Abbas Rizvi must have attended many railways meetings:

Ajeeb turfa-tamasha hai mere ahad ke log, 

Sawal karne se pahle  jawab mangte hain

(Oh what a novel spectacle we have with people of our times, they want an answer even before they ask a question)

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 seems to somehow derive pleasure in all the indecision and vacillation:

Is se behtar aur jawab kya  hoga 

kho gaya wo mere sawalon mein

(What can be a better rejoinder, they are lost in my questions)

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 Board would be nothing short of a spiral of debate and discussions with a phalanx of cavilling officers who had no stake in the project. I consulted two acknowledged Operating officers (names held back), stipulating only one constraining envelope. I told them that ours would be a train to replace Shatabdi, preferably the Delhi-Bhopal one, but otherwise applicable to day trains in 130-160 km/h speed range as well. Over a couple of rounds of deliberations at length, we arrived at a 16-coach configuration which would notionally replace a 20-stock Shatabdi rake with two power cars and two locomotives on each end; such a train does not run at present. If such a 16 passenger-carrying coach Shatabdi did run at 160 km/h speed, you would need a 18 coaches + 2 locomotives configuration. Two locomotives for traction power of approx. 11000 hp and 2 additional power cars to cater to the hotel load of 16 air-conditioned coaches. In Train 18 all the equipment for 11000 hp traction power and full hotel load would be provided under the board of the 16 coaches. Looking at the prospect of the 20-stock configuration reduced to only 16 in Train 18, these Operating wizards were astounded by the Operating advantages. I added that much higher energy efficiency and superior maintainability would be big bonuses. 

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

•     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 and validation speed in RDSO trials

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

•     Starting Acceleration: 0.8 m/sec²

•     Peak deceleration: 1 m/sec²

(Limiting the axle load to 17 tonnes was important for getting 160 km/h maximum service speed qualification whereas the acceleration numbers here, much higher than any stock on IR at present, would help in cutting down travel time drastically).

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, some additional sensors and minor components; this concept alone, if successful, would have a far reaching impact on rolling stock development when IR actually start going for speeds above 160 km/h, say 200 km/h operating speed. The consultants were confident that the design would actually cover this.

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

Train 18 basic unit of four coaches

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 with Traction Converter, Brake Chopper Resistors) 

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

This book is not a disquisition on the technical aspects of the train. I am not even equipped to write one. Be that as it may, I am presenting only a limited insight into the designs. My sharing it here does not encroach on the IPR of ICF as this basic information is available in public domain in some way or the other. 

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 Dynamics reviews for air resistance at high speed. The sidewall was provided with windows which would have a continuous glass in the exterior for aesthetics. This is how the models looked like:

The nose and the sidewall models

Since these designs were going to be the casements through which the look of the train exterior could be pictured, they were also presented to a wider group, including manufacturing officers. After the models were approved, orders were soon in place and manufacturing clearance was now a matter of days. 

We were going to provide automatic P doors with a sliding step for the first time on an IR train. Plug doors offer great safety and security. These doors open only when the train is at standstill. Unless the doors close, the train would not start. There is a manual override for emergencies only. The retractable steps facilitate boarding on and alighting from a train at the platform. In India, we have instances of people falling down a train through the open main doors and such accidents would be totally eliminated on Train 18. There is no Indian manufacturer for such doors. 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, barring some minor issues.

The Plug Door model

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 reputed manufacturers in the field with a facility in Bangalore. The gangway would also have an external fairing to improve the elegance of the exterior and to help reduce air drag as well. A series of meetings had taken place with them. Their time line was not meeting our requirement but we did not want to compromise on quality. The MD of the company, a nice serene type of fellow, continued to brook verbal onslaught of a series of officers, including yours truly. One day he came to meet me and confided amiably, “There is hardly any profit for me in this project. I am doing it only to keep your honour and to be a part of a path-breaking project. Today, I fly to Germany to sit with my collaborators and sort things out. In any case, I need a respite from your daily incursion about these Gangways.” The  design finalized was as depicted below:

The Sealed Gangway model

Another aspect which impacted the design of the car body was finalization of the Roof Mounted Air-conditioning Package Unit (RMPU) and associated ducting. 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 existing LHB coaches was not satisfactory at all as a large number of suppliers had entered the field although they did not have the right competence and even the attitude. 

Computation Flow in AC ducting

We could not afford callous handling of such an important part of the train. It required the manufacturer to complete the design in complete 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. We reposed faith only in the best among the lot of suppliers. Our ordering decision proved to be correct as the manufacturer so identified coordinated well in developing the designs for which the extensive CFD simulations were carried out by ICF before finalizing the design.

There was another challenging issue: design of the AC ducting in the Pantograph coach. Incorporation of the Pantograph assembly on the roof 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 and the final design was frozen only after it met the flow specification well; this exercise would not have been possible had we ordered on some other RDSO-approved manufacturer, even if he had a good supply record, as they lacked R&D capability. The complexity is denoted here in these 3-D models, showing the low roof part and transition areas:

RMPU and air-conditioning ducting concept in Pantograph coaches

Around January 18, we were already behind the schedule and 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,” Trivedi told me and Shashi Bhushan agreed. Their argument was not incorrect, it made sense in the interest of enhanced production level of 2500 plus coaches that we had imposed upon ourselves for the year. 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 upstream 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 in 17-18 and found that it was possible to allot a couple of stations for Train 18 even if it meant that the work would be excruciatingly slow in the beginning and station occupancy very long. 

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. Ravichandran Production Engineer/Shell chose himself. I had found him to be an extraordinary officer with a great mechanical mind and a great manager of men; he was also very well qualified in the field of welding. Well, a bit about the man. Competence does breed some arrogance. 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. I decided to overlook this foible as here was a man who stood out magnificently; some arrogance could be excused. I relied a great deal on the judgement of Babu, who was no fan of him yet seconded his name readily. Ravichandran it was. He was absolutely willing and took over the mantle in right earnest. 

An aside. Ravichandran is a very common name in Tamil Nadu. So we had Ravichandran, the great welding expositor. Ravichandran, the M&P exponent. Ravichandran, the man manager. Ravichandran, the works conjurer., cool, the clever, committed Ravichandrans. All of them very good, but this Ravichandran was the supreme one.

He was progressing well in coordinating with the Production, DC and the vendors for both the fixtures and the materials. My impatience was clear in regular meetings and I would have browbeaten Ravichandran to start but Trivedi would not permit a premature launch of production. I simply waited for the first weld to be done on the under frame fixture for Train 18 in the factory. 

Remembered Macbeth saying, “Now, good digestion wait on appetite. And health on both! I thought we had a good appetite and all the readiness for some good digestion.

Well, since all my impatience was not without pleasure, to misquote poet Adam, 

Main maikade ki raah se ho kar nikal gaya,

Varna   safar   hayat  ka  kaafi  taweel  tha

(* I found the tavern (pleasure) on the way, otherwise life’s journey was very long.)

(to be continued...)