Report On Report On Report On Report On

Cost Benefit Analysis Cost Benefit Analysis Cost Benefit Analysis Cost Benefit Analysis
Of Constructing A Grade Separator In
Place Of Level Crossing



By -
Atul Gupta
Dy.CE/Construction
BBS, E.Co.Rail way

Sr.Prof.Course No.823
14-07-08 to 08-08-08

Under the able gui dance of
Sri Raj esh Kumar (PT-1/IRICEN)

2




ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

I am pleased to express my i ndebt ness and gratitude to my proj ect gui de
Shri Rajesh Kumar ,PT-1/IRICEN who not onl y gave me inspi ration and guidance
,but al so gave me useful suggestions whi ch have helped me in completing thi s
project.

I am al so thankful to Di rector/IRICEN and all the facul ty members of
IRICEN/Pune for providi ng a pleasant academic atmosphere wi thin the campus, and
al so enli ghtening us with thei r in-depth knowledge and wide experience.

My special thanks to Sr.Prof.Course colleagues for givi ng me a cheerful
companyduring the enti re period.















3



Table Of Content
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT..............................................................................................................2
Table Of Content..........................................................................................................................3
SYNOPSIS............................................................................................................................................4
Introduction...................................................................................................................................5
Part one .................................................................................................................................................5
Cost of manning of unmanned level crossing.............................................................................6
Establishment cost .......................................................................................................................6
Running cost.................................................................................................................................6
Cost of P.Way work......................................................................................................................6
Pensioners benefit.......................................................................................................................6
Detention cost...............................................................................................................................6
Part two .................................................................................................................................................7
Cost of constructing an ROB/RUB..............................................................................................7
Part three...............................................................................................................................................8
Analysis of the data ......................................................................................................................8
Part four .................................................................................................................................................9
Why not level crossing.................................................................................................................9
Why grade separators................................................................................................................10
Part five................................................................................................................................................11
Whichis best andunder what condition....................................................................................11
Conclusion..................................................................................................................................11
Annexure A...............................................................................................................................13
Annexure B...............................................................................................................................14
Annexure C..............................................................................................................................15
Annexure D..............................................................................................................................16
Annexure E...............................................................................................................................17
Annexure F...............................................................................................................................18

4
Annexure G..............................................................................................................................19


Cost Benefit Analysis
Of Constructing A Grade Separator In Place Of Level Crossing.
A.Gupta
1

8YNOP88
Railways and roadways are classified as lifeline of a country. A well-
developed and matured network of the two can enormously escalate the
Economic Development and bring positive social changes in the society of a
country. Evidently these two systems runs parallel and carry their share of
load. When these two systems runs parallel the crossing of the two is inevitable
and this is facilitated in the form of level crossings (manned or unmanned) or
as a grade separator (ROBs/RUBs). However, whatever may be the means,
these level crossings, when unmanned, in one way or the other act as an
obstruction, often sometimes, for the free flow of traffic on these lifelines. More
importantly these crossings when in the form of unmanned or manned level
crossingare potentially dangerous spots causing fatal accidents involving loss
of human life, apart from damage to property and infrastructure, and disruption
of traffic particularly the rail traffic.
Among all the type of crossing described above, the most vulnerable in
terms of safety to both rail and road users are the unmanned level crossing and
the safest facility is to provide a grade separator in the form of ROBs and
RUBs. In view of above the Railway Board has taken up the work of upgrading
of unmanned level crossing to manned in a planned way. The question that
flicks instantly, is whether the manning of unmanned level crossing is the right
decision in terms of cost involve and future prospects, i.e. initial and recurring
cost of maintaining and running of manned level crossing and other
unforeseen costin terms of loss due to detention of goods and passenger train
and whether the conversion or manningof level crossing ensure completely or
will provide a full proof system to ensure safety of both the rail and the road
users and will provide uninterrupted movement of traffic on both the life line
and more importantly in future when Railway will opt of high speed corridors (
the need of the hour) will the existence of manned level crossing be compatible
in those situation with high speed corridor (prerequisite for highspeed corridor
is protection of track in the form of fencing and no level crossing ).
Considering all these factors, in the present paper it has been tried by
the Authors to analyze the cost benefit analysis of constructing ROBs/RUBs
instead of level crossings.

5
ntroduction
The Indian Rail ways i s havi ng 40,445 nos of l evel crossi ng over a total route
KM of 63,122. Out of total 40,445 nos of level crossi ng , there are 16,132
1
Dy.CE/Con/KUR/E.Co.Railway

level crossi ngs that are manned and 24,313 nos unmanned. That means on an
average there i s a level crossing at every 1.56 Km. Considering the unmanned level
crossi ngs as potentiall y dangerous spots in terms of safety of rail and road users, i t
has been decided by the Railway Board to close the unmanned l evel crossings as far
as possi ble in consultation with the state authori tiesand those crossings that can not
be closed are to be manned. Other option avail able in pl ace of manni ng a level
crossi ngs i s to provide a grade separator. Providing a grade separator involves an
ample amount of capital investment therefore the deci sion for the same has to be
taken judi ciousl y. To materi alize the same, cost benefi t anal ysi s has been done by
the Authors and presented i n thi s paper. The paper has been di vided i nto five parts as
bri efed below
Part one
Thi s part deals wi th the cost i ncurred in creating new assets for manning includi ng
establi shment cost, functioni ng cost, and maintenance cost i ncurred after manni ng
Part two
Thi s part deal s wi th cost involved in construction of ROBs/RUBs , the data as
presented in thi s part has been collected from the fiel d, for different location of the
structure.
Part three
Part three deal s wi th the anal ysi s of the date arri ved at in part one and two of the
report and to workout the better option in terms of cost and benefi ts.
Part four
Thi s section deal s wi th the de-meri t of level crossing and meri ts of grade separator
Part five
Lastly the paper i s concluded with anal ysi s result, suggestion and conclusion.

Part one
In thi s section the total cost invol ved in manning of level crossi ng has
been worked out. The cost component consi st of two parts, fi rst i s the fi xed cost
incurred in creation of asset and the second component i s the recurring cost
spend in maintaining and running of asset as briefed below.

6
Cost of manning of unmanned level crossing
To manned an unmanned level crossing, certai n infrastructure have to
be created li ke construction of gate goomty and lodge, lifting barrier and si gnali ng
arrangement etc. As per the data collected from fiel d, the cost of providing all
these infrastructure comes to Rs 25,00,000 approximatel y (refer Annexure A for
detail ). Thi s i sthe ini tial capi tal investment that i s i ncurred at the time of manni ng
and is a fi xed component i.e. one time investment.
Establishment cost
Thi s represents the establi shment cost that i s incurred every year to run
level crossing and includes the pay, passes, and other expenditure done in
providing the facili ties to the gate keeper. Cal cul ati on of these fi gures has been
arri ved at based on the data collected from SBP di vi sion. The details of the
cal culation have been encl osed as Annexure B. As per the cal cul ati on done the
annual establi shment cost of manni ng of level crossi ng comes to Rs 4,40,940/-.
Running cost
Thi s i s the expendi ture done every year to run the facility effecti vel y and
effi cientl y maintain the asset and i ncl udes the cost of maintenance of road
approaches and track porti on and other structures, cost of provi ding safety
equipment and si gn boards as per the statuary gui delines etc. Here agai n the
figure has been arri ved at based on the data collected from SBP di vi si on. As per
the calculati on the annual running cost comes to Rs 43,532/- (refer Annexure
C).
Cost of P.Way work
Thi s i s the expendi ture done every year in maintenance of track in the
level crossi ng portion. Here again the figure has been arri ved at based on the
data collected from SBP di vi si on. As per the calculation the annual Cost of P.Way
workcomes to Rs 39303.8/- (refer Annexure D).
Pensioner's benefit
The amount pai d in the form of pension to the reti red staff after havi ng
compl eted thei r servi ce as gatekeeper. The total amount spent as pensi oners
benefit i ncl udes an amount of Rs 21,66,680/- pai d at the time of reti rement in the
form of PF, Gratuity etc thi s is a one time payment. Apart from thi s there i s a
recurring cost in the form of monthl y pensi on and other facili ties li ke
compl ementary pass and medi cal benefi ts etc that amounts to Rs 1,50,400/- per
annum (refer annexure E for detail s).
Detention cost
As al ready di scussed above the level crossi ng are potenti al source of
detenti on of traffi c hindering i ts free flow. Thi s drawback i s more adverse when
the crossi ng i s si tuated in a stati on yard. Some of the important causes of
detenti on are as follows.
1. Accident at l evel crossi ng leading to total di sruption of traffi c.

7
2. Impositi on of speed restri ction during peri odi c maintenance li ke overhauling,
renewal sof checkrail etc.
3. No response of gate keeper on account of magneto phone out of order or
gate keeper sl eepi ng on duty during night.
In arri ving at these losses on account of detention foll owi ng assumption have
been made
1. Detention due to accident for both up and down line has been taken as onl y 2
hours i n a year
2. Detention due to no response has been taken as 2hours per month
3. Detention due to speed restri ction has been taken as 3 min per trai n, wi th
train frequency of 31 per day in one di rection and speed restri ction of 30 hr
continui ng for 3 days once in two years.
4. Detention loss for goods train has been taken as Rs16,704/- and for
passengers trainsRs 11,041/- (data of Ambal a di vi sion)
Asper above the detention cost has been worked out as Rs 4,23,111 per year
(refer annexure F) for detail s.
Part two
Cost of constructing an ROB/RUB
Construction cost of ROB/RUB have been collected from the ongoi ng
projects and isol ated projects from different di visi on. From the data collected it i s
observed that the value of ROB/RUB varies from Rs 1.95 Cr to Rs 5.8 Cr. Usuall y
the cost of RUB i s lessthen the cost of ROBs because in the case of former cost
of approaches i s reduced substanti ally. Similarl y the cost of constructing the ROB
near a cutting i s less than the cost of ROB on a bank of normal height as again
the cost of approaches i s reduced because of l ess filling. In short i t is much
cheaper to construct an RUB, cheaper to construct an ROB i n cuttings and
costlier to construct an ROB in normal bank.
For the simplici ty of anal ysi s three cased have been considered
parti cul ars asbriefed bel ow
1. Fi rst i s the case ( Case 1) of an ROB constructed in DKB rail link project of
E.Co.Rail way. The cost of ROB proper including the cost of approaches i s Rs
3.64 Cr for normal bank hei ght and with annual maintenance cost of Rs
50,000/-per year for si xty years the present val ue will be 3.87 Cr.
2. Second is the case ( Case 2) of an RUB constructed i n KUR di vi sion on a
running track usi ng box-pushing method. Total cost of the project wasRs1.05
and wi th annual mai ntenance cost of Rs 50,000/-per year for si xty years the
present value will be 1.28.
3. Thi rd i s the case (Case 3) of an ROB again from DKB rail link proj ect on a
bank i n cutti ng, the cost of ROB as a whole i s Rs 2.04 Cr and wi th annual

8
mai ntenance cost of Rs 50,000/-per year for si xty years the present value will
be 2.27 Cr.
Part three
Analysis of the data
The data arri ved at in part one and two of thi s paper hasbeen calculated
for different period on a time scale. To compare the cost of the two al ternati ves
the cost has to be brought to a common pl atform on a time scale. The cost of
constructi ng an ROB/RUB i s spent in a si ngle year, whereas the cost i ncurred in
manning a level crossi ng includes a fi xed cost spent in a year in creati on of asset
and a recurring cost spent every year in mai ntenance, running and in beari ng the
establi shment cost of manning. For the simplici ty of anal ysi s, i t i s assumed that
the construction of ROB i s done i n the fi rst year and all the expendi ture i sdone in
the first year itsel f. If the manning of the l evel crossi ng i s al so done i n the same
year then i nitial cost of i t spent in the fi rst year itsel f and the Present Val ue (PV) of
the recurring cost spent every successi ve year i s cal cul ated and added to the
ini tial cost of the fi rst year. Wi th thi s model the present value of all the expenditure
incurred in manning of l evel crossi ng has been cal culated year wi se for si xty
years.
Fig. 1
The results have been shown graphi call y in figure 1.The inclined line wi th
linear variation shows the cumulati ve cost i ncurred at manned l evel crossi ng in
di fferent years from the date of manni ng. The inclined line wi th non-linear
variation indicated the PV of total expenditure on a base period of year one,
Cost Benfit Analysis Of LC Against Grade separator
0.00
1.00
2.00
3.00
4.00
5.00
6.00
7.00
1 4 7
1
0
1
3
1
6
1
9
2
2
2
5
2
8
3
1
3
4
3
7
4
0
4
3
4
6
4
9
5
2
5
5
5
8
6
1
years
c
o
s
t

i
n

C
r
Cost of ROB for Case 1
Cost of ROB for Case 3
Cost of RUB for Case 2
Cost of LC at Net Present value
Recurring cost on LC
Capital investment in manning of LC

9
incurred in manni ng of l evel crossi ng for different period of i nvestment. Say for
example after fi ve year the total expendi ture i ncurred in manning i s Rs
78,49,907.46 and the present value of the same i s Rs 67,93,085.55. The results
have al so been tabul ated and enclosed as Annexure G .
From figure 1 it i s observed that PV of all the expenditure i ncurred in
manning fi rst increases sharpl y and then becomes asymptote reachi ng a
maximum value of Rs2.72 Cr in approximately 60 years.
Li fe of any concrete structure including ROB/RUB i s approximatel y 60 to
70 years
The horizontal li nes i ndi cate the cost of ROB/RUBs, expendi ture of
whi ch, as assumed above has been done i n the fi rst year.
Part four
Why not level crossing
1. levels crossi ngs are zones prone to fatal accident. In thi sregard stati stics
of total i nci dences of accident, fatality and injuri es in Rail way and those
on level crossi ngs are tabulated below.
Accidents
Year Total Railway
Accidents
(Nos.)
Accidents at
level crossing
(Nos.)
Level Crossing
Accident %
1995-96 440 69 15.7
1996-97 426 66 15.5
1997-98 420 65 15.5
Fatalities
Year Total Fatalities in
Railway Accidents
(Nos.)
Fatalities in level
crossing accidents
(Nos.)
Level
Crossing
Fatalities %
1994-95 296 187 62.8
1995-96 589 138 23.4
1996-97 353 221 62.6
1997-98 316 134 42.4
n]uries
Year Total Injuries in
Railway Accidents
(Nos.)
Inj uries in level
crossing accidents
(Nos.)
Level
Crossing
Inj ury %
1994-95 676 159 23.5
1995-96 934 191 20.4
1996-97 610 264 43.3
1997-98 977 179 18.3



10
Why grade separators
The benefits associ ated with a grade separator are summarized bel ow
1. Fatal accident involvi ng loss of human life and l oss of infrastructure and assets
can be avoided in a full proof manner
2. Ease in operati on of trai n at stationsas procedure of exchanging of pri vate no
will be eliminated and chances of human errors on thi s account will be
elimi nated.
3. Detention time due to speed restri cti on at l evel crossi ng during periodi c
mai ntenance and improper functioning i n the form of no response by
gatekeeper during night can be avoi ded.
4. Compatibility with prerequi site for hi gh-speed corridors need of the hour. If on
important routes li ke the golden-quadril ateral s Rail way opt for high speed
routes wherei n the busy level crossi ngs are to be converted i nto grade
separator, then what will be the fate of investment made in maintai ning the level
crossi ngs till the time of conversi on
5. Independent ri ght of way for both the li felines.
6. Uni nterrupted movement of traffi c on both the li feli nes.
7. Savi ng in fuel on account of no retention of road vehicl es at manned level
crossi ngs
8. Uni formi ty of track structure through out the length resulting in l ess chances of
development of defect on this account.
9. Reduction in no of i solated and scattered infrastructure
10. Different period of maintenance for portion of track at level crossi ng and for the
rest of the porti on makes the mai ntenance procedure complicated therefore
uniform maintenance cycl e cannot be adopted.
11. Reduction in staff strength.
12. Commercial exploi tati on of space avail able around ROBs/RUBs by providi ng
add/big hoardi ngs. Thi s will generate extra revenue and will hel p in fundi ng the
project.
13. Soci al benefi ts to the road users by less detenti on. Savi ng of manhours

Apart from all the factors included in the above anal ysi s there are other
tangible and intangibl e cost that have not been included li ke saving of fuel of road
vehi cles, reduced turn round period for goods and passenger train that can resul t
in i ncreasing the line capacity of a secti on, uninterrupted movement of track
machi ne.

11
Part five
Which is best and under what condition
From above i f li fe of the ROB/RUB i s considered as say 60 years then any
structure with a cost within Rs 2.72 Cr will be worth enough constructing in terms
of realizati on of cost in compari son to going for a manned level crossing, even i f
the whole of the cost i s borne by Rail ways. If the construction of ROB/RUB i s
done on the basi s of sharing i n the rati on of 50:50 wi th state government then
cost up to 2.72x2 = 5.44 Cr will be worth spending. On new projects that are
financiall y viabl e in terms of l oadi ng expected l evel crossing on NH,SH and MDR
should i nvariably be converted into a grade separator
If a level crossing i s si tuated in station yard then detenti on loss wi ll be
appreciably hi gh hence justifi cation for going for a grade separator will be more
concrete.
Further , i f we consi der the other benefits for providing grade separator i n lie
of level crossi ng described above beside cost benefit , which will give much
benefit to railway duri ng runni ng of the train . So , even though i f railway not
getting the 50:50 sharing with state govt. we can go ahead wi th provi sion of ROB
in liu of level crossi ng in planned manner .

Conclusion
As the there are a total of, 16,132 level crossi ngs that are manned and
24,313 nos that are unmanned. Since the no i sso large it i s not possi ble to man
all the l evel crossi ng in view of thi s following steps are suggested.
In new construction projects wherever there i s a feasibili ty to provide RUB
against a level crossing same should be adopted i nvariabl y at least on NH,SH
and MDR, consideri ng the benefits of ROBs/RUBs
If the total cost of ROB/RUB i s wi thin 2.72 Cr it shoul d al so be adopted
invari able even i f the whol e project has to be i s funded by the Rail ways
If the cost of ROB i s withi n 5.44 Cr then same can be adopted on the basi s of
sharing with state government in proporti on with 50:50 respecti vel y.
All the important route saythe golden quadrilateral wi th the hi gh frequency of
both goods and passenger routes where detention of one train can adversel y
affect the running of all succeeding trains thus escalating the operating cost to a
very high value, can al so be manned on priority.
Possi ble routes that are in considerati on for conversion i nto hi gh-speed
corri dors should be taken up on pri ority because level crossi ngson these routes
will not be compati ble with the prerequi sites. The Divi sions based on thei r data
can work out the actual cost of manni ng a l evel crossi ng and the break-even point
for cost effecti veness of ROB/RUB can be worked out. Based on thi s the level
crossi ngs to be converted i nto ROB/RUB can be planned.

12
The level crossi ng falling on thi s route should be classi fied based on the
pri oriti es li ke l evel crossi ng falling under station yard, near a cutting etc and
converted i nto ROB/RUB i n a planned way. As the chances of accidents on these
route will be more, the cost of compensation due to causality and materi al loss i s
colossal in addi tion to the defamati on, cost of which i s i ncal culabl e.
Some day in future rail way will go for hi gh speed tracks, priori ty of that day
will be to have a section wi th minimum obstruction i n the form of level crossings,
parti cul arly the crossings of NH,SH,MDR. Instead of removing these obstructi on
at the time of opting for high speed track, it i s better to start removing them from
now in a pl anned way, because a single l evel crossing eats up 2.23Cr of
investment i n terms of present value and gi ves a burden of running it for 30 years.






















13


Annexure A"












Sr.No. DESCRIPTION AMOUNT(Rs.)
1 Construction of TY-I Quarters(2-Units) 369776
2 Construction of Gate-Goomty 54260
3 Lifting Barrier 142106
4 Hand tubewell 37323
5 Tie Bar fencing 100276
6 Road improvement 52940
7 Provision of PCC pavers 251826
Total 1008507
8
Temporary Establishment cost @
9.13% 92077
9 Cost Of Interlocking 1000000
10 Cost Of Panel with Building 400000
11
Cost Of providing Electricity to Gate-
Goomty 48152
Grand Total 2548736
COST OF MANNING OF LEVEL CROSSING

14

Annexure B"










Sl.No. Item Average
salary per
month
No. of
GK
Amount Remarks
1 Salary of staff 7667 4 368016 average salary calculated on the
basis of average pay to gatekeeper
including al l allowance as per the
sanctioned cadre in a division
2 Cost of Pass/PTO(3.66 per GK
per year @ 400x2 per GK & 4
persons per GK))
400*2*4*3.66 4 46848 three P.Pass and one PTO's per
year
3 Cost of Clothing
a shoes at every six months 400 4 1600 @ Rs200/- per pair
b uniform 400 4 1600 one set uni form each year
c blanket at every fifth year cost per
year
200 4 800 @ Rs 1000/- per blanket
4 Medical facility 2000 4 8000 @ Rs2000/- Rs per annum per
family
5 T.A 12*80*12 4 11520 ( for 12 days in a month for one
person)
Cost of training
(a) foundation course at the time
of induction for 3 weeks
7667 4 1022.3
(b) refresher course once in 5
years for 1 week
7667 4 1533.4
440940 per year
Establishment cost
6
Total

15
Annexure C"









Sl.N
o.
Item Frequecy Unit Consuption
/rate
Cost per year Remarks
1 Cost of equipment once i n 5
year
Rs 3160 632 ref annexure 7
2 Cost of electricity once i n a
month
Rs 500 6000
3 Cost of K.Oil once i n a
month
Lit 6.2 1041.6 @ Rs 14 per l it
4 Cost of Battery @ 3 per
GK/Month
once i n a
month
nos 8 384 @ Rs 8 per no
5 Mai ntenance Cost of
Equipment @ 15% of (1)
of above
once i n a
year
Rs 474 474 assumed
6 Cost of LC Board on
track (4No.)
once i n 4
years
Rs 10000 2500 as per data col lected fromn
SBP divi si on
7 Cost of LC Board for
Road Users(4 No.)
once i n 4
years
Rs 10000 2500 as per data col lected fromn
SBP divi si on
8 Cost of surface Repai r
(a) Major repair once i n 5
year
Rs 50000 10000 assumed
(b) Minor repair once i n a
year
Rs 10000 10000 assumed
9 Repair of Bui ldi ng (gate
goomty and gate l odge)
once i n a
year
Rs 10000 10000 assumed
43531.6 per year
Running Cost
Total

16
Annexure D"









Sl.No
.
Item frequecy unit consupti
on/rate
cost per year Remark
1 Overhauli ng of LC once in 2
year
Rs per LC 7*2*2.40*
238
3998.4(@ once in 2 year) for 7 m length
and for double line and rate 140%
above SOR
2 slack picking once in a
2month
Rs per LC 2550 15300(@ once in 2 monts by 10 labour
with average day pay of Rs 255
Renewal of Check Rai l once in 5
year
Rs per LC
(a) cost of execution 5112 1022.4as in 1 above
(b) cost of check rail 43680 8736@ 30 Rs per Kg
(c ) cost of fittings 10266 2053.2as per the cost of fitting coll ected
from DKB project
(d) casual renewal of
sleeper
1000do
4 Cost of Manpower
during Census
once in 5
year
63 man
days
63*255.6 3220.56by deploying 63 mandays @ Rs
255.6/-average pay per day
5 Cost of Manpower
during CSM
once in 2
years
20 man
days
20*255.6 2556by deploying 63 mandays @ Rs
255.6/-average pay per day
6 cost of manpower
duriing BCM/Deep
screening
once in 10
year
20 man
days
20*255.56
/10
511.2by deploying 63 mandays @ Rs
255.6/-average pay per day
7 ballast replacement
during overhauli ng
once in 2
years
906@ Rs 600/- per cum for cost of
ballast
39303.76 per year
Cost of Pway work
3
Total

17

Annexure E"














Sl.No. Item Consump
tion /rate
No. of GK Amount Remark
1 Pensi on (@3000 per
month per GK)
3000 4 144000 average pensi on cal culated
on the basis of actual ly
retired person.
2 Cost of compli mentry
pass
400*2*2 4 6400 (1 per GK per year @
400x2 per GK & 2 trip
persons per GK))
150400 per year
3 Pensi onary benfit (@ Rs
4,50,000/- per
GK)incl udes l eave
encashment and other
pensionary benefits at
the ti me of retirement.
526670 4 2106680 based on the data coll ected
fron SBP division
Pensionary benefit
Total
Pensionary benefit at a Time after 30 years

18
Annexure F"










Sl.
No.
Description Unit Qty Rate Amount Remark
1 Due to Accident &
bl oakage of Li ne
Hr/year 2 13872.5 27745
2 Loss due to no
response by G.K.
Hr/year 24 13872.5 332940 say about 2 hr
per month due
to any reason
like telephone
out of order,
sleepi ng on duty
or failure of
signal etc.
3 Loss due to speed
restricti on at the time
overhauling
Hr/year 3*30*2*3/
2=270 min
=4.5 hrs
per year
13872.5 62426 at the speed
restriction of 30
kmph for 3 days
@ once in two
years and avg.
train 30 per day
423111 per year
* l oss on goods trai n
Rs 16704/- per hours
Avg. l oss = 13872.5
* loss on coaching train Rs 11041/- per
hours
Total
Cost of Operating Loss

19
Annexure G"