It is ironic that overhauling and refurbishing passenger trains is seemingly much more difficult than building them in the first place judged by the number of late running and unsatisfactory programmes I have witnessed over the years. There are some pretty obvious reasons for poor performance. Normally ninety percent or more of the fleet in question is required every day to run services, this means that only one or two trains can be released at a time, making programmes “thin” and “long”. It’s a chain that’s easily broken by late delivery of major overhauled components or a sudden operational crisis which prevents the expected unit arriving at the works. Then there is the discovery of some major defect once the train is berthed for the work, frequently with steel-bodied trains, it is rampant corrosion. Often the work is more resource hungry than planned but deploying additional people with appropriate skills quickly such that they can work efficiently is no easy matter. Once you are behind the curve, typically that’s where you stay for quite a while. No two trains from a supposedly homogeneous fleet are the same. Parts are missing or repaired, work arounds put in place at various times for malfunctioning systems. There’s graffiti, impact damage, leaks, mystery electrical cables. The list goes on.
A late running programme is problematic for all concerned. Often the train operator and owner have committed to a deadline for completion of the works. This might be to meet contact or statutory obligations. Either way, delaying completion is not an option. For the poor overhauler, delay equals the certainty of turning profit into loss and puts the client relationship into intensive care. Apportionment of fault is rarely helpful for either party. Even if there is compensation for the direct costs of additional work, consider this; that fleet will occupy your very expensive workshop space for months longer than planned and occupy your expensive management team far longer and at a higher intensity than planned. Suddenly your apparently fat margins have evaporated, its really not worth performing the work once the problems have emerged but you are still obliged to slog through the programme to claw back something of your costs and reputation. In these circumstances neither client or overhauler has a good opinion of the other, and nobody made any money.
The first mistake is the creation and adoption of, and belief in, an unrealistic programme. Very often the client proposes start and completion dates and that sets in motion a sort of group think that denies the possibility either of an earlier start or of a later finish. In a competitive tender the client completion date is considered sacrosanct. Then the fleet survey work is often superficial. Given the downside risk from vehicle condition, it’s really unforgivable to take this on trust. Make your plan realistic and deliverable, anything else is pointless. If arguments for your “non-compliant” programme are valid and backed by good information, it is the competition that will lack credibility.
Project managers always talk about the risk matrix and assessment for a project and normally the proposal to the client must contain the risk matrix and mitigations. The problem is that the purpose behind the identification of risks is quickly forgotten. Project managers should worry non-stop about programme risks, the process of evaluating, discussing re-validating and challenging risk assessment should be continuous. In this way a habit of horizon-scanning and navel gazing will allow risk assessment to be a real project management tool rather than a box to be ticked.
High in the risk firmament is client decision-making. Do not expect clients to make timely decisions in accordance with the agreed plan unless they are proactively managed to do so. Clients will have many competing priorities so the vital decision you need on livery, saloon layout or paint colour will not emerge when you need it unless, for weeks beforehand, you have been actively managing this risk.
Overhaulers often make the mistake of securing a new piece of work, looking at the plan, and deciding that it doesn’t warrant the exclusive focus of an accountable programme manager at the outset. Perhaps a manager, who is completing a different project in a few months time, can take this one on, and as one tapers out, the new contract can taper in. This is very persuasive in principle. The danger though is obvious, all of the planning and risk management needs to start from day one, this is where the key decisions and relationships are made, this is where client confidence and engagement is built. Focus and time expended at the start of a train overhaul project will repay tenfold during the mobilisation and early production phases of the works.
Finally, get the resource plan right, get the leadership and team management right. Everybody loves to be involved with a success and in a project which has an engaged and enthusiastic team with the right level of resource, success is a much more likely prospect. If your team gets to be so good that under-utilisation is a problem, that’s a much easier challenge than playing catch-up.
I hope these thoughts have been thought-provoking, even useful to some.
MK Projects 