) + 6,552 (Text) + 5 * 250 (Figures) = 8,010 Words. 36 Submittal Date: July 31, 2017 37 38 39 DRAFT —Preliminary Use Only (TRB_Workstudy_020.doc) Page 2 of 23 1 ABSTRACT 2 The eight-step framework consisting of organization , procedure, personnel, time study, rate analysis, 3 utilization analysis, rightsizing, and benchmarking is used to understand and improve productivity and 4 efficiency of railroad cyclical curve rail replacem ent processes at a major Northeastern commuter 5 railroad. The Railroad is organized into eight geo graphical maintenance subdivisions supplemented by 6 systemwide track gangs performing capital replaceme nt and reconstruction work. Curve rail 7 replacement work under continuous track outage in c atenary electrified territory requires thirty-four 8 distinct steps and eleven machines types. Normally one operator is assigned per machine. Laggers and 9 spike pullers are slowest and sets work pace. Gang can replace about fifteen linear rail feet per min ute if 10 extra machines are provided to allow operations at a robust and steady average rate. Root cause of lo w 11 machine utilization in this setting are the daily s etup/preparation and tear down burden, and mobiliza tion 12 and demobilization at each site. Vacation and legi timate personnel unavailability drives requirements 13 for spare employees, requiring 61 heads to fully st aff the 45-position gang. Three major 14 recommendations result from this study: (1) conside r task-specialized gangs to ensure optimal machine 15 and personnel mix; (2) plan cyclical curve rail rep lacement sequentially to improve machine utilizatio n; 16 (3) consider establishing extra lists based on craf t rather than providing coverage within each gang. 17 18 DRAFT —Preliminary Use Only (TRB_Workstudy_020.doc) Page 3 of 23 1 INTRODUCTION 2 This paper describes a structured eight-step framew ork for understanding and improving the 3 productivity and efficiency of railroad maintenance or capital reconstruction processes at a detailed 4 level. It is applied to cyclical curve rail replac ement task, as a case study of utilizing this frame work, 5 and also serves as a primer for railway engineering and management students to achieve a better 6 understanding of how railroad maintenance is actual ly performed in a busy suburban environment. 7 8 The work study effort aims to provide a detailed un derstanding of each procedural step required to 9 perform the activity, enumerate all constraints and likely field conditions-then, only when that 10 knowledge is obtained, we analyze resource requirem ents and asset deployment to optimize the process 11 to maximize productivity and improve efficiency in ways that are feasible and implementable, without 12 violating constraints relating to existing field op erations. 13 14 Productivity means different things to different pe ople. In this paper, we are looking at process 15 efficiency—essentially scheduling and sequencing of work assignments to maximize work output within 16 given constraints by maximizing utilization of reso urces (equipment, manpower, track outage, and 17 materials) and by varying inputs, minimizing resour ce idle time, avoiding duplicative work, and 18 parallelizing processes where possible. This paper does NOT examine cost-efficiency through 19 restructuring labour agreements, contracting out, o r other variations on that theme which involves 20 paying less money for the same work. Point is here to work smarter to do more, and not to work 21 cheaper or harder. 22 23 LITERANTURE REVIEW 24 Efficiency studies are rarely published. Productiv ity studies typically relate to one very specific s et of 25 circumstances and sometimes relate to one-off solut ions that happen to work. Many work studies are 26 also considered proprietary to sponsor, as private firms rely on production process advantages to 27 compete in the marketplace. Restructuring literant ure is commonplace (e.g. ( 1-3) are typical), but they 28 rarely dive into specifics of exactly what was done operationally, and the work of corporate turn-arou nd 29 artists often relate to realizing value within an i nherently profitable underlying business process by 30 sizing inputs and outputs appropriately (e.g. shedd ing unprofitable lines of business, renegotiating l eases 31 or labour contracts) or through creative financing, rather than making operational process improvement s. 32 33 However, famous productivity studies have been publ ished (e.g. ( 4)), with generalized conclusions 34 helpful as organizational management theory relatin g to typical business processes in large firms, but do 35 not relate specifically to railroad maintenance pro cesses. Much of this work (e.g. discussed in ( 5)) relate 36 to controlled factory environments where task, tool ing, constraints, and resourcing do not vary on day to 37 day basis. When new production lines are set up, mu ch work is required in fine-tuning it prior to 38 achieving optimal outputs. This differs significan tly from challenges faced by track maintenance 39 supervisors. It is helpful to think of suburban ra ilroad maintenance as a production line many miles 40 long, multiple tracks wide, and has trains running though every half hour or less—all while 41 infrastructure production is ongoing between trains . 42 43 F.W. Taylor is considered a pioneer in this field; the eight-step framework can be considered an 44 adaptation (and extension) of principles espoused i n his treatise ( 6). However, present work differs 45 significantly from classical Taylorism by recognizi ng explicitly that efficiency innovations depend on 46 teams of employees willing to collaborate, test, an d carry out proposed improvements in processes. 47 DRAFT —Preliminary Use Only (TRB_Workstudy_020.doc) Page 4 of 23 Ideas that may be theoretically efficient, but caus e operational problems or difficulties in team 1 dynamics, are deemed infeasible and not explored fu rther. 2 3 Standard railway engineering textbooks ( 7,8) usually have chapters dealing with engineering ec onomy, 4 work planning, and work processes. These materials often describe processes without providing 5 empirical data on production rates at sufficient le vel of granularity and detail to determine resource 6 requirements or production line queuing dynamics; a ggregate production rates quoted and means and 7 methods described can be unsuitable, inapplicable, or may require substantial modification to adapt to 8 busy electrified suburban environments. These data were updated somewhat in recent American 9 Railway Engineering & Maintenance-of-Way Associatio n (AREMA) manuals ( 9), but focus continue to 10 be single-track un-electrified mainlines. By far b est resource on cyclical track production work proc ess 11 is actually training manuals intended for track gan g foremen and supervisors ( 10 ), although regrettably 12 this was a private publication and not widely avail able. Interestingly some great sources for track 13 maintenance processes turn out to be documentaries (11) and amateur videos ( 12,24 ) of track gangs at 14 work. 15 16 With this background, this paper describes cyclical curve rail replacement process at a high level and 17 show how they might be optimized using formal techn iques. 18 19 METHODS: THE EIGHT STEP FRAMEWORK (THEORY ) 20 Basic eight-step framework consists of following st eps: 21 22 1. Roles, responsibilities, and organization 23 2. Work process and procedure 24 3. Current personnel assignment 25 4. Time study 26 5. Production rate matching analysis 27 6. Schedule and utilization analysis 28 7. Rightsizing 29 8. Benchmarking 30 31 Details of each step follows. 32 33 Step 1: Roles, Responsibilities, and Organization 34 When studying production processes, roles and respo nsibilities of each level, title, craft, subdivisio n, and 35 department must be understood. In production, typi cally titles are organized along craft lines, with clear 36 lines of accountability and promotional opportuniti es within each craft, but most work tasks requiring 37 coordination and joint planning amongst different c rafts. Existing labour agreements can reveal what 38 prevailing constraints are and their rationale (e.g . different levels of skills, pay, terms of employm ent, 39 local labour market subtleties, or historical reaso ns). It is also important to understand scope of ea ch 40 group within the organization—sometimes geographica l, or maybe organized along business sectors or 41 other arbitrary jurisdiction. Maps of the territor y (22 ), and organizational charts ( 15 ) of relevant 42 departments are excellent tools for this step. 43 44 Step 2: Work Process or Procedure 45 Typical railroad industry production processes are documented at varying levels of detail. Extremely 46 precise and technical standards and requirements ar e common (e.g. ( 26 )), but these are often engineering 47 specifications to be met in finished products ( 17 ), rather than descriptions of required work steps to 48 achieve these standards. Prescriptive procedures d esigned to ensure safe operations, like rules defin ing 49 how to take track segment out of service ( 19 ), or prohibiting certain employee behaviours, are also 50 customary. Individual owners’ manuals detailing te chnical steps necessary to operate and service each 51 DRAFT —Preliminary Use Only (TRB_Workstudy_020.doc) Page 5 of 23 machine or component ( 18 ,25 ) are usually available. Higher level project scop es together with design 1 drawings can sometimes be found for specific projec ts, and project documents may include descriptions 2 of means and methods—however, this is unlikely for cyclical program work, to restore infrastructure to 3 as-built condition or meet latest standards, rather than to additional capabilities or new infrastruct ure. 4 5 Often missing in this mound of documentation is ste pwise descriptions of how to accomplish specific 6 tasks—normally taught as on-the-job training, and p art of the mystery of the craft. When interviewing 7 subject matter experts, they often state, “it depen ds on the situation.” Goal of this step is to enum erate 8 high level work processes, with sufficient detail t o distinguish between situations that significantly affect 9 resourcing, work pace, or sequencing, without divin g into every plausible scenario and covering each 10 technical eventuality. 11 12 Classic process mapping tools like swimlane charts (16 ) can be utilized to determine procedural 13 dependencies, especially amongst different departme nts or workgroups that must support each other to 14 ensure smooth work process. 15 16 Step 3: Current Personnel Assignment 17 Budgeting or administrative systems showing authori zed positions, daily timecards, work order systems, 18 and punch in/out records is a good place to start u nderstanding existing personnel assignment. 19 However, they often focus on administrative needs o f keeping individuals accountable for hours worked 20 and generally don’t capture detailed relationships between headcount and procedural steps performed, 21 especially amongst substitutable/relief/mobile pers onnel. In railway environments, assignment sheets 22 are usually issued each morning listing available p ersonnel, equipment/workstation/location/gang 23 allocation, and tasks assignment. In some locales, this “sheet” may actually be moving magnets on 24 whiteboards, or handwritten symbols on chalkboards. Obtaining copies (or photos) of this sheet can 25 help determine assignments (e.g. Figure 1(a)). Fie ld observations that day can then note what work is 26 being performed by each named individual, which may vary over course of the day. Performing 27 observations over number of days where gang work as signment is similar provides an aggregate 28 “typical” picture of personnel assignment within ga ng for that task. Clarification and casual 29 conversations with foremen or supervision can yield details (often not shown on administrative 30 documentation) necessary to understand the entire o peration. During observations, “minimum operable 31 team” for each procedural task should be determined . This number is often observable when gang is 32 short-staffed. Typical output for this step, shown as stick-figure diagrams, is given in ( 10 ). 33 34 Step 4: Time Study/Production Rate (or Work Pace) M easurement 35 Classical methodology (e.g. described in ( 5,6), etc.) can be followed for this step, utilizing s topwatches, 36 clicker-counters, and clipboards to keep track of p roduction rates. Each discrete part of work proced ure 37 should be timed separately, and outputs measured in terms of minimum countable units. For trackwork, 38 it is convenient to count crossties or fasteners in stalled; where length measurements are required, 39 crossties is convenient for tracking distance (edge of one tie, to same edge on next tie = 19½” in woo d 40 tie territory). If necessary, marking chalk, surve y strings, measuring wheels, and GPS technology can be 41 utilized to supplement manual counting. In our exp erience, due to hazardous nature of railroad rights - 42 of-way with active adjacent high-speed tracks, we f ound simpler data recording technologies (i.e. pen & 43 paper) are safer and less likely to divert attentio n from train and machine movements. 44 45 Time-of-day should always be noted when timing each step, to allow later analyses of waiting time (for 46 other processes to complete) prior to starting work . We collected sample data every 1~2 or every five 47 minutes in this study, measuring average work pace but also production rate variability due to random 48 DRAFT —Preliminary Use Only (TRB_Workstudy_020.doc) Page 6 of 23 field conditions. If unusual conditions arise (e.g . machine workhead jams, requiring operators to sto p 1 work and troubleshoot), time when continuous proces s stopped and when process resumed was 2 recorded, along with reasons for delay (Figure 1(b) ). Allocation of time to different activities and 3 theoretically possible production rates could thus be calculated. 4 5 Step 5: Production Rate Matching Analysis 6 Railroad is a linear production environment. Machi nes generally cannot leapfrog each other (except by 7 “bumping” along, where front machine(s) would skip a fraction of work, allowing rear machine(s) to 8 fill-in incomplete pieces), and tasks cannot be per formed out-of-order since previous step is generall y 9 prerequisite for next. In this environment, with c onstraint that most employees arrive and leave work site 10 together, work rate and efficiency of entire proces s is limited by slowest step along the production l ine. 11 (cf. maximum end-to-end throughput of double-track railways under current-of-traffic rules is limited by 12 longest signal block.) Goal is therefore to identi fy such “bottleneck” processes and add parallel cap acity 13 or advanced machines therein, to achieve throughput improvements in the entire production line. 14 Alternatively, if bottlenecks prove impossible to s peed up, other processes could be derated by having 15 resources unassigned until their rates match the sl owest step. General goal here is to minimize idle time 16 within production cycle. 17 18 Step 6: Schedule and Utilization Analysis 19 Railroad is a field production environment. All pr oduction “lines” must be mobile: set-up from scratc h 20 when job starts, and put away properly when job is done. This step concerns analyses of time taken as 21 each shift begins, to get production moving at full capacity, and conversely to shut down and immobili ze 22 all machines at shift’s end. Another related issue is time taken to set-up upon arrival at site, and 23 dismantling when work is complete. Typically, both issues can be examined by enumerating daily 24 production schedules—by fractionating time from rep orting for duty to punching out at day’s end into 25 broad categories like productive work, travel, wait ing to start work (or waiting after finishing), and 26 overhead activities like daily machine inspections, gathering supplies, fueling, contractually-mandate d 27 comfort breaks, etc. Actual categories used can be somewhat flexible, but should always include a 28 category representing idle time to be minimized (e. g. waiting to start—ready to work but not actually 29 engaged in production), and also a category represe nting those parts of overhead that could be 30 influenced by changing work location sequencing (e. g. travel to/from job site). For those with train 31 scheduling background, these two categories are ana logous to terminal dwell time (waiting to start), a nd 32 deadheading (moving to & from work site). 33 34 To understand those issues quantitatively (and to i dentify areas likely to yield improvements), utiliz ation 35 statistics can be computed, i.e. productive hours a s fraction of total hours. For track work, this is 36 typically examined at machine level (since track ma chines can be expensive, goal is to maximize 37 utilization where possible), operator level (machin es might be specialized to one task, whereas operat ors 38 aren’t necessarily so), and also workgroup level (l arger gangs can be split into smaller workgroups an d 39 work separately if certain parts of gang are consis tently underutilized). Classic construction proj ect 40 management tools like Gnatt charts (see, e.g. ( 20 )) can be used to identify critical processes and a ny 41 possible process parallelism that isn’t currently b eing exploited to improve production. 42 43 Step 7: Rightsizing 44 In this context, “rightsizing” is not an excuse to reduce budget. It is resource assignment based on (a) 45 optimal work rate derived in Step 5 (to minimize wi thin-production idle time) and (b) necessary 46 schedule and work plan determined in Step 6 (to max imize utilization and minimize set-up/teardown 47 idle time) to create future staffing plans that can properly execute work scope without undue delay bu t 48 DRAFT —Preliminary Use Only (TRB_Workstudy_020.doc) Page 7 of 23 also without extraneous resources. Contingencies a re also determined here, e.g., if extra machines ar e 1 needed to “protect” critical steps that could cause hiccups or severe delays, or if extra personnel wi th 2 specific skillsets are needed in case key staff are sick or otherwise unavailable. Required size of 3 contingency personnel could be thought of as “extra board” (e.g. discussed in ( 14 )) or “spare list”, and 4 proper resourcing levels could be determined using probabilistic binomial methods where the required 5 coverage (in terms of probability of “stockout” eve nts) can be selected based on the criticality of th e 6 class of personnel to the overall efficiency of the production line, and balanced against the cost of 7 carrying spares. Other overhead or non-operational needs for personnel should also be considered at t his 8 stage; typical overhead personnel includes resident mechanics who might be needed to ensure machines 9 are functioning, safety (e.g. adjacent track flagge rs), other supervisory or management personnel, and 10 instructor and student personnel who are required t o ensure the continued technical viability of the g ang 11 (i.e. to ensure that craft skills are retained as e xperienced personnel retire, as-in succession plann ing.) 12 13 Step 8: Benchmarking 14 This is often the eight-step framework’s least usef ul step, for two very basic reasons: (a) complex tr ack 15 maintenance processes are usually subject to local constraints, all of which would have been discovere d 16 and documented in prior steps; it will be difficult to locate comparable situations, limiting usefulne ss of 17 benchmarking to higher level performance indicators (see, e.g. ( 21 ), although in many cases subtle 18 differences in measurement definitions might limit usefulness and comparability also), and (b) where 19 comparable processes are found, e.g. via worldwide searches or management peer-to-peer industry 20 benchmarking organizations, incentives for organiza tional leaders to present their best statistics and /or 21 idealized case studies are tremendous, rendering re sults less-than-useful in real world conditions. 22 23 Two situations exist where benchmarking is invaluab le: (a) to gather fresh ideas on how existing 24 processes can be incrementally improved—great deal of efforts must be expended in adapting “foreign” 25 processes to prevailing constraints by process spec ialists, including a locally acceptable path to be 26 charted out for getting from where we are now to wh ere we want to be, and (b) in the limited case of 27 industry-standard subprocesses where, after benchma rking reviews, many organizations were found to 28 employ basically the same technology under virtuall y identical circumstances, resourcing levels and 29 work rate could be directly compared and benchmarke d for that subprocess only (good example of this 30 is Thermit welding processes used to join continuou s welded rail (CWR)). 31 32 (TRB_Workstudy_020.doc) Page 8 of 23 (a) (b) (c) Track dept. Cyclical Program Work Maintenance Subdivisions Electric Traction Signal & Communication Track Production Subdivisions (1-8) Supervisors Track Foremen Machine Operators Trackworkers MOW Equipment Supervisors Shop Foremen Mechanics Supervisors Track Foremen Machine Operators Trackworkers Qualified Welders Welding Foremen Transportation MOW Materials Storehouse Material Foremen Clerks Northeastern Suburban Railroad Special Projects Contractor(s) Work Platform Rail Vac CWR Train Catenary Linemen Signal Maintainers Engineer Conductor Brakeman Structures dept. B&B Mechanics Support depts. Supporting units FIGURE 1 Tools of the trade: (a) “morning sheet”; (b) data collection instrument; (c) organizational chart sh owing departments involved in Track Production. DRAFT —Preliminary Use Only (TRB_Workstudy_020.doc) Page 9 of 23 1 RESULTS : APPLICATION TO CURVE RAIL REPLACEMENT (P RACTICE ) 2 Each curve in railroad track has a balancing speed when lateral forces required to change train’s trav el 3 direction is exactly balanced by the component of g ravitational force parallel to carbody floor (due t o 4 elevation of outside rail in the track structure). Typically, by design, balancing speed is lower tha n 5 curve’s maximum authorized speed, resulting in an u nderbalance. When train travels through curve 6 with underbalance, outside rail provides additional lateral forces to change train direction; during t his 7 process, outside wheel flange contacts gauge face o f outer rail, resulting in wear to outside (high) r ail. 8 In the opposite case, when heavy freight trains tra vel at below balancing speed, track elevation tends to 9 push inside wheel flange against gauge face of inne r (low) rail, resulting in accelerated wear. Curve rail 10 therefore requires maintenance or replacement more frequently than other rail (for detailed explanatio n 11 of train dynamics and wheel-rail interface, see ( 23 )). As a case study, this section details work-stu dy 12 findings of applying eight-step framework to CWR re placement process on curve track sections at a 13 major Northeastern commuter railroad (hereinafter, “the Railroad”). 14 15 Production Track Gang, Subdivision Forces, and Supp ort Crafts 16 The Railroad, like many Class I railroads, has a de dicated track gang for performing cyclical track 17 rebuilding work (hereinafter, “Production Gang”). The gang controls its own machines, vehicles, and 18 most of its own personnel. It also mostly provides its own support functions, including track materie l 19 delivery to work site from a centralized material d epot, and adjacent-track flagging. 20 21 Production Gang relies on local maintenance “subdiv ision” forces for certain specific functions. The 22 gang has no rail welders, thus relies on local subd ivision for all welding tasks. The gang has no rot ary 23 dump trucks or ballast cars, and relies on subdivis ion or Transportation’s Train & Engine (T&E) 24 employees to deliver stone. Gang has no CWR train and relies on outside contractors working with 25 T&E employees to deliver CWR. Finally, gang doesn’ t control larger or more specialized machines like 26 Continuous Work Platform (CWP), Loram rail vac, rai l grinder, undercutter, etc., although CWP support 27 is available on request if requested. Production G ang does have full surfacing capabilities including 28 production tampers, ballast regulators, and dynamic track stabilizers. Gang doesn’t control Mechanics 29 assigned to repair its track machines, although nor mally one dedicated Mechanic is assigned to travel 30 with the gang. 31 32 The Railroad’s track function is organizationally d ivided into Maintenance, Program Work, and 33 Engineering with senior officers overseeing team of managers and engineers responsible for each area. 34 Production falls under the Program Work area, and P roduction Gang is overseen by a Supervisor and 35 two Assistant Supervisors, who occupy the highest t itle within agreement ranks. They are responsible 36 for job planning, quality, and oversee a team of Fo remen that run the job site. Foremen in turn are 37 responsible for safety, coordinating site work, and running the group of Track Workers, Machine 38 Operators, and other skilled crafts assigned to the m. To the extent that support is necessary from Po wer, 39 Signal, and Structure depts., Third Railmen, Catena ry Linemen, Signal Maintainers, and Bridge & 40 Building Mechanics report to their own Foremen, alt hough Foremen from other depts. are not normally 41 on-site. 42 43 Track maintenance responsibilities on the Railroad are divided geographically into eight subdivisions, 44 each having its own Supervisor and Assistant Superv isor. Subdivisions have Track Foremen and Track 45 Workers assigned to perform routine inspection and spot maintenance work. Larger Subdivisions also 46 have Welding Foreman and Welders assigned to perfor m specialized work. Each subdivision is 47 responsible for between 20 and 150 miles of mainlin e tracks, with smaller subdivisions also responsibl e 48 DRAFT —Preliminary Use Only (TRB_Workstudy_020.doc) Page 10 of 23 for major yards or terminals. Figure 1(c) shows si mplified organizational chart summaring these 1 relationships. 2 3 Thirty-Four Steps and Eleven Machines to Change Cur ve Rail 4 Changing out curve rail under continuous track outa ge in catenary electrified territory (together with 5 fastener upgrade from cut spike to Pandrol clip) co nsists of basic steps shown in Figure 2(a). Pictur es 6 for some procedural steps are shown in Figure 3. 7 8 In essence, process starts with preparatory work in cluding planning, site survey, material delivery, a nd 9 removing all signal and power installations from th e track itself. Once equipment and trackmen arrive 10 on site, first Grove crane are used to move new rai l to exact location to be installed, and new tie pl ates 11 are delivered, one per crib (i.e. space between adj acent ties). Old rail is unfastened (i.e. rail anc hors and 12 cut spikes removed and picked up by scrap machine), then removed (threaded out) by crane. 13 14 Ties are prepared to receive new fastening system a nd rail: first old tie plates are removed, then woo den 15 plugs are inserted into square holes (where spikes were) and tamped down. Adzer/cribber machine then 16 adzes ties (i.e. cut sideways with rotating blades) to provide flat surface. Replacement (new) tie pl ates 17 are put into position, aligned, and rail is threade d in on top of it. Some adjustments may be needed (as 18 plates are not yet fastened down), and then junior tamper tamps (i.e. vibrate and shove with heavy met al 19 workheads to force ballast from the crib beneath th e tie, thereby causing ties to move upwards) ties u p to 20 rail position. 21 22 Two rails are gauged (measured with gauging rod and adjusted by teams of Trackworkers using lining 23 bars) to ensure they are exactly 4’8½” apart. Pand rol plates are manually spiked down (with spike 24 maul) every eight ties to retain gauge, then holes drilled into ties with quaddrill. Lagger is used t o lag 25 each hole in turn; all four lags are installed on e ach tie plate in curve rail segments. Prior to adj usting 26 rail temperature, a few Pandrol clips are set but n ot fully fastened. When rail is below neutral 27 temperature, rail heater is used to heat rail up to correct temperature, and rail encouraged to expand to 28 proper length by tapping on plates with spike maul. When rail is at proper length, Pandrol clips are fully 29 fastened to prevent further movement. 30 31 Foreman and Supervisor then conducts quality check prior to turning completed track over to Power 32 dept., who measures trolley wire height above rail and adjusts the catenary accordingly. Signal dept. 33 then re-installs impedance bonds (required to separ ate track circuits while allowing traction return 34 current to return to substations), connects track c ircuits and cab signal system to new rail (unrustin g new 35 rail as necessary), and tests the entire system pri or to allowing track back in service. As time perm its, 36 machines and track workers return to site to comple te scrap material removal (temporarily stored on th e 37 wayside). Stick-figure representation of this proc ess together with required machines and typical 38 manpower is shown in Figure 4. 39 40 (TRB_Workstudy_020.doc) Page 11 of 23 (a) 1. Pre-work inspection 2. Marking out 3. Remove track from service 4. Prepare work site (S)(P) 5. Unload rail nearby [Figure 3(a)] 6. Bulk material delivery 7. Drag rail into place 8. Drop new tie plates 9. Remove rail anchors 10. Remove spikes [Figure 3(b)] 11. Pick up scrap 12. Thread rail out [Figure 3(c)] 13. Remove tie plates 14. Plug ties [Figure 3(d)] 15. Tamp down tie plugs 16. Clean out crib and adze ties 17. Position replacement tie plates 18. Align new plates [Figure 3(e)] 19. Thread rail in 20. Adjust tie plates 21. Tamp ties up to rail [Figure 3(f)] 22. Drop Pandrol clips 23. Gauge rail [Figure 3(g)] 24. Drill holes 25. Lag plates to tie [Figure 3(h)] 26. Set Pandrol clips 27. Adjust rail temperature [Figure 3(j)] 28. Fasten Pandrol clips 29. Quality inspection (Track dept.) 30. Adjust catenary clearance (P) 31. Reinstall impedance bonds and track circuit connections (S) 32. Test and re-qualify track for service (S) 33. Place track in service 34. Collect scrap rail and spike plates Note: (S) = Signal dept., (P) = Power dept.; Correspondin g illustrative figure shown in square brackets. (b) Work Step Equipment Foremen Operators Trackwrkrs We lders Fuel Machines 1 Fuel Truck 1 1 – Drag Rail 2 Grove Cranes 1 2 2 Deliver Tie Plates 1 Logging Truck – 2 – Drop Tie Plates 1 Motor Cart, 1 Flat Cart 1 1 2 Remove Rail Anchors – – 1 Remove Spikes 1 Spike Puller – 1 – Pick Up Scrap 1 Scrap Machine – 1 – Empty Scrap Bin 1 Logging Truck – 2 – Unbolt Existing Rail – – 1 Thread Rail Out 1 Grove Crane 1 1 1 1+1* Cut Old Rail – – – 1+1* Remove Tie Plates – – 1 Plug Ties – – 1 Tamp Down Plugs – – 1 Adze/Crib 1 Adzer/ Cribber – 1 – Lay New Tie Plates 1 – 2 Gauge Tie Plates 1 Plate Gauger – – 2 Joint Bar to Existing Rail – – 2 Thread Rail In 1 Grove Crane 1 1 2 Joint Bar to Old Rail – – 2 Tamping Ties to Rail 1 Junior Tamper – 1 – Drop Pandrol Clips 1 Clip Cart – – 1 Adjust Plates – – 1 Gauge Rail 1 Push Cart 1 – 4 Drill Holes 1 Quaddrill 1 1 – Lag Plates to Tie 1 Lagger – 1 – Set Pandrol Clips – – 1 Adjust Rail Temp. 1 Rail Heater 1 1 2 Fasten Pandrol Clips 1 Clip Machine – 1 2 * Note: “1+1” indicates 1 Qualified Welder and 1 Welding Fo reman is required. FIGURE 2 Curve rail replacement: (a) work procedure; (b) m inimum operable manpower by craft in each step. (TRB_Workstudy_020.doc) Page 12 of 23 (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (f) (g) (h) (j) FIGURE 3 Work in progress: (a) unloading rail; (b) spike puller; (c) threading rail out; (d) plugging ties; (e) plate gauger; (f) junior tamper; (g) rail gaugi ng; (h) lagger; (j) rail heater. Due to space considerations various intermediate steps not shown . Photo 2(a) courtesy of Jay Wendt. (TRB_Workstudy_020.doc) Page 13 of 23 Grove Crane Grove Crane Spike Puller Spike Puller Scrap Machine Anchor Remover Motor Cart Flat Cart Qualified Welder Welding Foreman Adzer/Cribber Plate Thrower Plugger Plug Tamper Plate Retriever Plate Layer Plate Gauger Grove Crane Junior Tamper Clip Cart Plate Adjuster Alignment Adjuster Rail Gauger, Spiker Spike Cart Quad Drill Quad Drill Lagger Lagger Quality Unbinding Gang Rail Heater Clipping Gang FIGURE 4 Schematic representation of curve rail gang with typical manning levels and machine assignments. Legend Trackworkers Machine Operator Foreman Supervisor Direction of Gang Production DRAFT —Preliminary Use Only (TRB_Workstudy_020.doc) Page 14 of 23 1 One Operator per Machine—But the Whole Gang is a Te am 2 The Railroad operates in a busy but small and heavi ly built-up suburban territory where significant 3 constraints often exist for staging, unloading, sto rage, and vertical clearance obstructions for crane 4 operation. Because of high train volumes, it is ro utinely necessary to remove machines at short notic e, 5 vacate occupied tracks not under active reconstruct ion, to allow track space to be utilized for runnin g 6 revenue trains. For those reasons, the Railroad’s policy is to assign dedicated Machine Operators to 7 each machine leaving the Maintenance-of-Way (MOW) y ard. Unlike Class I railroads, whose track 8 gangs travel in dedicated trains equipped to unload machines from flat cars at job site, the Railroad’ s 9 machines are normally driven from MOW yards to work location, perform day’s work, then moved back 10 to yard at the workday’s end. Since all machines i dentified are required for curve rail replacement 11 activity, only variable here is duplicate machine c ounts assigned to speed up each step, discussed lat er. 12 One logical consequence of this policy is that over time is mandatory for Machine Operators; if machine - 13 qualified employee don’t wish to accept overtime as signment, they are assigned as Trackworker that 14 day, so no machines are left in limbo when schedule d tour of duty ends, and overtime begins. 15 16 Unlike Machine Operators who are captive to their m achines, Trackworkers and Foremen are mobile 17 and can be utilized throughout the day in different groups. Those at gang’s front end, who completed 18 their daily work, typically move to the gang’s rear end to assist those still working. Through traini ng 19 classes and on-the-job instruction by Foremen and s enior Trackworkers, all Trackworkers on the 20 Railroad are basically competent in performing all manual tasks required in any part of gang. Minimum 21 operable manpower shown in Figure 2(b) assumes all steps of curve rail replacement process are carried 22 out simultaneously, and work is done as an idealize d continuous process where each employee performs 23 only one role. However, it is important to note Pr oduction Gang doesn’t actually work that way, and 24 factor this into account when assessing utilization and resource assignment. 25 26 Lagger and Spike Pullers Need Time to Work 27 Figure 5(a) shows many factors affect production ra tes even in deceivingly simple tasks like dropping 28 tie plates from moving track carts. In “Front/Near ” mode, Trackworker picks up tie plates and drops i t 29 off the cart’s front end. As front-end tie plate i nventory is depleted, gang changes to “Front/Middle ” 30 mode where another Trackworker must pass plates to the first Trackworker, who tosses them overboard. 31 Whole process is reversed for plate inventory in th e cart’s rear half, but now tossing operations is m ore 32 complex because Trackworkers must drop plates preci sely between flat cart and motor, and coordinate 33 with motor cart operator to ensure proper speed is set. It is thus important to time entire work proc ess 34 through its various phases; when utilizing average rates, variability between slowest and fastest mode s 35 of operation must be considered. 36 37 Figure 5(e) shows individual variability between ex perienced and somewhat less skilled employees. 38 Spiking ties is an acquired skill. Highly skilled Trackworkers utilize windmill motions ( 27 ), allowing 39 spike maul’s weight to do most of the hard work, an d can insert one spike into new wood tie in about 1 0 40 hits. Other Trackworkers find it difficult to prec isely align spike maul with the spike, and must uti lize 41 chopping motions, requiring up to 20 hits to fully insert a spike. This further illustrates importanc e of 42 considering individual variability in work pace asw ell as average rates. 43 44 Based on each individual step’s time study results reduced down to minimum operable teams, Figure 45 5(g) shows machines with slowest natural paces are: spike puller, quaddrill, and lagger. This explain s 46 why in Figure 4’s typical Production Gang configura tion, two of each machine is provided, allowing the 47 team to work at approximately double rate. 48 (TRB_Workstudy_020.doc) Page 15 of 23 (a) 0510 15 20 25 30 35 40 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1,000 1,100 Feet per Minute Cribs Completed (Progress) Plate Distribution Production Rate Front/Near Front/Middle Rear/Middle Rear/Near (b) 0246810 12 14 16 18 20 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 Feet per Minute Cribs Completed (Progress) Spike Puller Production Rate (3 Spikes/Tie) Lead SP 6002 Quality SP 6001 (c) 0510 15 20 25 30 0 100 200 300 400 Feet per Minute Cribs Completed (Progress) Plate Gauger Production Rate (d) 010 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 0 100 200 300 400 500 Feet per Minute Cribs Completed (Progress) Rail Threading In Production Rate (e) 0510 15 20 25 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 Feet per Minute Cribs Completed (Progress) Rail Gauging Production Rate Spiker #1 Spiker #2 Spiker #3 Spiker #4 (f) 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 0 50 100 150 200 250 Feet per Minute Cribs Completed (Progress) Lagger Production Rate SM 4001 SM 4003 (g) Sample Production Rates (Ft./Min.) Work Step Machines Size (Feet) Interval Low Wt. Av g. High 2-Drop Tie Plates 1,595 1 Min. 13.2 16.4 19.1 4-Remove Spikes SP 6001, 6002 1,308 2~5 Min. 3.6 5 .9 7.7 6-Thread Rail Out CH 2201 1,179 1 Min. 29.7 45.3 6 1.0 7-Remove Tie Plates 147 <1 Min. 24.1 29.1 39.3 8-Plug Ties 233 1~2 Min. 4.1 6.2 8.5 9-Plug Tamping 225 1 Min. 7.2 9.8 13.6 10-Adzer/Cribber KA 1001 1,109 Cat. Pole 27 34 46 12-Gauge Tie Plates 641 1~2 Min. 20.5 22.1 25.6 13-Thread Rail In CH 2002 714 1 Min. 13.3 33.6 41. 7 14-Junior Tamper MJ 3002 806 1 Min. 12 15.8 20 17-Rail Gauging 678 1 Min. 7.9 9.1 14.9 18-Drill Holes TY 1205 461 2~5 Min. 5.2 6.2 7.1 19-Lag Plates to Tie SM 4001, 4003 310 2 Min. 1.9 2.3 2.7 FIGURE 5 Time study results for rail replacement processes : (a)-(f) selected individual task data; (g) summar y. (TRB_Workstudy_020.doc) Page 16 of 23 (a) 010 20 30 40 50 60 70 Production Rate (Feet per Minute) Rail Production Step Production Rates at Minimum Requirement Low Range High Range (b) 010 20 30 40 50 60 70 Production Rate (Feet per Minute) Rail Production Step Production Rates with Revised Assignment Low Range High Range (c) No. Step Curr. Assign. (Teams) Revised Assign. (Teams) Old Work Rate (Ft./Min.) New Work Rate (Ft./Min) New Machine Utiliz.* (%) 4 Remove Spike 2 3 11.8 17.7 8% 17 Gauge Rail 1 2 9.1 18.2 — 18 Quaddrill 2 3 12.4 18.6 7% 19 Lag Plates 3 4 6.9 9.2 15% * Note: ( Machine Utilization %) = (Utilized Machine Hours) ÷ (Available Machine Hours). (d) Legend Overhead Productive Work Gradient represents approxim ate probabilities or intensities of work 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 No. Step 30 45 00 15 30 45 00 15 30 45 00 15 30 45 00 15 30 45 00 15 30 45 00 15 30 45 00 15 30 45 00 15 30 45 00 15 30 45 00 15 30 45 Day One ("Prep.") Prep, Travel Obtain Outage Start up Machines 0 Fuel Machines 1 Drag Rail 2 Drop Tie Plates 3 Remove Anchors 4 Spike Puller 5 Pick Up Scrap Shut Down Machines Travel, Punch Out Back On Time 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 No. Step 30 45 00 15 30 45 00 15 30 45 00 15 30 45 00 15 30 45 00 15 30 45 00 15 30 45 00 15 30 45 00 15 30 45 00 15 30 45 00 15 30 45 Day Two Prep, Travel Obtain Outage Start up Machines 4 Spike Puller 5 Pick Up Scrap 6z Unbolt Existing Rail 6 Thread Rail Out 6a Cut & Bolt Rail 7 Remove Plates 8 Plug Ties 9 Plug Tamping 10 Adzer/Cribber 11 Place New Plates 12 Plate Gauger 13 Thread Rail In 14 Junior Tamper 15 Drop Pandrol Clips 16 Adjust Plates 17 Gauge Rail 18 Quad Drill 19 Lag Plates to Tie 20 Set Pandrol Clips Shut Down Machines Travel, Punch Out 18:00 Punch Out 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 No. Step 30 45 00 15 30 45 00 15 30 45 00 15 30 45 00 15 30 45 00 15 30 45 00 15 30 45 00 15 30 45 00 15 30 45 00 15 30 45 00 15 30 45 Day Three ("Button Up") Prep, Travel Obtain Outage Start up Machines 20 Set Pandrol Clips 21 Adjust Rail Temp. 22 Fasten Clips 18 Quad Drill 19 Lag Plates to Tie Shut Down Machines Travel, Punch Out 16:30 Punch Out Note: (d)-(f) intended to show general shape of grey area only, details not pertinent to present discussion. (e) (f) 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 No. Step Duration 30 45 00 15 30 45 00 15 30 45 00 15 30 45 00 15 30 45 00 15 30 45 00 15 30 45 00 15 30 45 00 15 30 45 00 15 30 45 00 15 30 45 Day One Prep, Travel Obtain Outage Start up Machines 0 Fuel Machines 0:30:00 1 Drag Rail 1:00:00 2 Drop Tie Plates 1:45:00 3 Remove Anchors 2:00:00 4 Spike Puller 1:45:00 5 Pick Up Scrap 2:00:00 6z Unbolt Existing Rail 0:30:00 6 Thread Rail Out 1:00:00 6a Cut & Bolt Rail 0:30:00 7 Remove Plates 1:00:00 8 Plug Ties 1:45:00 9 Plug Tamping 1:30:00 10 Adzer/Cribber 1:00:00 11 Place New Plates 1:00:00 12 Plate Gauger 1:15:00 Shut Down Machines Travel, Punch Out 18:00 Punch Out 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 No. Step Duration 30 45 00 15 30 45 00 15 30 45 00 15 30 45 00 15 30 45 00 15 30 45 00 15 30 45 00 15 30 45 00 15 30 45 00 15 30 45 00 15 30 45 Day Two Prep, Travel Obtain Outage Start up Machines 13 Thread Rail In 1:00:00 14 Junior Tamper 2:00:00 15 Drop Pandrol Clips 2:00:00 16 Adjust Plates 0:30:00 17 Gauge Rail 1:30:00 18 Quad Drill 1:30:00 19 Lag Plates to Tie 3:15:00 20 Set Pandrol Clips 1:00:00 21 Adjust Rail Temp. 1:30:00 22 Fasten Clips 1:30:00 Shut Down Machines Travel, Punch Out 18:00 Punch Out Day 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 No. Step 1030 1130 1230 1330 1430 1530 1030 1130 1230 1330 1430 1530 1030 1130 1230 1330 1430 1530 1030 1130 1230 1330 1430 1530 1030 1130 1230 1330 1430 1530 1030 1130 1230 1330 1430 1530 1030 1130 1230 1330 1430 1530 1030 1130 1230 1330 1430 1530 0 Fuel Machines 34A 36 34B 36 36 1 Drag Rail 34A 34B 36 37 2 Drop Tie Plates 34A 34B 36 37 3 Remove Anchors 34A 34B 36 37 4 Spike Puller 34A 34B 36 37 5 Pick Up Scrap 34A 34B 36 37 6z Unbolt Existing Rail 34A 34B 36 37 6 Thread Rail Out 34A 34B 36 37 6a Cut Rail 34A 34B 36 37 7 Remove Plates 34A 34B 36 37 8 Plug Ties 34A 34B 36 37 9 Plug Tamping 34A 34B 36 37 10 Adzer/Cribber 34A 34B1 34B2 34B3 36 37 11 Place New Plates 34A 34B1 34B2 34B3 36 37 12 Plate Gauger 34A 34B 36 37 37 13 Thread Rail In 34A 34B 36 37 14 Junior Tamper 34A 34B1 34B2 34B3 36 37 15 Drop Pandrol Clips 34A 34B1 34B2 34B3 36 37 16 Adjust Plates 34A1 34A2 34B1 34B2 34B3 36-1 36-2 37-1 37-2 17 Gauge Rail 34A1 34A2 34B1 34B2 34B3 36-1 36-2 37 -1 37-2 18 Quad Drill 34A1 34A2 34B1 34B2 34B3 36-1 36-2 37 -1 37-2 19 Lag Plates to Tie 34A1 34A2 34B1 34 B2 34B3 34B3 36-1 36 -2 37-1 37 -2 20 Set Pandrol Clips 34 A1 34A2 34 B1 34B2 34B3 36 -1 36-2 37 -1 37-2 21 Adjust Rail Temp. 34A1 34A2 34B1 34B2 34B3 36-1 36-2 37-1 37-2 22 Fasten Clips 34A1 34A2 34B1 34B2 34B3 36-1 36-2 37-1 37-2 (g) Overhead** Work Wait Total Traditional Plan 102:15 ( 46% ) 27:27 ( 12% ) 91:48 ( 41% ) 221:30 Pipelined Plan 53:15 (5 4% ) 18:42 ( 23% ) 27:17 ( 33% ) 99:15 Difference –49:00 (– 48%) –8:44 (–32% ) –64:30 (– 70%) –122:15 (– 55%) ** Note: Overhead includes travel to work site, machine serv icing, job preparation, and mandatory rest breaks. FIGURE 6 Process analysis for rail replacement: (a)-(b) ov erall production rates; (c) machine utilization; (d )-(f) work plan alternatives; (g) overhead, productive wo rk, and within-production wait time fractionation. (TRB_Workstudy_020.doc) Page 17 of 23 (a) Category Total Workdays Coverage Required Relief not Req’d Days in a Year 365 Rest Days –102 Holidays –10 Vacation Days –25 Sick Days –12 Personal Days –3 Training* –3 Discipline* –3 Bid Out Status* –7 Annual Total 253 –53 (21%) 200 (79%) (b) Emp. Avail. Emp. Unav. Prob. Total Prob. Days Total Days 19 0 0.0113 1% 3 3 18 1 0.0573 7% 14 17 17 2 0.1371 21% 35 52 16 3 0.2065 41% 52 104 15 4 0.2196 63% 56 160 14 5 0.1751 81% 44 204 13 6 0.1086 92% 27 232 12 7 0.0536 97% 14 245 11 8 0.0214 99% 5 251 ≤10 ≥9 0.0092 100% 2 253 (c) Nos. Position 1-19 Regular Machine Operators 20-25 Relief Machine Operators 26-27 Extra-Extra Machine Operators 28-39 Regular Trackworkers 40-42 Protect Trackworkers 43 Extra-Extra Trackworker 44 Qualified Welder 45-48 Regular Track Foremen 49-50 Extra Track Foremen 51 Extra-Extra Track Foreman 52 Welding Foreman 53 Track Machines Mechanic 54 Machine Instructor 55-57 Bus Driver, Rule 22 Flaggers 58 Protect Bus Driver & Flagger 59 Timekeeper 60-61 Assistant Supervisor, Supervisor (d) Note: This chart is generated by David M. Lane’s Binomial Distribution Calculator (http://onlinestatbook.com/2/calculators/ binomial_dist.html ). FIGURE 7 Rightsizing results: (a) relief coverage requirem ents; (b) binomial unavailability model for 19 oper ators; (c) curve rail gang roster for traditional work pla n; (d) graph of binominal distribution. Uniform Pace of About Fifteen Feet per Minute Our initial thoughts on process improvements is to minimize wait time within production cycle, by managing capacities such that all steps operate at a robust and steady average rate (i.e. near lower b ound) of faster and more variable-pace/finicky processes (e.g. threading rail in), by adding sufficient capa city to slower and more consistent processes (e.g. spike pu ller, quaddrill, lagger). Figure 6(a) shows relati ve production rates of all steps with minimum operable teams. ‘Highest reasonable pace’ was deemed to be about 15~20 linear feet of track production per minu te. However, to enable this rate, analytical results (F igure 6(b,c)) showed that dramatically more lagger capacity is required compared to typical Production Gang, to match laggers’ work pace (and to lesser extent, spike pullers’) with remaining machines. A dding new capacity also drove down lagger and spike puller fleet utilization as a whole, because same a mount of work is shared by more machines operating in parallel. Within curves, the Railroad’s track main tenance standards require each Pandrol plate to be lagged down with four lags, resulting in peaking wo rk load for these machines in curve sections. In tangent (straight) sections, only two lags are requ ired, rendering additional capacity surplus when working in other areas. Because the Railroad didn’ t have sufficient track mileage to justify a dedica ted DRAFT —Preliminary Use Only (TRB_Workstudy_020.doc) Page 18 of 23 1 year-round ‘curve rail gang’, and Production Gang m ust cover all track and tie renewal work, it was 2 determined that additional machines may not be a gr eat investment. 3 4 Increase in machine capacity could result in reduci ng typical time to install one 1,600 ft CWR string 5 from three to two days. Substantial overtime is re quired on those two days to complete work, and we 6 didn’t think continuous work at this overtime utili zation level was sustainable, prudent, or realistic at the 7 Railroad. Study effort was redirected towards find ing low machine utilization’s root causes, i.e. fin ding 8 non-work time outside of regular production cycle. 9 10 Root Cause of Low Utilization: Start Up and Tear Do wn 11 At the Railroad, two types of activities contribute to non-productive time: (1) recurring daily is tim e 12 required to prepare for work, perform service and m aintenance on track machines, load materials, trave l 13 to & from work site, and obtain track outage & powe r off (termed “daily overhead”); (2) recurring for 14 each job is time required to start each step and ra mp up machines to full continuous capacity, and whe n 15 job is finishing, time is required to wait for all machines to complete work and shut-down production 16 line (i.e. “job overhead”). 17 18 Regarding daily overhead, existing labor agreements state track employees are entitled to short lunch 19 break, report to central locations at beginning of workday, punch-out at same location at day’s end, a nd 20 have defined tours-of-duty providing for same start time every workday and two consecutive rest days 21 per week. Numerous reasons exist for this arrangem ent relating to workforce accountability and contro l, 22 past practice, and lack of suitable reporting locat ions at work sites due to abandonment or sale of fi xed 23 field facilities inherited from predecessor railroa ds. Revenue train schedules negotiated between the 24 Railroad and funding partners constrain daily work window on mainlines to basically between 1000 and 25 1430 hours, with extension to 1600 subject to addit ional approval when required. Interaction of these 26 long-term constraints result in maximum theoretical machine (and personnel) utilization of 50% without 27 overtime, and 60% with maximum overtime. Due to na ture of these constraints (requiring negotiation 28 with both labor unions and two major funding partne rs), daily overhead is outside this study’s scope a nd 29 60% utilization should be regarded as theoretical m aximum for this exercise. 30 31 Au contraire, job overhead lies within management s hort-term control to a large extent. As typical in 32 productivity studies, production line is at peak ef ficiency when operating in continuous and repetitiv e 33 fashion. Current policy of working on one curve (u p to three 1,600 ft CWR strings, working limits of 34 ~1½ miles) at a time results in workplans requiring three days of carrying out different types of work 35 (simplified Gnatt chart in Figure 6(d)), net result being the production line never really gets going, and 36 when assessed in aggregate, up to two-thirds of all machines essentially sit idle waiting for either t heir 37 portion of process to begin, or waiting for remaind er of gang to complete their part. Even with strat egic 38 addition of machine capacities and overtime, proces s can be driven down to two-day duration (Figure 39 6(e)), but even then, much waiting-to-start and wai ting-to-be-done (i.e. white space on Gnatt charts) 40 continue to exist. 41 42 Potential solution here is to schedule curve rail r eplacement work as contiguous sequence of curves 43 between interlockings (known as “pipelined plan”, F igure 6(f)). This method is typical for track gang 44 deployment on Class I freight carriers, which work predominately in single-track territory with trains 45 detoured over other lines. On the Railroad, howeve r, revenue train scheduling requirement dictates th at 46 only one track for one signal block (interlocking t o interlocking) can be removed from service for 47 prolonged periods at any one time. Typical block s pacings are 4~12 miles, but due to the Railroad’s 48 curvaceous nature, multiple curves can be present w ithin one block. Working continuously on multiple 49 DRAFT —Preliminary Use Only (TRB_Workstudy_020.doc) Page 19 of 23 curves from west to east, gang’s frontend might hav e progressed to preparing Curve #3 by the third day , 1 whereas middle of gang would be working on Curve #2 , and rear could be buttoning-up Curve #1. On 2 days when full simultaneous work is possible, fewer parts of gang is waiting on others, and gang 3 utilization could approach 50% of the theoretical c eiling dictated by current agreements. 4 5 Based on our calculations (Figure 6(g)), block cont aining four typical curves on the Railroad totallin g 6 11,300 ft would have taken 23 workdays (221½ hours) using traditional methods, could be condensed 7 into 12 days (99¼ hours) with typical authorized ov ertime. Operational problems remaining to be 8 solved in utilizing pipelined plan include necessit y to spread out the gang over working limits of up to 9 five miles, together with normal concerns of person nel and materiel logistics, communications, 10 adequacy of supervision, safety, and delays to pass ing trains which must operate at 30 mph through the 11 entire work zone. The Railroad is currently explor ing possibility of planning consecutive curve rail 12 replacement work this way. 13 14 Extra Board Requirements Drive Gang Size 15 Rightsizing computations for gang personnel turns o ut to be fairly complex. Starting with the one- 16 operator-per-machine rule, Machine Operators are as signed. The Railroad’s track gangs are internally 17 supported, meaning all absences and otherwise unava ilable personnel must be covered by reassigning 18 other employees with appropriate qualifications fro m within the same gang, sometime resulting in 19 cascading reassignments leaving least operationally -critical position(s) uncovered. The Railroad has 20 vacation and sick leave policies largely consistent with area suburban railroads (and predecessor priv ate 21 railroads) plus features of collective bargaining p rocesses (bid out status, discipline, and training) that 22 result in probabilistic total of 21% unavailable pe rson-days requiring relief coverage (Figure 7(a)). 23 Modelling results based on random distribution of u navailability patterns (Figure 7(d)) show that to 24 achieve 100% availability on 92% of workdays for 19 Machine Operators, six extras must be carried on 25 payroll (Figure 7(b))—and because these six extras are themselves are entitled to same benefits and 26 subject to vagaries of agreement processes, additio nal two extra-extra positions are required to provi de 27 coverage for extra positions. 28 29 Trackworkers are next to be assigned. However, bec ause Trackworkers can currently cycle during the 30 day from gang’s frontend to the back (if “pipelined plan” is not utilized), fewer positions are requir ed. 31 And because unavailable Trackworkers can be covered from Machine Operator spare list, fewer extra 32 Trackworkers are needed to provide complete coverag e. To this basic gang, other workers like 33 Qualified Welders, Mechanics, and Foremen are added , together with extras where necessary. Overhead 34 positions like Instructors, Trainees, Supervision, and Adjacent Track Flaggers are then added to roste r. 35 Results show that 61 total positions are required t o staff Production Track Gang operating in traditio nal 36 curve rail mode. This result is actually three hea ds more than personnel that the Railroad currently 37 assigns to this gang, however, current practice als o calls for Welding Foreman, Welder, and Mechanic t o 38 be borrowed from local subdivision and mechanical s upport shop as needed. 39 40 One interesting insight from this exercise is exten t to which leave benefits (whether paid or unpaid, 41 positions still need to be properly covered for gan gs to work) and agreement process contribute to 42 headcount. Of 61 positions, 16 employees (or 26%) are actually relief positions (8 Machine Operators, 43 4 Trackworkers, 3 Track Foreman, and 1 Flagger; Fig ure 7(c)). We believe this staffing ramification 44 was not understood when benefits packages were orig inally negotiated by predecessor railroads more 45 than five decades prior. Net result is, on more th an half of all workdays, extra personnel could be 46 observed assisting other workers or learning to ope rate machines on site. Unlike T&E service traditio n 47 where extra board personnel are paid to stay home a nd called to protect specific assignments, spare 48 maintenance personnel actually put in full workdays at the jobsite. 49 DRAFT —Preliminary Use Only (TRB_Workstudy_020.doc) Page 20 of 23 1 Our recommendation to the Railroad is to explore es tablishing extra lists for maintenance personnel 2 solely based on craft and reporting location, rathe r than internally covered within each gang. Howeve r, 3 benefits may not be as significant as it first seem s since most locations have only 2~3 gangs reporting 4 and some locations have only one gang. If systemwi de extra list were to be established, with 5 deadheading necessary between locations to fill rel ief positions, complex crew calling systems must be 6 setup for maintenance personnel, which would involv e collective bargaining negotiations, 7 commissioning new computer systems, and implementin g new business processes. 8 9 DISCUSSION 10 Eight-step review of cyclical track program demonst rated most important area of efficiency 11 improvements is in sequencing of jobs. Rate studie s show typical machine assignments are fairly well 12 matched in terms of work pace, except for spike pul lers and laggers, which must perform extra work on 13 curves for extra fasteners needed compared to plain line. Timing studies showed 12 hours’ of 14 continuous on-track work is required to change out one 1,600 ft length of rail, assuming sequential wo rk 15 by each machine overlapping within one rail string to maximum extent feasible. Traditional method of 16 changing out curve rail under track-time-constraine d situations involves breaking required work down t o 17 three workdays of 4~6 hours of on-track time each. More efficient method could be utilized to complete 18 work in two six-hour days, but requires extra machi nes that only achieves low utilization due to natur e 19 of peaking demand within the day’s work sequence. To fundamentally improve efficiency in rail 20 replacement processes, work must be planned such th at curves within same signal block is replaced at 21 the same time and in sequence, allowing all machine s to be utilized within entire production cycle, 22 rather than working one day at a time, one curve at a time. 23 24 Sequencing of jobs is subject to external constrain ts, including major capital jobs elsewhere on-line (e.g. 25 movable bridge replacement, hurricane damage restor ation), which dictates signal blocks available for 26 rail replacement work, and overall rail replacement program dependent on curve rail existing condition s 27 and typical wear rates (which in itself is dependen t on physical characteristics of track segment, 28 operating speeds, traffic density, and traffic mix) . These interactions are complex and it may not al ways 29 be possible to work on each curve in sequence witho ut replacing some curve rails prematurely. Cost of 30 foregone materiel lifecycle versus productivity gai ns of sequentializing cyclical rail replacement cou ld 31 be subject to further research. 32 33 Whereas typical budget-driven rightsizing initiativ es might strive to assign each position to one spec ific 34 production line job, analysis herein demonstrates a many-to-one relationship exists between them. 35 “Spare” personnel is integral to keeping track gang s at full production in spite of legitimate absence s and 36 unavailable employees where they occur. Zero-based budgeting efforts should avoid “cutting to the 37 bone” and thereby placing track gangs in situations where any unavailability deeply affects entire gan g’s 38 productivity. 39 40 Compartmentalization and regionalization of commute r rail service that occurred ( 28 ) due to Northeast 41 Rail Services Act (1981) may have resulted in balka nization of track renewal functions (limiting scope 42 of each production gang geographically, versus Clas s I-style systemwide travelling gangs), consequentl y 43 rendering it impossible to develop specialized curv e rail-, yard/mini tie-, and mainline tie-gangs whe re 44 equipment and manpower is matched precisely to rout ine tasks. Consolidative economy of scale may 45 have been lost with potentially adverse consequence s in productivity. 46 47 48 DRAFT —Preliminary Use Only (TRB_Workstudy_020.doc) Page 21 of 23 1 CONCLUSION 2 Eight-step analysis framework performed well in ide ntifying root causes of potential productivity 3 constraints within curve rail cyclical replacement program. While each efficiency analysis situation is 4 different, by utilizing the eight-step approach, an alytical efforts could be targeted in areas requiri ng 5 further refinement and improvement while ensuring a ll bases are covered and that most leveraged area 6 in terms of improvement possibilities are systemati cally identified. 7 8 Based on this study, our recommendations are as fol lows: 9 10 • Consider creating specialized tie gang and curve ra il gang, to ensure optimal machine and 11 manpower resources are assigned to each gang and wo rk pace of all steps are well-matched. 12 • If deemed feasible within prevailing operational co nstraints, consider planning cyclical curve 13 replacement sequentially to improve machine utiliza tion under “pipelined” work plan. 14 • After further analysis of cost and benefits, consid er establishing extra lists for maintenance 15 personnel solely based on craft (and maybe reportin g location) rather than assigned to each gang. 16 17 Our suggestion to other railroads engaged in simila r cyclical track rehabilitation activities is to ut ilize 18 eight-step framework to determine bottleneck proces ses in their operations and generate ideas for 19 productivity improvements. We encourage others in the industry to publish results of their studies as to 20 contribute to body of knowledge, document critical processes in detail for succession planning, and 21 educate a new generation of railroaders. 22 23 24 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 25 Authors gratefully acknowledge support, assistance, and contribution of the entire Metro-North Track 26 Production Gang and MOW management. In no specific order we would like to acknowledge 27 contribution of: G.E. Hayden, D. Melillo, M. Yousse f, M. Ward, T. Warnke, V. Crawford, J. Tyler, M. 28 Coppola, G. Conklin, E. Lisowy, N. Hayward, H. Will iams, M. Michaud, A. Gallante, G. Dallinga, G. 29 Raguseo, R. Culhane, J. Kozlowski, P. Zhong, and J. E. Kesich. Responsibility for errors or omissions 30 remains with the authors. Opinions expressed or imp lied herein are solely those of the authors’ and do 31 not necessarily reflect official policies or positi ons of Metro-North Railroad, or any other organizat ions. 32 33 34 DRAFT —Preliminary Use Only (TRB_Workstudy_020.doc) Page 22 of 23 1