lFf

~ ~ ~, 1JffiJ mcm
~~
;rt ~-~~o oo~
CHAIRMAN, RAILWAY BOARD
&
EX-OFFICIO PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
MINISTRY OF RAILWAYS
NEW DELHI-11 0001

14th February, 2002

Monitoring of Equipment failures is being done at various levels in

Divisional HOs, Zonal HOs and at Board level through a series of the then CRB's
letters No. 92/0R/E&R/75/1 dated 21.4.1992 and 25.4.1992. Over the years,
though the system continues to be in place, some slackness appears to have
crept in, resulting in incorrect reporting and defective feed-back for proper
managerial decisions.

Different railways are also having substantially different formats for

capturing the data at the Division and Zonal HOs level. Proper reconciliation of
these failures is not being done at the appropriate level, which, in turn, results in
variation offigures of failures coming from different sources.

In order to ensure adequate attention to this vital subject of reporting and

analysis of equipment failures which affects both operation and financial
performance of the railways adversely 'Failure Management', as per instructions
in force, is an important duty of AGMs in HOs and nom_inated ADRMs in Divisions.
Further, one nominated HOD in each department is to coordinate with the AGM
for critical review and monitoring of failures.

To further strengthen this vital aspect and to ensure uniformity in correct

reporting and analysis of the Equipment failures, the following are enclosed:

Proforma for reporting of equipment failures

(Division to Zonal HOs)

Proforma for reporting of equipment failures

(Zonal HQ to Railway Board)
 I would expect that the present system will get re-energised with this set of
instructions and we shall be better placed to take corrective action so as to
minimise the Equipment failures.
 Annexure 1
Guidelines For Reporting of Equipment Failures

Equipment Failure monitoring is being done by E&R directorate as per

CRB's DO letters No.92/0RlE&R/1 dated 21.4.1992, 20.5.92, 1.6.92, 18.8.92 and
29.9.92.

In the present System all Railways are sending details of failures to E&R
Directorate in an EXCEL proforma and based on these reports E&R Directorate
prepares 10 Reports which are sent to concerned Directorates. E&R Directorate only
monitors the overall trends of failures and the concerned Directorate does the detailed
failure analysis and follow-up action to identifYthe poor performers and to improve
their performance.

Railway Board has been repeatedly emphasising on correct Reporting of

Equipment failures..E&R Directorate recently conducted a Study covering 7 Zonal
Railways to assess the correctness of the Reporting of Equipment failures by
comparing the figures of Equipment failures logged in HQ control office of these
Railways with those reported to Railway Board. During this Study it was found that
each Railway is reporting failures in different formats and different classifications to
their Zonal HQ.

A need has been felt to issue guidelines for Reporting of Equipment failures
from Divisions to Zonal HQ and Zonal HQ to Board to ensure uniformity of
reporting from railway to railway and also within the railways from time to time.
These guidelines have been framed by consolidating existing instructions from various
CodeslManuals and various letters/circulars issued by Board on this subject.

RaillWeIdfailures are to be reported as per ME's DO. No. 92/track III TM/l1
dated 29.7.98. According to this letter all Railways should report rail/weld failures
occuring on their system in terms of para 257 of the P.Way mannual which is
reproduced below:

"A Rail is said to have failed if it has fractured in track or it is considered

necessary to remove it from track on account of defects other than those due to
accidental damages due to buckling, kinking, derailments, abnormal wheel bums etc."
 as follows
a) Cases of banner flags
b) Cases of bursting of blocks
c) Miscellaneouscases

Locomotive failures (both Diesel & Electric) are to be reported as per

Para 2 (iii) of CRB's DO lr. No.92/0RlE&Rl1 dated 18.8.92 which states that
"Diesel & Electric loco failures include Statistical and Non-statistical failures ".
For Board the sum of all Statistical & Non-statistical failures are to be
reported; dividedas for Home locos and for foreign locos.

Definition of Statistical Engine Failure is given in the Manual of

Statistical instructions (Vol. I) issued in 1983 in para 13 (page 87). This is
reproduced below:

13.01(i) An engine is considered to have failed when it is unable to work its

booked train within the prescribed load from start, (i.e. after being attached on to
the train), to destination (i,e., to the first shed or point where the engine is booked
to cut off or to work another train as per link diagram) or causes a delay in arrival
at destination of one hour or more in the case of ste~ locomotives and 30
minutes or more for passenger trains and 60 minutes or more forfreight trains
in the case of diesel and electrical locomotives, due to under mentioned.causes:

(a) Defective design.

(b) Defectivematerial.
(c) Bad workmanship in shops
(d) Bad workmanship in shed.
(e) Mismanagementby engine crew.
(f) Bad fuel.
(g) Bad water.

Definition of Non-statistical failures is given in Page 13 Para 2.12.2.3

(2) of Indian Railways Maintenance Manual for Diesel Locomotives-1978.
According to this defmition non-statistical failures are as follows;
 Locomotlvt under -gomg repaIrs at the end of it~ trip a1 station/terminal
i al
yard/shed and nor being availablefor the return trip .
(b} Failure of locomotive booked on triai after heavy schedules or change of
major components like armature, turbo-generator etc.
(c) Failures oflocos which are over due by more than 24 hours. •
(d) Cases of heavy time losses (more than 30 minutes) on the run as a result of
inclement weather like dust-torms, heavy rains etc. when visibility of
signals is affected of slippingof wheels takes place and cannot be attributed
to faulty operation of running staff
(e) Cases of heavy time losses (more than 30 minutes) due to over-load; load
being more than specified.

Other detentions on locomotive account maybe d.ivided as other

detentions of less than 30 minutes of passenger trains and less than 60 minutes on'
Goods trainsaild Stallings.

Wagon failures are to be reported under the heads of Poor Brake

Power, Spring Breakage, Journal Breakage, Hot Axle, Train Parting and Wagon
Detachments. Wagon detachments are to be further classified as (a) Roadside'
detachments and (b) Detachn;lents on through Goods trains not offered for
examination.

Hot Box is defined in para 1.20 of IRCA Part 3 as "Every Journal

which runs warm necessitating a vehicle, wagon or Brake-van being detached
from a train from the commencement of its journey to its booked destination
inclusive shouldbe considered a Hot Box" .

There are cases of spring breakages wherein Goods wagons are

allowed to run with clamped springs without detaching the wagon. Such cases
should be accounted as a Spring Breakage but need not be accounted as a
Wagon Detachment.

Miscellaneous cases of detentions on Wagon account such as brake

binding, flat tyres ete may be reported to HQ only.

In the present system coach detachment are being reported on

territorial basis only. The system is being slightly changed to cover responsibility
as Home and foreign similar to loco failures. Coach detachments will now be
 reponeo to Hoare as Detachmems of Home railwa) coaChes ane d$chmem of
foreign railwa) coaches

For purpose of analysis in HQ coach detachments may be divided as

cases of Hot axle, cases of Electrical defects and other cases. The definition of
Hot Box for Coaching Stock in IRCA Part IV Para 1.14 is the same as for Goods
stock. Cases of train detentions on Coach account (not leading to a Coach
detachment) may be reported to HQ only as Mechanical cases and Electrical
cases.

As per CRB's DO lr. No.92/0RlE&R/I dated 18.8.92 OHE failures

are to be reported as per instructions contained in para 717 (page No.122) of
Manual of AC Traction Maintenance and Operation. This is reproduced below:

"Failure of 25 KV supply can be due to

(a) Failure of equipment or lines or supply authorities or
(b) Failure of railway equipment oflines

Failure of the equipment belonging to the supply authorities generally

affects the whole of the OHE fed by the sub-stationconcemed. When the
indications at the RCC are failure of supply over entire area fed by one sub-
station, the cause and likely duration of failure should be ascertained immediately
from the operator of the grid sub-station.

A possible, though rare, case of failure of supply is when faults

develop simultaneouslyon several sectors of ORE or feeders supplied by the sub-
station. In such a case, TPC should proceed to isolate the fault as given in the
paragraphs that follow.

Failure of supply to one sector of OHE may also be caused by failure

of a feeder circuit breaker to hold due to a defect in it. It is also rare. In such a
case, the supply should be restored through the second feeder circuit breaker and
using the bus coupler".

AU OHE breakdowns and tripping for more than 5 minutes are to be

reported to Board.

All tripping for less than 5 minutes and bursting of blocks on ORE
account may be reported to HQ.
 As per CRB's DO Jr. No.92/0R/E&Rll dated 18.8.92 in para 2(v)
Signal Failures are to be reported as per Signal Failure registers.

The sum of all types of Signal failures as per Signal failure Register is
to be reported to Board.

For purpose of analysis in HQ Signal failures should be divided into

failures of Signals,Points, Blocks, Track circuits and others.

Telecommunicationfailures may be reported to HQ only as failures of

telephones, contro~,LCgates and others.

Failures due to miscellaneous causes such as Cattle run~over, ICC

pulling etc may be reported to HQ only.

Two Standard Formats (in EXCEL) for Reporting of Equipment

failures from Divisions to Zonal HQ and Zonal HQ to Board have been prepared
in the Efficiency& Research Directorate. In these formats an attempt has been
made to capture all types of information which is prima-facie available to
categorise a type offailure.

By filling these formats correctly we may be able to avoid a lot of

waste of time and energy presently spent in getting failures delogged and
categorised correctly when initially a wrong reporting is made. The proposed
system will work as follows:

1. A daily report of Equipment failures will be prepared as per the Standard fomat
and this will be emailedon a daily basis from each Division to HQ.
2. The cases are classified as those Reportable to Board and those reportable to
HQ only.
3. Based on this data logged a Weekly Report can be prepared in Division
containing detailed failure analysis and follow-up action of each failure and this
can also be emailedto HQ.
 1. Cases Reportable to Board and HQ will be put up to all GMs & PHODs.
2. In Zonal HQ it should be possible to make the Report for Board without any
human interface. The cases Reportable to Board will be e-mailed to E&R
Directorate on a monthJy basis (as is done now).
3. Each Department can further sub-divide the categories/classifications of
failures for detailed analysis. The guidelines on Analysis are given in Annexure 4
4. The weekly failure analysis can be discussed in HQ by AGM with concerned
HODs.

I. The E&R Directorate will send the 10 Reports to all Directorates for detailed
analysis as it does now.

5.4 Advantages of ~he proposed System

1. All the levels will get the same figures of failures and there will be no confusion
, on this account.
2. Positions will get standardised on all Railways.
3. In the Standard fonnat eategorisation to the extent possible on the initial
reporting can be done. This will avoid waste of time and energy presently spent in
getting failures delogged.
4. Such a system should lead to more correct reporting of failures.
~5. The emphasis should change from spending energy in de-logging! adjusting
failures to taking follow up action to avoid f4ture failures.
6. The system will enable Bench-marking and identifYing divisions having least
failures for others to emulate.
7. The system will enable concentrated attention to RailwayslDivisions in which
more failures are occuring.
 STF.TEMEN- or E:;);)I"'MEj·r" "AI_uRE.:. FRO". AORtl' TG "'3N

..~aci:~!~t~:~~aiiu~s atieC:bn~a~'lnO~~~~:~~~ Wrtn'al<!~i~~t~iiffC~]t!~I~(ii"Bd~~at~. ._=_- ====.-=~'l

.i- Olh@r'casesofequ;pmeiitriiiiiireswflf be reportea too,:,!!~"~==~~==~ =~"_~,~=~~=-~",~,"~=,._~~"~J
: ~"'~~lEq-'iipment'~Criteriafor""=~~"' . , Reportableto Reportableto Reportable' Reportable! R rk
l I SN Failures Cases Sub-head Boartl-dailv Board-cum. to HQ-dailv ! to HQ-cum. ' ema s
KllII All cases to be, '...lJ..------ ._~FracturEc_ I
~€~~,~-i
Failures re orted to .J.1.J... .__ '{'IeICUclilure , , I

,
-st~l ~oard W4J-- others (fish plates/bons) i i

10'
11'
,
1
, I 1.4.
j 1. 5 i .
Total RlW/Others
Banner flags
i
I
i
I +--
12 -----+-
All cases to be i 1.6 ; Burstlna of blocks
13 reported to HQ i 1.7 Mlsc
14 I 18 Total Banner/BurstIMisc.
Diesel 2.1 Stat Home - Loco defect
~2
16 Failures 2.2 Stat Home-Mismntof creIN
17 2.3 DE SllIt Failures..Home
18 Total detention > 2.4 Stat Foreign - Loco defect
19 30 mts for Pass. 2.5 Stat Foreian-Mismotof creIN
20 Train, 60 mts for 2.6 DE Slat. Failures-Foreian
21 Goods train, to 2.7 DE s1lIt-total-Home+Foreign
22 be reported 2.8 NS-Home- ODS> 24 hours
23 classified as 29 NS-Home- others
shown for 2.10 DE NS failures -Home
24
25 analysis in HQ 2.11 NS-ForeiQn-ODS > 24 hou~
26 2.12 NS-Foreion - othe~
27 2:13 DE NS failures· Foreian
28 2.14 DE-NS-total· Home + Foreign
29 Reportable to 2.15 DE Failures - Home IStat+NS)
30 Board 2.16 DE Failures· Forelan IStatt'NSI
31 Reportable to
2.17 Detentions due to Joco<30 mts
32 HQonly
2.18 StalJing
33 2.19 Crew not tumina up for dutv
~r-l- E1ectrlc 3. 1 Stat Home - Loco defect
Loco 3.2 StatHome-Mismatof crew
~f--
36 Failures 3,3 EE Stat. Failures-Home
37 Total detention> 3.4 StatForeinn - Loco defect
38 30 mts for Pass. 3.5 Stal. Foreinn-Mismotof crew
1311 Train, 60 mts for 3.6EE Stat Failures-Foreian
40 Goods train, to 3.7 EE stat-total-Home+Foreian
41 be reported 3.8 NS-Home- ODS > 24 hours
42 classified as 3.9 NS-Home- Others
43 shown for 3.10 EE NS failures -Home
44 analysis in HQ 3.11 NS-Foreian-ODS > 24 hours
45 3.12 NS-Foreign - othe~
46 3.13 EE NS failures - Foreign
47 3.1'1 EE-NS-total- Home + Foreian
46 Reportable to 3.15 EE Failures - Home (Stat+NS)
49 Board 3.16 EE Failures - Foreign IStatt-NS)
50 3.17 detentions due to 1000< 30 mts
Reportable to
51 3.18 Stalling
HQonly
52 3.19 Crew not turning up for duty
53 4 4.1 Poor Brake power
54 4.2 Sprino breakaoe
55 4.3 Journal breaka..ge
56 Reportable to 4.'1 Hat axle
57 Board 4.5 Train Parting
58 4.6 Detachments in throunh trains
4 7 Detachments in Yards of through
. trains not offered for examination
Reportable to
Misc-Brake binding, flat lyres etc
HQonly
5.1 Coach detm-Home-Hot axle
Analysis forHQ 5.2 Coach detm-Home-Electrical
5.3 Coach detm-Home-others
Reportable to 54 Coach detro-Horne-Total
64 Bd.'
65 5.5 Coach detm-Foreign-Hot axle
66 Analysis for HQ 5.6 Coach detm-Foreign-ElectricaJ
67 5.7 Coach detm-Forelgn-othe~
68 Reportable to 5.8 Coach detro-Foreign-Total
69 Bd. 5.9 Coach detm.-Home+Forelgn
70 Reportableto 5.10 other Mech.cases(Part'g,Poor BP)
71 HQ. 5.11 othe~-Electrical reasons
72 6 OHE 6.1 OHE breakdowns
'73r~ Failures Reportable to 6.2 Trippinns> 5 mts due to Rlys
74 Bd. 6.3 Trippings> 5 mts due to Supolier
75 6.4 Total cases> 5 minutes
76 6.5 Trippings< 5 mts due to Rlys
77 Reportable to 6.6 Trippings< 5 mts due to Supplier
78 HQ 6.7 Bursting of blocks
79--~.-== 6.8 Total cases
_~O. _L .
..!'.gnal Failures as per 7. 1 Signal failures _~
81_ . Signal Register, g ._.Polnt faUures__
~ __ '-
-d .~ --~
-135' .-=--- ~:.__ --
to be reported to
Board
+~
only total failures 7.3

7:61-----.
. Block failures
Track g{h~;:aJ1J.iLes
Total SiQnal failures .-
--1---
----="=--::...--::=
_~ ..8. ...I!!1~com ~ ~T_el~one'?. .__ . . ---f---.----- ... ~

i[ ~.=t------=-
1ii~::~~~~~~:::'~
~ _.,
==:..._- -- -- - --='=--- =~===
Hf----== ~fg-~~it.-_:.-===
Re~rt~~:~ to

I:: -~f~::~:i,:~~~:~~:;f--:-~ :::-~

L_
...=-: .~
~IltJf':tG
t.
 r Annexur~lIl
--- - -----. -----_.------~---
A------.- -_._---_.- ~---
-S----------------------C----~. -b------e--. ----F-------G---=--
-------.~ -
"--
2 IPROPOSED STANDARD FORMAT OF EQUIPMENT FAILURE ----
3 ~ :
, i ij
: I
4IS.No.' ITEM " Cummulative unto the
, Remarks
I ! , Avoidable Total Avoidable Total
5 !
6
7. 1 Rail Failures
8 (a) Rail Fractures
9 (b) Weld Fractures
10 TOTAL(A+B)
1.1
12 2 Diesel Loco Failures
Reporting Railway's Loco in its own
(a)
13 Territory
ForeignRailway's loco in reporting
(b)
14 RailwaysTerritory
15 i) CR
16 Ii) ER
17 iii) NR
18 iv) NER
19 v) NFR
20 vi) 8ft
21 vii) SCR
22 viii) SER
23 ix) WR
24 Grand Total (A + B)
25
26 3 Electric Loco Failures
Reporting Railway'::sLoco in its own
(a)
27 Territory
ForeignRailway's Loco in reporting
{b)
28 RailwaysTerritory
29 i) CR
, 30
31
Ii)
iii)
ER
NR
32 Iv) NER
33 v) NFR
34 VI) SR
35 Vii) SCR
36 viii) SER
37 ix) WR
36 Grand Total (A + B)
39
40 4 Wagon failures
41 i) Poor Brake Power
42 Ii) Spring Breakage
43
44
45
•
Iv)
v)
JoumalBreakage
Hot Axle
Train Parting
46 VI) Wagon Detachments
47 a) Road Side Detachroonts
Detachments In Yards of through
b) Goods train not offered for
48 examination
49 TOTAL (A+B)
50
51 5 Coach Detachments
Reporting Railway's Coaches In its
(a)
52 own Territory
Foreign Railway's coaches In
(b)
53 reporting RailwaysTerritory
54 i) CR
55 ii) ER
66 Iii) NR
57 Iv) NER
58 v) NFR
--
59 vi) 8R
-
60 vii) SCR 1-----
61 viii) SER
62 Ix) WR
63 ~and Total (A + B)
-64~--- -- ~------~-'~ ------

-65 -~- _._---- ------ ---'----"-

6 OHE Failures
-- -- ~------ ._--.-
66
'--_.- --- -- --------
Signal Failures as per Signal
7
67 Failure Reaister
 ] ,] For correct analysis of various kinds of Equipment failures a
computerized database for Equipment failures must be maintained in 'each
Division. This database should be maintained by Operating Department
based on control records and periodic record received from senior
subordinate of all departments. In addition each Br. officer must maintain a
complete database of Equipment failures concerning his Department. Based
on this initial database a reconciled database after the initial reports have
been reconciled must be maintained on each division. This should be
maintained under the supervision of ADRM and no other person should be
able to make any change in this database except the ADRM.

1.2. Computerised database of the following type of Equipment failures

shouldbe maintained:
1. Track defects
2. Coach defects
3. Wagon defects
4. Motive power defects (Diesel + Electrical)
5. Signal failures
6. Communication failures
7. OREfailures

1.3. Periodic analysis (preferably monthly) for Equipment failures data

I.base must be under taken by each department to identity the problem areas,
failure prone sections, particular installation failing regularly and particular
equipment part failures regularly, shortcomings in maintenance practices,
,
senior supervisors in whose jurisdiction more failures are occurring. Based
on the above analysis, corrective actions must be initiated by each
department in order to ensure that such cases are reduced in future.
A monthly review should be carried out by the ADRMs in the
divisions and AGMs in HQs.
At least 70 to 80% of the failures are systems failures and are
directly or indirectly the responsibility of the senior management. Senior
officersshould examine failures even more thoroughly and should come up
with suitable and effective solution to reduce such failures.
 J .4 Equipmem faijure~ mus, be anaivseo for being
avoidable and unavoidable under the eA'tamsystem and rules.

1.5. All avoidable Equipment failures must be further analysed so as to

indicate whether the failure was due to:
• Failure of operation management
• Failure of maintenance management
• Lack of instructions
• Lack of training
• Failure of material
• Design defect

1.6. Failures that are classified as 'avoidable' should be monitored by the

Branch officer f HODs of department concerned so as to work towards
the zero 'avoidable' failures.
Past trends indicate that 60% to 70% failures under every discipline
are avoidable with better professional management. These failures should
be looked into not merely as cases of staff failures where individual's
responsibilitiesare fixed but from system improvement point of view.

1.7. What is classified as 'unavoidable' should be further analysed on a

quarterly basis by the ADRMs in the divisions and HODs! AGMs in the
HQs so as to take action for reducing their number by introduction of
modern technology, changing the roles or taking further appropriate action
so as to over come this problem. At the Railway Board's level the
concerned AM should undertake a quarterly review for the same purpose.

1.8. An example of a list giving the type of rail/weld failures which could
be considered as 'avoidable' with a vigilant management is as under:
 Rail fractures
• Th1R defeCl nm removed within 3 days of detection
• REM defect not removed within 15 days of detection

• An untested rail put in the track

• Any fracture on turnouts and SEJs (because these are inspected m
detail once every quarter)

Weld fractures
• Any flash butt weld fracture
• Any fracture of thermit weld within one year (shows bad

• workmanship)
• If the weld was not tested and i. not supported on wooden
• locks and n. not joggled fish plated
• If the weld was found defective during USFD and not joggled fish
plated as prescribed.

Similar exercise is r~quired to be done in respect of each asset and

probable reasons resulting in avoidable failure listed.

2. ANALYSIS OF EQUIPMENT FAILURES

The analysis of the failures should be done by every department and
sent to the concerned PROD. Analysis may be done in sub-heads elaborated
below in addition to what is being done. This analysis is required to assist
the executive in taking managerial decisions to contain the detentions.

(i) Rail Failure Analysis

a) Rail fractures
b) Weld fractures
c) Rail cracks
d) Weld cracks
e) Failures offish plates and fish bolts etc
f) Miscellaneous
 . [ '"T '
(ii) Analysis of other engineering Detentions! Disruptions: ''----"'

a) Detention on banner flags for works of emergency nature

b) Banner flags for routine works.
c) Bursting of blocks for track machines.
d) Bursting of blocks other than track machines.
e) Others.

2.2 Analysis of Detentions due to loco (Electric and Diesel)

Statistical and Non-statistical failures which cause a detention of
over 30 minutes for passenger trains and 60 minutes for Goods trains should
be reported to Board and all other cases causing detention to traffic should
be reported to HQ. These failures will be analysed technically by
Mechanical or Electrical Department on the basis of the homing sheds, type
of system that has failed, type of equipment that has failed, whether material
or human failure, etc., as is being done at preSent.
These detentions should be classified and analysed under the
followingheads:- .
i) Statistical failures reported to the Board.
ii) Non-statistical failures reported to the Board.
iii) Other incidents reported to the HQ only
iv) Stallings reported to Board & HQ.

i) Statistical failures
a) Defective design
b) Defective material
c) Bad worksmanship in Shops
d) Bad worksmanship in Sheds
e) Mismanagement by engine crew
t) Bad fuel
g) Bad water

ii) Non-statistical failure

a) Link failure
b) Loco trial on Load
c) Loco ODS more than 24 hours
 d i lnclement ~reather
e) Overload (load greater than maximum permissible)

iii) Other detentions on loco account not reportable to the Board should
also be analysed under sub-heads that have caused the detention, i.e.,
a) Loco defect
b) Mishandling by loco crew
'" c) Failure of overdue schedule loco
d) Cattle run over, other run over cases.
e) Cases of crew not turning up for duty.
f) Other causes.

iv) Stalling
Definition of stalling
Any train which is detained for more than 30 minutes in a section due
to failure of loco to haul the load for any reason other than loco defect, will
be classifiedas a 'Stalling'.
Stallingswill be analysed under the following sub-heads:-
a) On account of bad weather
b) On account of over-load of more than 2 % in comparison with .
RDSO's load tables, vis a vis the gradient in the section.
c) Sanders not working
d) Speed restriction on approach of rising gradient.
e) Signals not taken off in time on approach of rising gradients.
f) Other causes.

2.3 ANALYSIS OF WAGON FAILURES

These detentions will be analysed under the following heads, as
at present
a) Poor brake power
b) Spring breakage
c) Journalbreakage
d) Hot axle
e) Train parting
f) Detachments in thrOliclltrains
 2.4 ANALYSISOF COACH FAILURES
These detentions will be analysed under the following heads,
i) Coach Detachments
a) Brake system
b) Roller bearing failure
c) Draw and Buffing gear
d) Misc. mechanical defects
e) Air-conditioning failure
f) Train lighting failure

ii) Other Detention on Coach Account

a) Brake binding
b) Roller ~ing
c) Train parting
d) Misc. mechanical reasons
e) Late placement of rakes
f) Non-availability of water
g) Air-conditioning defects
h) Train lighting defects

2.5 ANALYSIS OF TRD FAILURES

The detentions will be analysed under the following heads:
a) ORE breakdowns
b) Trippings of more than 5 mts. Duration on account of railway sub-
station / distribution system defect.
c) Trippings of more than 5 minutes duration due to sub-station failures
/ distribution system failures of the electricity supply agency.
d) Trippings ofless than 5 mts. Duration each on railway account,
e) Trippings of less than 5 mts, duration on Electricity Authority
 A detailed analysis of the signal failures, cause-WIse, station-wise,
sectionwise, senior subordinate wise is already being done on most of the
Railways and the same is considered adequate. Analysis of Signal failures
should be carried out under heads like :
a) Signal failures
b) Point failures
c) Block failure
d) Track circuit failures
e) Others

2.7 ANALYSISOF TELECOMMUNICATION FAILURES

Communication failures should be analysed separately under the
heads:
a) Telephone failures
b) Control failures
c) LC gate failures
d) Others

2.8 MISCELLANEOUS FAILURES

Failures which cannot be attributed to failure of an
Equipment maybe classified as a Miscellaneous failure. These maybe
under the following heads
a) ICC Pulling
b) Cattle run-over
c) Others
 GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
MINISTRY OF RAILWAYS
(RAILWA Y BOAlID)

The General Manager,

Southern RaHway,
Chennai.

The figures of loco failures reported to Railway Board in the statement of

Equipment Failures and the Action Plan statement (which are also enclosed with GM's
MCnO to CRE as Annexures B & C) are being used to compile Statistics of Indian
Railways. Thus it is desired that the figures of loco failures reported in these statements
should contain only statistical loco failures.

(Aru~P~"~'O"
Director, E&R(ME),
Railway Board.

1. The General Managers, all Indian Railways (Except SR).

2. AMIME, AMIL & AM(Traffic)