Rajashree 2
Rajashree 2
Rajashree 2
Abstract
The market share for cement transportation by rail had declined from 56% to 43%
over the past decade. In an attempt to arrest the sliding market share, the Indian
Railways (IR) wished to focus more on customer service by expanding the scope of
its offer to a third party logistics service provider. The client system was in the private
sector (unlike the other major commodities carried by IR) and hence was more
demanding and representative of the future orientation of industrial activity in India.
Cement had to reach the retail customer, due to which the distribution side had
reasonable scope for a third party logistics service provider.
This case examines what the IR can do in the context of a large scale modern cement
plant, called Rajashree Cement (RC), in terms of operations at a specific client site.
This had implications for infrastructure, services, organization and information
systems. A new concept called Engine on Load (EOL) was being experimented by RC
and the IR to improve the throughput of bulk cement from the Malkhaid plant of RC
to the Bangalore market. After three months of EOL, executives from RC and IR were
reviewing (i) whether to continue with the EOL system or not and (ii) if to continue,
what should be the terms of the contract between RC and IR. This would have
implications for IRs service levels to their clients.
Analysis
1. Analysis of the Engine On Load Experiment
(i)
Total
Turn
Around
Hrs
97:11
96:00
89:36
2.
(ii)
Out of the 45 EOL movements, none was done in three hours and the
average was nearly six hours. This included an average of 32 minutes
of preparation prior to loading, 4 hours and 35 minutes of loading, and
32 minutes of wait after loading. Prior to the EOL experiment, the total
rake time at Malkhaid was an average of nearly 23 hours, including 5
hours and 15 minutes of preparation prior to loading, 4 hours and 38
minutes of loading and 12 hours and 52 minutes of waiting for engine
after loading. Consequent on the EOL system, not only the waiting for
engine was eliminated, but also the idling time before loading was
minimized due to RC becoming more disciplined about keeping stocks
ready for loading.
(iii)
The overall turnaround time due to the EOL, however, reduced from
97 hours to just 96 hours. To be able to move 70,000 tons per month,
the target turnaround time was 75 hours. In fact, the overall turnaround
time of the rakes on which EOL was not availed turned out to be better
at nearly 90 hours. However, a deeper analysis of the data showed that
rakes were made to wait at Dodballapur due to lower market demand
resulting in lower storage space for the unloaded bulk cement, in the
latter part of the experimental period, at which time also more rakes
were nominated as EOL. Hence, EOL rakes had an average of 19 hours
and 13 minutes rather than the 10 hours and 30 minutes for the non
EOL rakes for the time taken for unloading at Dodballapur. Another
phenomenon was the increase in transit times from Malkhaid to
Dodballapur for EOL rakes as compared to the non EOL rakes. The
EOL rakes had an average of 40 hours and 6 minutes, while it was 32
hours for the non EOL rakes. The cause here was simple to analyse.
Many times, the incoming engine was really not ready to handle the
outgoing load as per normal requirements of fuel and maintenance, and
had to be changed enroute during the loaded movement.
(iv)
It was thus clear that to increase the throughput per rake, the focus had
to be not just at Malkhaid as a terminal, but the entire circuit. With
improvements in the transit times and unloading times, it would be
possible to bring the turnaround time to about 78 hours.
Decision Issues
The key decision issues (already given in the case) arising out of this
experiment were:
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
Should RC and SCR have the option of declaring a trip as not for EOL?
Can this be unilaterally decided or should it be a joint decision? What
should be the required advance notice?
From the time the rake reaches the terminal, what should be the
guaranteed time for engine availability? What should the penalty be on
RC if load is not available? What should the penalty be on SCR if
engine is not available? (Currently there was no penalty on SCR).
What steps should RC take to ensure timely loading at the terminal?
(iv)
(v)
(vi)
With the above analysis of the EOL experiment, the class can be directed to
each of the above issues, either for a decision, or for additional information
requirements. Usually, different perspectives would enable a good discussion,
especially on (ii) and (vi).
3.
Implications for IR
The above had implications for IR, in terms of infrastructure, services,
organisation and IT.
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
Organization: This was a critical area since the zonal, divisional and
departmental boundaries affected coordinated service provisioning. For
example, the lack of information sharing between SWR and SCR
increased the turnaround time due to insufficient operational
preparedness in taking over of trains. This was also true at a divisional
level. To deal with this issue, RC had its own staff to gather
information from the neighbouring division control office regarding
the movements of its rakes so that the Malkhaid plant could be better
4.
Conclusions
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
The EOL concept was still not implementable in all situations. 33 out
of 78 possible situations could not take advantage of this, 27 of which
were due to engine incompatibility.
This case brings out the imperative need for IR to refocus on traffic
from just the originating terminal, to the commodity movement from
origin to destination, and then the entire circuit, for smooth operations.
The EOL is thus just a limited concept.
This brings out the intrinsic infrastructural, service, organisational and
information systems gaps in IR.