Memo to Alliance Members

8/4/2019 Memo to Alliance Members

1/5

Memo to Alliance MembersReport on Visit to Spotswood on Friday the 10th August 2007.

At the request of a member of the Alliance I was asked to visit the offices inSpotswood to give a technical view on the relaying methods costs and effects between

using a Side insertion method and a track renewal method.To assist me in analysing the two approaches I was given full information on costingand methodology and received full cooperation and detail from Alliance members,Greg Rush , Jim Hooker and Owen Cheek and had further discussion with WayneLewis the Alliance Manager.

The object of the exercise was to insure that all aspects of the two methods, theircause and effect was looked at. Then a correct decision can be made on the methods

both from an economical point of view and a practical and quality point of view.Should the client eventually desire a lesser quality then the client should be madeaware of the current and future ramifications of the decision

In analysing the detail of the pricing there are no real questions on the actual figures.I believe these are current costs as are the numbers required to do task. The exercise isin keeping with standard pricing practise and operating procedures.

What does however need to be raised are some of the assumptions that are made inthe process.

In discussion with the people in the office some of the principals put forward need tobe discussed.

The two most applicable methods appear to be1 .Side insertion2. Using the Pony Track layer.

Comment was made that the client has expressed a view that the object was to get thesleepers in at the cheapest price with out consideration of the ramifications.This no doubt can favour the more basic method of side insertion if the client is onlylooking at the specific task of pulling an old sleeper out and putting a new one in.The reason this would be done is not clear to me.In general terms and in my past involvements with this type of work where there is a

restricted budget the client has prioritised his sections of track for replacement andgraded his track into sections. The bad sections are renewed, but to a quality expectedof a main line with the balance being completed as funds became available


2/5

The risks of using a side insertion method are well known but to list a few,

1. Difficult to distribute sleepers along the track.2. Having to distribute in high fill and in cuttings3. Clutter of work on double track as old and new sleepers come out the same

side4. Higher rate of supervisory staff to achieve a large quantity of input.5. Poor track surface behind and ongoing problems causing future speed

restrictions6. Many sections will have less than required ballast under the sleeper7. Lateral stability problems if more ballast not added8. Difficulty in getting sleeper spacing correct due to the new sleeper going into

a different location to the old. This may make life difficult in the future whentamping with high production duo tampers

9. Environmental issues created through damaging areas adjacent to the trackthrough discharge of sleepers and using areas outside the zone for access

10. If production is slower through wet weather etc, then track ahead, that is theold track requires MPM work to be ongoing. The net result of the method isMPM work to continue ahead and now extra MPM work created behind.

These are a few of the issues. It is generally assumed that when new concrete sleepersare put in place that they are given the best chance of working in the manner theywere designed. i.e. better geometry and lower maintenance.

The advantages of side insertion are

1. You do not have to break the track2. You can work between trains on and off track quickly3. Can regulate work speed to meet sleeper manufacture by ramping up gangs4. Generally no interruptions to signals

Using the track renewal machine

Although this will eliminate a number of the above problems it does have operationsissues that can increase the costs.

In general terms tracklaying machine are most effective when they have ongoingtrackremwal work. That is you have a continuous laying of over 150-200,000

sleepers.When having this number of sleepers to install your team work becomes its mostefficient and time on track becomes less and less which is what operators generallywant..For the Alliance to gain the most benefit from using the track renewal train theyshould not commence renewal until they have sufficient sleepers to have an ongoingoperation. Stop start operations will be inefficient and will not allow you to keep agood and efficient workforce.


3/5

In saying this some of the causes of additional costs should be listed for the trackrenewal

Additional operations and processes that add to the initial overall costs are

1. More welding through cuts in and out to break the track2. Lifting the track as the Pony ploughs only to 50mm below the old sleeper.

Although this has the advantage of putting ballast under the concrete sleeper tomake it more effective it does require costs to be incurred at road crossingsand fixed points

3. The requirement of extra and dedicate rolling stock4. Continuous track occupation required while working5. Interruption to signals requiring reconnection at the end of the days work

The advantages.

Most of the advantages revolve around quality, speed of installation but to list a few

1. Quality of track behind the track renewal machine allows immediate 40kmphtraffic

2. Easy to get up to full track speed from initial TSR .3. Smaller dedicated workforce concentrated on a machine4. Can eject sleepers either side and if necessary machine can also pick up old

sleepers if required5. Minimal interference with the surrounding environment6. No need to distribute sleepers as delivered daily by train7. Can work in most types of weather8. Sleeper spacing always in tolerance.

Further to the above.


4/5

What ever method you use the following needs to be further looked at andevaluated

1. Some additional welding required if Track renewal train is used. Morewelding due to cut in and fixed points

To reduce the cost and to give a more efficient weld over a Thermit it is suggested amobile FBW be introduced into the fleet. This will not only reduce costs but it canreplace any defective weld within the section at almost no extra cost

2. Safe working and Worksite Protection

This cost and method is one that requires far more attention than it has been allocated.Between safeworking and worksite protection up to 19 people are involved in thisexercise and it is costing $6-$7 a sleeper for this service. Over the life of this project

just for installation of sleepers this is a cost that is exorbitant and needs addressing.This cost for resleepering is aside from other safe working programs you have.It is strongly recommended that the Alliance looks ASAP at Electronic Protection.There are companies in Europe and the UK that have this technology, technology thatis being used in the UK and Europe and soon to be used in NSW in Australia.It is suggested that a relevant overseas company expert (known to Jim Hooker) in theUK who operates and supplies this equipment be bought out to Australia to conduct aworkshop for the benefit of the whole Alliance both north and south.It is my recommendation that this occurs within the next 2 months

3. Destressing

With the track renewal machine the main question is do you need to distress.In the operation of track renewal you are not adding or taking out rail you are putting

back the same amount of rail that you took out. If this is so then a heating operationshould be sufficient

4. Welding at the end of the days work.

I suggest that you look at rail clamps to be placed on the rail joint at the end of eachdays tracklaying using the tracklayer. This eliminates at least 2 welds per day

5 Signal Reconnection

It was outlined to me that at the end of a track occupation that 2.5 hrs is required to re-certify trackThe use of almost 2.5 hrs at the end of each day to reconnect the signals needs acloser look at and signal personnel, operations etc should get together to resolve thisinordinate waste of time

General Comment.


5/5

While appreciating that there is a possible difference in price between using the Trackrenewal Machine and Side insertion when doing this exercise the associated items notcosted into the pricing that will give long term benefits when added give a muchdifferent picture of comparisons.

The longer term costs of maintaining the track behind using side insertion are not onlyhigh but take up resources that can be used else where. Numbers between $8-$12 asleeper is being suggested and this is not surprising.It is the quality of the work that is the main issue coupled with the speed with whichthe work can be done. That is the program can be accelerated using the track renewalmachine.

To achieve the most effective result for both cost and quality the following should belooked at.

1. Shut down the second track totally and use single line running.

2. Put in place a 24 hrs track renewal operation, that is leave the tracklayer inplace and supply it with sleepers. In this way you can work wagons and lookto installing 4,500 to 5,000 sleepers in a 24 hr period.

3. This should only be done if you have ongoing work after the first 50,000 arein place. It may mean delaying the start of track renewal so a local stockpile ofsleepers can be built up.

4. The result is shorter interruption to the system less signal connections easieraccess to do difficult jobs ahead or behind and a quality of track handed overthat will give long term benefits.

Conclusion.

The idea of using insertion machines on main line at the expense of quality is notrecommended. Within a short period major work will be required on the new concretesleepers and the introduction of new ballast will be needed. As suggested abovelooking at prioritising your bad sections and renewing them first to mainlinestandard is one alternative.The other solution is to go to single line working using the track renewal train toinstall and recover sleepers over 24hr continuous periods

Documents

Memo to Alliance Members