Point Cleaning by Traffic Staff
View PDF | Print View
by: Admin
Total views: 267
Word Count: 266
Point cleaning - the unwanted task on us and that of the traffic staff is to be done away with shortly as per RB directive. Go through the True Copy of the letter by Jt. Director/Safety/RB. Have a proud look at the Reference specifically. Give wide publicity especially to the S&T Staff.
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
MINISTRY OF RAILWAYS
(RAILWAY BOARD)
No.2009/Safety(A&R)/19/25 New Delhi, dt. 30.11.2009 / 03.12.2009
Chief Operations Manager,
Southern Railway, Chennai
South Western Railway, Hubli
Sub: Point Cleaning by Traffic Staff – IRSEM Para 7.1 of Annexure 7 to Para 12.192.
Ref: All India Station Masters’ Association representation
No. AISMA-CEC/RBO/10/09-AS-5 dated 29.10.09.
In the letter under reference, Secretary, All India Station Masters’ Association has inter-alia, represented that Traffic Staff are being forced to undertake the work of point cleaning whereas IRSEM (Part-II) provisions under Para 12.192 (Para 7.1 of Annexure 7) for this job to be undertaken by the S&T staff.
In this connection it is worth mentioning that the intricacy of the job would not be understood by those other than the concerned/trained in their specific duty. It would be in the interest of safe train operation that the work of point cleaning be done by the S&T staff who are expected to be well trained in this job.
Southern and South Western Railways may confirm the compliance accordingly.
(Sd/-)
(J.S. Bindra)
Joint Director/Safety
Railway Board
Courtesy: AISMA/PGT
About the Author
AISMA/PGT
Rating: 5.00
Comments
Dec 29th 2009, by
Guest
even after this clear cut order it is not followed in open line. it is also unfortunate aisma could not propagate this properly. traffic department is a mute spectator to this important order.
kb
even after this clear cut order it is not followed in open line. it is also unfortunate aisma could not propagate this properly. traffic department is a mute spectator to this important order.
kb
Dec 29th 2009, by
Guest
even after this order cleaning of points is with traffic department. aisma is unable to propagate this order properly and traffic department is a mute spectator to this order. SMs has to the initiative.
kb
even after this order cleaning of points is with traffic department. aisma is unable to propagate this order properly and traffic department is a mute spectator to this order. SMs has to the initiative.
kb
Jan 16th 2010, by
Guest
This subject should have attracted volleys of questions and deliberations from all the Railways and Divisions where the Point Cleaning is the baby of SMs/Traffic department. Unfortunately the response is poor. I understand the Point Cleaning is done by Station Staff (Traffic staff) only in SR and SWR. I request other Zonal office bearers to give feedback and let us know how far our understanding that the Point cleaning is done by Station Staff only in SR & SWR is correct or otherwise. The instruction put in our web site has come from the highest authority and still it has not seen the light of the day either in SR or SWR. The information we have for non implementation is that:
1) The correction memo issued by COM/SR is put on holds for some time which has not been clarified further by the same authority on expiry of the time stipulated by him.
2) In SWR the letter of the highest authority has been sent to COM/UBL for his orders/approval.
We, SMs feel extremely let down by the DOMs and COMs for their lackadaisical attitude on the very sensitive issue that has been TORMENTING the SMs of SR&SWR for decades. You and I know well-If any such order were to have come from RB top notches stipulating certain duties/ responsibilities on SMs, the DOMS AND COMS would have issued corresponding orders immediately advising the SMs to comply with the orders of ED/Safety or who ever it may be. Perhaps they would have been magnanimous ENOUGH (?) to add: “APPROPRIATE CORRECTION MEMOS WILL FOLLOW”
But when the order is in favor of the SMs and against the S&T department the Y (H) ARD STICK (literally) IS DIFFERENT. We should, perhaps, be MORE FORCEFULL in such circumstances. But the great tragedy is as mentioned by me at the outset WE DID NOT FIND ANY SPONTANEOUS REACTION from our comrades in our web site on THIS MOST CRUCIAL ISSUE in its own way.
I find it relevant to recall two incidents that come before me. The citation is not for underestimating any one of us or our sincerity. But for academic interest and to make everyone who visits our web site to indulge seriously on the articles that are put in our web site.
Almost a decade back there was some dispute with regard to attaching the Loco (for the first time and last time) in PGT Division of SR-if my memory is right at Shoranur or Ernakulam. It was taken up very seriously by LPs Association resulting in LPs reporting sick. Many trains suffered heavy detention. Almost the solution went in favor of LPs.
During 2007 or 2008, the DME/MYS of SWR decided to open a new Depot for LPs at Chickjajur-a junction in MYS Division where a dozen Operating staff along with SMs and other station staff work not to mention the Gangmen, Electrical staff, S&T staff, and Commercial Staff. But the LPs’ Association of MYS division went on a lightning strike at HRR by reporting sick on the plea that there was no adequate educational and medical facilities available not withstanding other basic amenities. What one needs to consider is that the station was a junction with not less than 40 staff working already there.
While the Sr.DME/MYS retreated from the plan immediately, as a show of strength he issued unlawful and illegal SF 5s against a few LPs who reported sick. I had the opportunity to act as Defence Helper for two LPs of HRR.
The catch 22 comes in here. The two SF5s handled by me were withdrawn duly replaced with SF 11.
The message is very clear. As lamented by me earlier our DOMs and COMs are not interested to move a finger to protect EVEN WHEN SMS HAVE A SOUND CASE ON THEIR SIDE.
I can even cite another case wherein EVEN THE Sr.DCM was ready to put down his down his foot firmly and to defend his Dy.SMRs (Commercial). The cleanliness of Bangalore was the look out of Sr.DCM/SBC with private contractors doing the job on clinching the contract. When it became inconvenient and not feasible for the Dy.SMRs(Commercial) to handle the issue as complaints were on the rise, THE SR.DCM/SBC COOLLY DISOWNED IT AND NOW THE MAINTENANECE OF THE CLEANLINESS OF SBC is handed over to the Medical Department which was the right (and conventional) procedure followed in Indian Railways for one and half century.
It is time we took serious decision with the DOMS AND COMS who have time and again exhibited that they are LEAST BOTHERED ABOUT US. Let us pool our ideas and make them realize THAT THEIR PEACEFUL LIFE AND ZOOMING CAREER GRAPH IS BECAUSE OF THE DEDICATED STATIONS MASTERS WHO SWEAT IT OUT IN THE OPEN LINE FOR THEM DAY IN AND DAY OUT-in the sun and storm in the jungles and deserts-G.Rajan,Ex.CVP/AISMA.
This subject should have attracted volleys of questions and deliberations from all the Railways and Divisions where the Point Cleaning is the baby of SMs/Traffic department. Unfortunately the response is poor. I understand the Point Cleaning is done by Station Staff (Traffic staff) only in SR and SWR. I request other Zonal office bearers to give feedback and let us know how far our understanding that the Point cleaning is done by Station Staff only in SR & SWR is correct or otherwise. The instruction put in our web site has come from the highest authority and still it has not seen the light of the day either in SR or SWR. The information we have for non implementation is that:
1) The correction memo issued by COM/SR is put on holds for some time which has not been clarified further by the same authority on expiry of the time stipulated by him.
2) In SWR the letter of the highest authority has been sent to COM/UBL for his orders/approval.
We, SMs feel extremely let down by the DOMs and COMs for their lackadaisical attitude on the very sensitive issue that has been TORMENTING the SMs of SR&SWR for decades. You and I know well-If any such order were to have come from RB top notches stipulating certain duties/ responsibilities on SMs, the DOMS AND COMS would have issued corresponding orders immediately advising the SMs to comply with the orders of ED/Safety or who ever it may be. Perhaps they would have been magnanimous ENOUGH (?) to add: “APPROPRIATE CORRECTION MEMOS WILL FOLLOW”
But when the order is in favor of the SMs and against the S&T department the Y (H) ARD STICK (literally) IS DIFFERENT. We should, perhaps, be MORE FORCEFULL in such circumstances. But the great tragedy is as mentioned by me at the outset WE DID NOT FIND ANY SPONTANEOUS REACTION from our comrades in our web site on THIS MOST CRUCIAL ISSUE in its own way.
I find it relevant to recall two incidents that come before me. The citation is not for underestimating any one of us or our sincerity. But for academic interest and to make everyone who visits our web site to indulge seriously on the articles that are put in our web site.
Almost a decade back there was some dispute with regard to attaching the Loco (for the first time and last time) in PGT Division of SR-if my memory is right at Shoranur or Ernakulam. It was taken up very seriously by LPs Association resulting in LPs reporting sick. Many trains suffered heavy detention. Almost the solution went in favor of LPs.
During 2007 or 2008, the DME/MYS of SWR decided to open a new Depot for LPs at Chickjajur-a junction in MYS Division where a dozen Operating staff along with SMs and other station staff work not to mention the Gangmen, Electrical staff, S&T staff, and Commercial Staff. But the LPs’ Association of MYS division went on a lightning strike at HRR by reporting sick on the plea that there was no adequate educational and medical facilities available not withstanding other basic amenities. What one needs to consider is that the station was a junction with not less than 40 staff working already there.
While the Sr.DME/MYS retreated from the plan immediately, as a show of strength he issued unlawful and illegal SF 5s against a few LPs who reported sick. I had the opportunity to act as Defence Helper for two LPs of HRR.
The catch 22 comes in here. The two SF5s handled by me were withdrawn duly replaced with SF 11.
The message is very clear. As lamented by me earlier our DOMs and COMs are not interested to move a finger to protect EVEN WHEN SMS HAVE A SOUND CASE ON THEIR SIDE.
I can even cite another case wherein EVEN THE Sr.DCM was ready to put down his down his foot firmly and to defend his Dy.SMRs (Commercial). The cleanliness of Bangalore was the look out of Sr.DCM/SBC with private contractors doing the job on clinching the contract. When it became inconvenient and not feasible for the Dy.SMRs(Commercial) to handle the issue as complaints were on the rise, THE SR.DCM/SBC COOLLY DISOWNED IT AND NOW THE MAINTENANECE OF THE CLEANLINESS OF SBC is handed over to the Medical Department which was the right (and conventional) procedure followed in Indian Railways for one and half century.
It is time we took serious decision with the DOMS AND COMS who have time and again exhibited that they are LEAST BOTHERED ABOUT US. Let us pool our ideas and make them realize THAT THEIR PEACEFUL LIFE AND ZOOMING CAREER GRAPH IS BECAUSE OF THE DEDICATED STATIONS MASTERS WHO SWEAT IT OUT IN THE OPEN LINE FOR THEM DAY IN AND DAY OUT-in the sun and storm in the jungles and deserts-G.Rajan,Ex.CVP/AISMA.
This subject should have attracted volleys of questions and deliberations from all the Railways and Divisions where the Point Cleaning is the baby of SMs/Traffic department. Unfortunately the response is poor. I understand the Point Cleaning is done by Station Staff (Traffic staff) only in SR and SWR. I request other Zonal office bearers to give feedback and let us know how far our understanding that the Point cleaning is done by Station Staff only in SR & SWR is correct or otherwise. The instruction put in our web site has come from the highest authority and still it has not seen the light of the day either in SR or SWR. The information we have for non implementation is that:
1) The correction memo issued by COM/SR is put on holds for some time which has not been clarified further by the same authority on expiry of the time stipulated by him.
2) In SWR the letter of the highest authority has been sent to COM/UBL for his orders/approval.
We, SMs feel extremely let down by the DOMs and COMs for their lackadaisical attitude on the very sensitive issue that has been TORMENTING the SMs of SR&SWR for decades. You and I know well-If any such order were to have come from RB top notches stipulating certain duties/ responsibilities on SMs, the DOMS AND COMS would have issued corresponding orders immediately advising the SMs to comply with the orders of ED/Safety or who ever it may be. Perhaps they would have been magnanimous ENOUGH (?) to add: “APPROPRIATE CORRECTION MEMOS WILL FOLLOW”
But when the order is in favor of the SMs and against the S&T department the Y (H) ARD STICK (literally) IS DIFFERENT. We should, perhaps, be MORE FORCEFULL in such circumstances. But the great tragedy is as mentioned by me at the outset WE DID NOT FIND ANY SPONTANEOUS REACTION from our comrades in our web site on THIS MOST CRUCIAL ISSUE in its own way.
I find it relevant to recall two incidents that come before me. The citation is not for underestimating any one of us or our sincerity. But for academic interest and to make everyone who visits our web site to indulge seriously on the articles that are put in our web site.
Almost a decade back there was some dispute with regard to attaching the Loco (for the first time and last time) in PGT Division of SR-if my memory is right at Shoranur or Ernakulam. It was taken up very seriously by LPs Association resulting in LPs reporting sick. Many trains suffered heavy detention. Almost the solution went in favor of LPs.
During 2007 or 2008, the DME/MYS of SWR decided to open a new Depot for LPs at Chickjajur-a junction in MYS Division where a dozen Operating staff along with SMs and other station staff work not to mention the Gangmen, Electrical staff, S&T staff, and Commercial Staff. But the LPs’ Association of MYS division went on a lightning strike at HRR by reporting sick on the plea that there was no adequate educational and medical facilities available not withstanding other basic amenities. What one needs to consider is that the station was a junction with not less than 40 staff working already there.
While the Sr.DME/MYS retreated from the plan immediately, as a show of strength he issued unlawful and illegal SF 5s against a few LPs who reported sick. I had the opportunity to act as Defence Helper for two LPs of HRR.
The catch 22 comes in here. The two SF5s handled by me were withdrawn duly replaced with SF 11.
The message is very clear. As lamented by me earlier our DOMs and COMs are not interested to move a finger to protect EVEN WHEN SMS HAVE A SOUND CASE ON THEIR SIDE.
I can even cite another case wherein EVEN THE Sr.DCM was ready to put down his down his foot firmly and to defend his Dy.SMRs (Commercial). The cleanliness of Bangalore was the look out of Sr.DCM/SBC with private contractors doing the job on clinching the contract. When it became inconvenient and not feasible for the Dy.SMRs(Commercial) to handle the issue as complaints were on the rise, THE SR.DCM/SBC COOLLY DISOWNED IT AND NOW THE MAINTENANECE OF THE CLEANLINESS OF SBC is handed over to the Medical Department which was the right (and conventional) procedure followed in Indian Railways for one and half century.
It is time we took serious decision with the DOMS AND COMS who have time and again exhibited that they are LEAST BOTHERED ABOUT US. Let us pool our ideas and make them realize THAT THEIR PEACEFUL LIFE AND ZOOMING CAREER GRAPH IS BECAUSE OF THE DEDICATED STATIONS MASTERS WHO SWEAT IT OUT IN THE OPEN LINE FOR THEM DAY IN AND DAY OUT-in the sun and storm in the jungles and deserts-G.Rajan,Ex.CVP/AISMA.
This subject should have attracted volleys of questions and deliberations from all the Railways and Divisions where the Point Cleaning is the baby of SMs/Traffic department. Unfortunately the response is poor. I understand the Point Cleaning is done by Station Staff (Traffic staff) only in SR and SWR. I request other Zonal office bearers to give feedback and let us know how far our understanding that the Point cleaning is done by Station Staff only in SR & SWR is correct or otherwise. The instruction put in our web site has come from the highest authority and still it has not seen the light of the day either in SR or SWR. The information we have for non implementation is that:
1) The correction memo issued by COM/SR is put on holds for some time which has not been clarified further by the same authority on expiry of the time stipulated by him.
2) In SWR the letter of the highest authority has been sent to COM/UBL for his orders/approval.
We, SMs feel extremely let down by the DOMs and COMs for their lackadaisical attitude on the very sensitive issue that has been TORMENTING the SMs of SR&SWR for decades. You and I know well-If any such order were to have come from RB top notches stipulating certain duties/ responsibilities on SMs, the DOMS AND COMS would have issued corresponding orders immediately advising the SMs to comply with the orders of ED/Safety or who ever it may be. Perhaps they would have been magnanimous ENOUGH (?) to add: “APPROPRIATE CORRECTION MEMOS WILL FOLLOW”
But when the order is in favor of the SMs and against the S&T department the Y (H) ARD STICK (literally) IS DIFFERENT. We should, perhaps, be MORE FORCEFULL in such circumstances. But the great tragedy is as mentioned by me at the outset WE DID NOT FIND ANY SPONTANEOUS REACTION from our comrades in our web site on THIS MOST CRUCIAL ISSUE in its own way.
I find it relevant to recall two incidents that come before me. The citation is not for underestimating any one of us or our sincerity. But for academic interest and to make everyone who visits our web site to indulge seriously on the articles that are put in our web site.
Almost a decade back there was some dispute with regard to attaching the Loco (for the first time and last time) in PGT Division of SR-if my memory is right at Shoranur or Ernakulam. It was taken up very seriously by LPs Association resulting in LPs reporting sick. Many trains suffered heavy detention. Almost the solution went in favor of LPs.
During 2007 or 2008, the DME/MYS of SWR decided to open a new Depot for LPs at Chickjajur-a junction in MYS Division where a dozen Operating staff along with SMs and other station staff work not to mention the Gangmen, Electrical staff, S&T staff, and Commercial Staff. But the LPs’ Association of MYS division went on a lightning strike at HRR by reporting sick on the plea that there was no adequate educational and medical facilities available not withstanding other basic amenities. What one needs to consider is that the station was a junction with not less than 40 staff working already there.
While the Sr.DME/MYS retreated from the plan immediately, as a show of strength he issued unlawful and illegal SF 5s against a few LPs who reported sick. I had the opportunity to act as Defence Helper for two LPs of HRR.
The catch 22 comes in here. The two SF5s handled by me were withdrawn duly replaced with SF 11.
The message is very clear. As lamented by me earlier our DOMs and COMs are not interested to move a finger to protect EVEN WHEN SMS HAVE A SOUND CASE ON THEIR SIDE.
I can even cite another case wherein EVEN THE Sr.DCM was ready to put down his down his foot firmly and to defend his Dy.SMRs (Commercial). The cleanliness of Bangalore was the look out of Sr.DCM/SBC with private contractors doing the job on clinching the contract. When it became inconvenient and not feasible for the Dy.SMRs(Commercial) to handle the issue as complaints were on the rise, THE SR.DCM/SBC COOLLY DISOWNED IT AND NOW THE MAINTENANECE OF THE CLEANLINESS OF SBC is handed over to the Medical Department which was the right (and conventional) procedure followed in Indian Railways for one and half century.
It is time we took serious decision with the DOMS AND COMS who have time and again exhibited that they are LEAST BOTHERED ABOUT US. Let us pool our ideas and make them realize THAT THEIR PEACEFUL LIFE AND ZOOMING CAREER GRAPH IS BECAUSE OF THE DEDICATED STATIONS MASTERS WHO SWEAT IT OUT IN THE OPEN LINE FOR THEM DAY IN AND DAY OUT-in the sun and storm in the jungles and deserts-G.Rajan,Ex.CVP/AISMA.
This subject should have attracted volleys of questions and deliberations from all the Railways and Divisions where the Point Cleaning is the baby of SMs/Traffic department. Unfortunately the response is poor. I understand the Point Cleaning is done by Station Staff (Traffic staff) only in SR and SWR. I request other Zonal office bearers to give feedback and let us know how far our understanding that the Point cleaning is done by Station Staff only in SR & SWR is correct or otherwise. The instruction put in our web site has come from the highest authority and still it has not seen the light of the day either in SR or SWR. The information we have for non implementation is that:
1) The correction memo issued by COM/SR is put on holds for some time which has not been clarified further by the same authority on expiry of the time stipulated by him.
2) In SWR the letter of the highest authority has been sent to COM/UBL for his orders/approval.
We, SMs feel extremely let down by the DOMs and COMs for their lackadaisical attitude on the very sensitive issue that has been TORMENTING the SMs of SR&SWR for decades. You and I know well-If any such order were to have come from RB top notches stipulating certain duties/ responsibilities on SMs, the DOMS AND COMS would have issued corresponding orders immediately advising the SMs to comply with the orders of ED/Safety or who ever it may be. Perhaps they would have been magnanimous ENOUGH (?) to add: “APPROPRIATE CORRECTION MEMOS WILL FOLLOW”
But when the order is in favor of the SMs and against the S&T department the Y (H) ARD STICK (literally) IS DIFFERENT. We should, perhaps, be MORE FORCEFULL in such circumstances. But the great tragedy is as mentioned by me at the outset WE DID NOT FIND ANY SPONTANEOUS REACTION from our comrades in our web site on THIS MOST CRUCIAL ISSUE in its own way.
I find it relevant to recall two incidents that come before me. The citation is not for underestimating any one of us or our sincerity. But for academic interest and to make everyone who visits our web site to indulge seriously on the articles that are put in our web site.
Almost a decade back there was some dispute with regard to attaching the Loco (for the first time and last time) in PGT Division of SR-if my memory is right at Shoranur or Ernakulam. It was taken up very seriously by LPs Association resulting in LPs reporting sick. Many trains suffered heavy detention. Almost the solution went in favor of LPs.
During 2007 or 2008, the DME/MYS of SWR decided to open a new Depot for LPs at Chickjajur-a junction in MYS Division where a dozen Operating staff along with SMs and other station staff work not to mention the Gangmen, Electrical staff, S&T staff, and Commercial Staff. But the LPs’ Association of MYS division went on a lightning strike at HRR by reporting sick on the plea that there was no adequate educational and medical facilities available not withstanding other basic amenities. What one needs to consider is that the station was a junction with not less than 40 staff working already there.
While the Sr.DME/MYS retreated from the plan immediately, as a show of strength he issued unlawful and illegal SF 5s against a few LPs who reported sick. I had the opportunity to act as Defence Helper for two LPs of HRR.
The catch 22 comes in here. The two SF5s handled by me were withdrawn duly replaced with SF 11.
The message is very clear. As lamented by me earlier our DOMs and COMs are not interested to move a finger to protect EVEN WHEN SMS HAVE A SOUND CASE ON THEIR SIDE.
I can even cite another case wherein EVEN THE Sr.DCM was ready to put down his down his foot firmly and to defend his Dy.SMRs (Commercial). The cleanliness of Bangalore was the look out of Sr.DCM/SBC with private contractors doing the job on clinching the contract. When it became inconvenient and not feasible for the Dy.SMRs(Commercial) to handle the issue as complaints were on the rise, THE SR.DCM/SBC COOLLY DISOWNED IT AND NOW THE MAINTENANECE OF THE CLEANLINESS OF SBC is handed over to the Medical Department which was the right (and conventional) procedure followed in Indian Railways for one and half century.
It is time we took serious decision with the DOMS AND COMS who have time and again exhibited that they are LEAST BOTHERED ABOUT US. Let us pool our ideas and make them realize THAT THEIR PEACEFUL LIFE AND ZOOMING CAREER GRAPH IS BECAUSE OF THE DEDICATED STATIONS MASTERS WHO SWEAT IT OUT IN THE OPEN LINE FOR THEM DAY IN AND DAY OUT-in the sun and storm in the jungles and deserts-G.Rajan,Ex.CVP/AISMA.
This subject should have attracted volleys of questions and deliberations from all the Railways and Divisions where the Point Cleaning is the baby of SMs/Traffic department. Unfortunately the response is poor. I understand the Point Cleaning is done by Station Staff (Traffic staff) only in SR and SWR. I request other Zonal office bearers to give feedback and let us know how far our understanding that the Point cleaning is done by Station Staff only in SR & SWR is correct or otherwise. The instruction put in our web site has come from the highest authority and still it has not seen the light of the day either in SR or SWR. The information we have for non implementation is that:
1) The correction memo issued by COM/SR is put on holds for some time which has not been clarified further by the same authority on expiry of the time stipulated by him.
2) In SWR the letter of the highest authority has been sent to COM/UBL for his orders/approval.
We, SMs feel extremely let down by the DOMs and COMs for their lackadaisical attitude on the very sensitive issue that has been TORMENTING the SMs of SR&SWR for decades. You and I know well-If any such order were to have come from RB top notches stipulating certain duties/ responsibilities on SMs, the DOMS AND COMS would have issued corresponding orders immediately advising the SMs to comply with the orders of ED/Safety or who ever it may be. Perhaps they would have been magnanimous ENOUGH (?) to add: “APPROPRIATE CORRECTION MEMOS WILL FOLLOW”
But when the order is in favor of the SMs and against the S&T department the Y (H) ARD STICK (literally) IS DIFFERENT. We should, perhaps, be MORE FORCEFULL in such circumstances. But the great tragedy is as mentioned by me at the outset WE DID NOT FIND ANY SPONTANEOUS REACTION from our comrades in our web site on THIS MOST CRUCIAL ISSUE in its own way.
I find it relevant to recall two incidents that come before me. The citation is not for underestimating any one of us or our sincerity. But for academic interest and to make everyone who visits our web site to indulge seriously on the articles that are put in our web site.
Almost a decade back there was some dispute with regard to attaching the Loco (for the first time and last time) in PGT Division of SR-if my memory is right at Shoranur or Ernakulam. It was taken up very seriously by LPs Association resulting in LPs reporting sick. Many trains suffered heavy detention. Almost the solution went in favor of LPs.
During 2007 or 2008, the DME/MYS of SWR decided to open a new Depot for LPs at Chickjajur-a junction in MYS Division where a dozen Operating staff along with SMs and other station staff work not to mention the Gangmen, Electrical staff, S&T staff, and Commercial Staff. But the LPs’ Association of MYS division went on a lightning strike at HRR by reporting sick on the plea that there was no adequate educational and medical facilities available not withstanding other basic amenities. What one needs to consider is that the station was a junction with not less than 40 staff working already there.
While the Sr.DME/MYS retreated from the plan immediately, as a show of strength he issued unlawful and illegal SF 5s against a few LPs who reported sick. I had the opportunity to act as Defence Helper for two LPs of HRR.
The catch 22 comes in here. The two SF5s handled by me were withdrawn duly replaced with SF 11.
The message is very clear. As lamented by me earlier our DOMs and COMs are not interested to move a finger to protect EVEN WHEN SMS HAVE A SOUND CASE ON THEIR SIDE.
I can even cite another case wherein EVEN THE Sr.DCM was ready to put down his down his foot firmly and to defend his Dy.SMRs (Commercial). The cleanliness of Bangalore was the look out of Sr.DCM/SBC with private contractors doing the job on clinching the contract. When it became inconvenient and not feasible for the Dy.SMRs(Commercial) to handle the issue as complaints were on the rise, THE SR.DCM/SBC COOLLY DISOWNED IT AND NOW THE MAINTENANECE OF THE CLEANLINESS OF SBC is handed over to the Medical Department which was the right (and conventional) procedure followed in Indian Railways for one and half century.
It is time we took serious decision with the DOMS AND COMS who have time and again exhibited that they are LEAST BOTHERED ABOUT US. Let us pool our ideas and make them realize THAT THEIR PEACEFUL LIFE AND ZOOMING CAREER GRAPH IS BECAUSE OF THE DEDICATED STATIONS MASTERS WHO SWEAT IT OUT IN THE OPEN LINE FOR THEM DAY IN AND DAY OUT-in the sun and storm in the jungles and deserts-G.Rajan,Ex.CVP/AISMA.
Jan 18th 2010, by
Guest
This perennial problem needs immediate solution. To be precise the solution has come from the highest authority and still we, the SMs are doing the job. It is high time we brought pressure on the administration about this perennial problem. Similarly another issue which has been done by traffic staff is attaching and detatching locos even though the rule applicable, namely, SR 4.32 (i) stipulates : "An engine crew shall couple and uncouple the locomotive at the train originating station, at any intermediate point of operational stabling or engine change and at station/yard where loco is required to be finally detached from the train for change of traction, marshalling convenience or any other operational purposes."
The term coupling/uncoupling connotes activities pertaining to stipulated procedures related to safe and correct detachment of loco from the train and includes disconnection/reconnection of relevant hose pipes/air pressure pipes.
When the train originates in coaching yard or goods yard, the engine crew shall be assisted by traffic shunting staff if normally deployed at that station/yard."
Though the rule is very clear that the ONLY IN GOODS OR COACHING YARD AND THAT TOO ONLY IF SHUNTING STAFF ARE NORMALLY DEPLOYED THEY SHALL ASSIST THE CREW. The rule is clear that the shunting staff if only deployed then they have to assist. Even here once again the rule is explicit-IT STATES THAT THE SHUNTING STAFF SHALL ASSIST AND NOT DO THE JOB OF COUPLING OR UNCOUPLING. But what do we SMs see and do in reality? We are allowing/advising the Pointsman to attach or detach. Therefore I wish AISMA/SR & SWR represent the issue to the highest authorities concerned as it was done in the case of POINT CLEANING by appraising ED/Safety/RB
-R.Venkataramana Rao,SM/Marikkuppam (MKM) / SBC Dn / SWR (18.01.2010)
This perennial problem needs immediate solution. To be precise the solution has come from the highest authority and still we, the SMs are doing the job. It is high time we brought pressure on the administration about this perennial problem. Similarly another issue which has been done by traffic staff is attaching and detatching locos even though the rule applicable, namely, SR 4.32 (i) stipulates : "An engine crew shall couple and uncouple the locomotive at the train originating station, at any intermediate point of operational stabling or engine change and at station/yard where loco is required to be finally detached from the train for change of traction, marshalling convenience or any other operational purposes."
The term coupling/uncoupling connotes activities pertaining to stipulated procedures related to safe and correct detachment of loco from the train and includes disconnection/reconnection of relevant hose pipes/air pressure pipes.
When the train originates in coaching yard or goods yard, the engine crew shall be assisted by traffic shunting staff if normally deployed at that station/yard."
Though the rule is very clear that the ONLY IN GOODS OR COACHING YARD AND THAT TOO ONLY IF SHUNTING STAFF ARE NORMALLY DEPLOYED THEY SHALL ASSIST THE CREW. The rule is clear that the shunting staff if only deployed then they have to assist. Even here once again the rule is explicit-IT STATES THAT THE SHUNTING STAFF SHALL ASSIST AND NOT DO THE JOB OF COUPLING OR UNCOUPLING. But what do we SMs see and do in reality? We are allowing/advising the Pointsman to attach or detach. Therefore I wish AISMA/SR & SWR represent the issue to the highest authorities concerned as it was done in the case of POINT CLEANING by appraising ED/Safety/RB
-R.Venkataramana Rao,SM/Marikkuppam (MKM) / SBC Dn / SWR (18.01.2010)
Feb 28th 2010, by
Guest
The Web-in charge has been repeatedly requesting the commenter to give his ID. And the one above dated 27/2/2010 does not carry the ID. Still it has been allowed to appear. It should be withheld. If the commenter does not want to reveal his identification, there is something suspicious and fishy. If the comment is genuine and does not suffer with any ill motive then the commenter would not hesitate to give his name, station any designation if any. For example take the one under discussion herein. Indeed the one who has come out with the idea may be right or may not be right. But why he should hesitate to identify himself. In my analysis the comment may from a S&T branch staff. I am not against comments coming from other quarters. Perhaps I would welcome it, but not in the absence of the writer's ID. The comment apparently looks motivated-I mean no harm. Therefore the comment should be removed till such time the writer comes out with his ID-G.Rajan, CVP/AISMA (28.02.2010)
The Web-in charge has been repeatedly requesting the commenter to give his ID. And the one above dated 27/2/2010 does not carry the ID. Still it has been allowed to appear. It should be withheld. If the commenter does not want to reveal his identification, there is something suspicious and fishy. If the comment is genuine and does not suffer with any ill motive then the commenter would not hesitate to give his name, station any designation if any. For example take the one under discussion herein. Indeed the one who has come out with the idea may be right or may not be right. But why he should hesitate to identify himself. In my analysis the comment may from a S&T branch staff. I am not against comments coming from other quarters. Perhaps I would welcome it, but not in the absence of the writer's ID. The comment apparently looks motivated-I mean no harm. Therefore the comment should be removed till such time the writer comes out with his ID-G.Rajan, CVP/AISMA (28.02.2010)