Vendor Approval in Railways: Industry Paying Price of Incompetence of RDSO
Every item is different, would RDSO and Railway Board wake up?
Editorial Comment:
On 9 April, 2024, #Railwhispers published, “Policy Corruption: Compromising with Safety of Train Operation and Maintenance”. This important article highlighted how change in #Policy of #RDSO has impacted #vendor-approval. In instant case, issue of granting developed status without field trials to a #cable-manufacturer emerged. We earlier published a X-Thread where we mentioned how certain #KMG members are bullying #RDSO and #ZonalRailways to favour a certain #sick-company in #TRD.
The reality, as it appears is more complex than what these two cases reveal.
As part of our plan to publish a series of articles on RDSO, we had approached a recently retired senior #technical officer and a non-technical officer who has #Vigilance background to take their views on the issue of vendor development without compromising railways’ core needs of #Safety and #competitive-pricing. We wanted them to address reasons for various policy changes, why there is constant #tussle between new #vendors and #RDSO? Is RDSO always biased against new vendors and on payrolls of old established vendors? Is it true that RDSO is corrupt to the core and nothing can be done?
We keep getting several inputs in form of complaints-some cannot be published as we could not verify them. However, we took this opportunity to compile all items we received inputs on and gave to different technical officers who in their service handled more than one department-either as safety officer or as #GeneralManager or #DRM.
We have obtained important and balanced inputs which we now publish after #editorial changes to bring the true role of #RDSO and #technical-directorates of #RailwayBoard. We suggest that senior officers use this article to educate their officers on this important aspect in #RDSO and #ProductionUnits.
Need of Vendor Approval
Several #components which are used in #railways are unique, for example, #rails, #sleepers, #catenary-#contact-wires, #signaling-gear, #couplers etc. These items are made as per the specific needs of railways as they are not used elsewhere. Therefore, there is need of a specialised agency which can verify that such #products of a #vendor can meet the specified requirements of railways.
Process of Vendor Approval
Vendor Approval process of Indian Railways has three distinct components:
1st. Where the manufacturing facility of the vendor is evaluated and checked that it is free of legal encumbrances like it has clear title of land, clearances to operate industry, access to adequate electricity etc. This part of approval also looks are access to needed #technology, #plant and #machinery. There is usually a set of minimum plant and machinery that is specified by Indian Railways to manufacture an item-which is called Schedule of Technical Requirements (#STR).
2nd. This part of the #approval is #item or #component specific. Having ascertained basic manufacturing facility, in step two, IndianRailway’s units check how vendor proposes to manufacture the component. This document is called Quality Assurance Plan (#QAP). This is vendor’s declaration of how he will use his plant and machinery to stage wise manufacture the component. Practicality of #QAP is assessed first in office and then physically verified.
These two steps ensure that vendor desirous to be IndianRailway’s supplier has suitable plant and machinery, technical expertise and plan to consistently deliver high quality product.
3rd. Vendor manufactures what is called first article in terms of #IRIS standard or prototype piece. This #prototype is subjected to rigorous testing as per international (UIC, AAR, IEC, IEEE, SAE, CEN etc.), national (BIS) or RDSO standards.
Readers should note that there are product standards and there are testing standards. Standards like #ASTM typically give #testing norms. There are product #specifications like #AAR’s draft gear, IEEE/IEC/BIS standards on #transformers, #switchgear will give functional and testing requirements. If we talk about fire safety, of coaches, its testing is laid by #CENELEC (#CEN). Intention behind prototype testing is: “buyer satisfies that the approved QAP is suitable to manufacture desired quality and that the outcome of QAP is fit for purpose as specified”.
Next Step-Where Engineering-Wisdom & Judgement Lies and Where Railway Board & RDSO Failed
Next is to take very important decision-should these #prototype-tests give sufficient confidence to permit unchecked #proliferation, i.e. allow #vendor to sell without any limit or cap on supplies? This is where lies heart of the complaints.
Certain prototype tests are more rigorous than field conditions. This is in such cases, where on line failures are not frequent to give statistical confidence. Load or oscillation trials of rolling stock puts entire assembly through excitations which come from real operating conditions. Where as for probabilistic phenomenon like surge or lightning cannot deterministically tested on field. For Example- can a #surge-arrester be put on #field-trial and can we trust a field trial? No, in such cases #laboratory induced #trials are more suitable. #Switches are another examples, where endurance cycles of thousands to millions are more rigorous than real conditions.
Traditional Way-Where Problem Lies
In a blanket manner, Indian Railways traditionally used to put all new vendors through a two step process (in some-it was three step process). The new #vendor entered at lower of the two stages, called #Part-II or #developmental stage. Here the vendor is not permitted to take bulk orders-they cannot take not more than 20% of the ordered quantity in a given tender.
In essence, by this two stage process, Indian Railways tests vendor’s ability to consistently manufacture to desired quality before vendor can supply without restrictions. This stage actually tests for the resilience of the #QAP and #management. Only after certain numbers of item completed certain length of service could, the vendor be upgraded to #Part-1 or approved status, that he is allowed to supply unrestricted numbers.
Why criticism of this approach?
After the #vendor underwent #facility-verification and #QAP-approval, the vendor is required to manufacture a prototype piece which is tested. This entire process took 1-2 years.
After prototype testing is declared successful, this vendor competes to get orders from 20% earmarked quantity in various tenders. The fight is to get sufficient numbers which then have to serve for certain period before vendor got upgraded as Part-I. Whole process took 3-4 years from the day, vendor applied.
This delay was key criticism of RDSO and various Production Units. This process was successfully gamed by existing #vendors using #supervisors and #officers who were not #rotated. It is of common knowledge that the entrenched vendors pay retainership to RDSO and PU supervisors, officers to get information on the status of new entrants. They, using internal insight and access delayed few critical process steps. As entire #vendor-approval process is sequential, this meant that delay used to ripple through the complete process frustrating new entrants.
For certain items, as part of prototype testing, a limited number of new product is put on field trials before even grant of final prototype approval. For such items the #approval-process becomes even longer.
Mr. #PiyushGoyal was one minister who had tough questions for Railway officers. One of his most famous #query was on #lifts and #escalators. Why, he asked, are traditional big manufacturers not participating in railway tenders, why should railways have their detailed #specification of items which are commonly used, like #LED lights?
Knee-Jerk Reaction-Signs of Incompetence
Mr. #AKMital as #CRB forced RDSO to abandon Part-II category. This raised a crisis. Mr #Mital was right that not every item needs 2-5 year period before granting approved status. However, certain items like under #carriage items, #bearings, #load-bearing articulated members like #bogies, #draft-gears, needed additional time to get confidence on resilience of QAP and management system.
Whereas, items which are used in other sectors or commonly used items like LED lamps, lifts, escalators, switchgear, fans have well laid procedures of accelerated aging tests or detailed endurance tests which give ready confidence.
However, this #policy-inconsistency led to removal Part-II category all together. When Mr Mital was confronted on who takes responsibility when bogies of running train crack, he immediately backed out. Again RDSO introduced two part vendor status but in round about manner.
Mature Response with Engineering Wisdom
Not all items are created equally. They hence need different treatment in testing and induction.
A lift or escalator can be specified better by international standards or by BIS-they have more experience than Indian Railways. But a #rail or #wheel, special #bearings, #contact-wires, #couplers would be best described by a rail specification.
There are items like #telecom cables, contact wires, catenary wires, traction motors, bearings, draft gears components which are product of long, sequential manufacturing processes. Take for example a #brake-disc of #LHB coach or telecom cables or contact wire or traction motor-four very different items of four different directorates of RDSO how a successful design of these will perform will depend on how well was it manufactured.
A #cable (#signal, #telecom or #power) has outside insulation which should be resistant to weather and usage. These cables are manufactured in long lengths of 100s or 1000s of metres in one go. A new cable would look beautiful, however, a small patch of few millimetre length in a 1000 metre length can become cause of failure. This cannot be tested during prototype tests. Small inconsistency in production say power failure in curing can lead to a failure in field. Maximum number of failures of signalling system occur because of communication failure. Preponderance of these failures lead to short cuts in train running. Root cause is poor manufacturing quality of the component.
Same problems are seen in contact and catenary wire manufacturing.
If we take a #traction-motor, they have very elaborate insulation scheme which needs long cycles of curing. A traction motor is usually mistaken with fan motors or juicer-mixer motors used in our homes and which do not take high #electrical, #mechanical and #thermal stresses. These curing cycles are very sensitive to time, temperature and moisture, small interruption of power, wrong handling in movement while being cured will not lead to outright failure but lead to premature failure. These can not be detected in routine acceptance tests.
For such products there is no alternative to field trials which validates manufacturing process and management systems.
However, items like #relays, #switches, #master-controllers, #brake-control-valves, #switchgear, #surge-arrestors get tested best with electrical and mechanical endurance. Many such items are also used in mining, power and domestic applications. These products do not need field proving in general-endurance and prototype testing in labs are more than sufficient. These sectors being very large themselves have very rich experience.
#Electrical-components like switchgear and surge arrestors, can best be tested in labs as test conditions are more severe than they encounter in field use. This is design philosophy of power equipment. Surge phenomenon is probabilistic not deterministic which is required for getting confidence that design is as per requirements. However, testing as per international norms is must. Statistically, field testing can not really stress the power equipment to the levels which laboratory testing subject them to.
In #transformers, which are static equipment, a manufacturer with experience of manufacturing power transformers for power utilities can be trusted for manufacturing consistency. Product design can be proven by detailed tests prescribed by international and national standards with railway customisation. After first article testing, manufactured by such experienced agency, Indian Railways can safely induct these products.
What about electronic and software controlled products?
Unlike popular belief, #software controlled electronic items need not just validation in labs, they need to be proven out in field. Especially software controlled equipment like #signalling-systems,#power-converters of #rolling-stock, #SCADA.
RDSO rightly follow careful, conservative approach to approval of items like #TCAS, #MSDAC, #SSI. But same RDSO takes shortcut for item like #SCADA. It is not clear how same class of equipment is dealt differently by #Signal and #TI directorates? Further, there are detailed guidelines of government on using trusted products from trusted manufacturers. Now all software controlled electronic equipment for Indian Railways are procured by electrical and by signal & telecom departments, both have only laid perfunctory guidelines to weed untrusted vendors.
Our Verdict
We received over past 5 years #complaints about #telecom-cables, #locomotive/#EMU-cables, #switchgear of #TRD, #SCADA, #contact-wires, #transformers, #Pantographs, #brake-discs of #LHB-coaches, #coupler of #wagons, #bogie-frames, #thermit portion.
Following is view of panel of experts:
Items not requiring field proving: Switchgear, transformers of TRD-provided rigorous endurance tests and tests as per power sector norms are conducted.
Items requiring field trials and repeat consistency type tests: Brake discs of LHB coaches, couplers for wagons, contact wires, pantographs, SCADA, bogie frames, power converters, signal gear with software.
Items where manufacturer’s trustworthiness to be ascertained: programmable controls on trains, signaling eqiuipment having software, SCADA, Protection Relays of TRD.
One expert sent following message:
“IR engineers should be clear about purpose of trials-is it to prove design or manufacturing consistency. Most of the times it is because of lack of understanding of this difference, that leads to railway engineers not able to stand to the ministers and explain with confidence.”
This officer further opined: Mr #Goyal was open to listen to counter views and support railway engineers, but #BoardMembers and their #PEDs, #EDs lacked appreciation of their items which should have been backed by sound engineering wisdom.
In view of the above, it is difficult to take the letters we quoted below in X-Thread at their #face-value as even the concerned #directorates or RDSO and Railway Board have consistently shown lack of understanding of the technologically driven decision making. It is time that #RDSO and #Technical Directorates of #RailwayBoard understand that each product is different-one cannot treat a brake disc and TCAS in identical manner.
Railway Engineering Directorates in RDSO and Railway Board are getting mocked because of their inability to confidently deal such matters. Not every item needs field proving, not every item needs RDSO specification.
As we said, every item is different. Would #RDSO and #RailwayBoard wake up?
Practically a big part of #vendor-management has been taken over by the #Stores-directorate. Stores should concern itself with tendering procedures, but they have entered in domain of engineering-impacting decisions on rate of proliferation in system. This has led to system already weak due to excessive vendor interference to the verge of collapse.
Are there #engineers with #credibility, #confidence and #understanding of their #domain who can balance interest of #railway-safety with expectations of faster product approval?