You are on page 1of 7

International Journal of Advanced in Management, Technology and Engineering Sciences ISSN NO : 2249-7455


Akash Verma1, Amit Kumar Yadav2, Ashoke Kumar Sarkar3
School of Civil Engineering, Lovely Professional University,
School of Civil Engineering, Lovely Professional University,
Department of Civil Engineering, BITS Pilani,

The Loharu rail level crossing was selected for managing level crossing safety in terms of installing rail over bridge (ROB) for minimizing
railway accidents, delay time and fuel consumption through determining its economic viability by benefit cost ratio (B/C ratio) and net present
value (NPV) economic evaluation methods. The volume count survey from Loharu-Parvezpur and Parvezpur-Loharu gave almost similar values
of TVU, thereby signifying the presence of rail over bridge at level crossing. The data involving frequency and duration of gate closure along
with delay time of vehicle affected by gate closure showed that total 6549 vehicles were affected in both directions due to gate closure 3.05
h/day. 1315259.2 h delay of passengers per year, wastage of 59012.7 L petrol/day and 111404.9 L diesel/day was observed. It was concluded
that the construction of rail over bridge would lead to total savings of Rs. 49655706 yearly, thereby focusing towards the total construction cost
estimation for rail over bridge as Rs. 48153461. Using economic evaluation methods, the B/C ratio and NPV value was observed 1.03 (i.e. ~1)
and 1502245 (i.e. positive value) respectively, therefore concluding that the project of constructing rail over bridge at Loharu rail level crossing
as feasible.

Keywords economic evaluation; rail level crossing; NPV; B/C ratio; fuel consumption

The railway department has one of the largest rail networks in India. There are 31254 Level Crossings (LC) of which 18672 are manned and
12582 are unmanned railway crossings [1]. Most of the accidents at level crossings are primarily due to negligence of road vehicle users and it is
a clear violation of section 131 of motor vehicle act. Human life is so precious and its loss has to be prevented from all sources and this project
report is an attempt to identity the reasons for Unmanned/Manned level crossing accidents and remedial measures/actions which can be taken to
prevent such accidents and to safeguard accident free travel to Rail and Road user. Railway is losing 3 to 5 % train punctuality on level crossing
accounts. Level crossings are potentially unsafe locations, congestion points for road-rail users and operationally bottlenecks for Railways.
Hence for the safety of the users its become necessary to eliminate rail level crossing by rail over or under bridge. This will result in decline in
the rate of accidents between vehicles and trains, Travel time and fuel consumption of the vehicles. Economic evaluation has become important
for verifying that whether the ROB is economical feasible or not.

Rail level crossing provides a path for the users to cross over the railway line. To minimize the risk of accidents of the train with users while
crossing the level crossing there many techniques adopted by Indian railways such as:

a. Gates at manned level crossings are provided to facilitate road user for crossing the railway Line. These Barriers or Gates may be operated
by Gate Man available at Level Crossing.
b. At Unmanned level crossing there is no availability of gate man, these level crossing are generally provided at Remote prone area where
daily traffic is very less.

Railroad crossing are safe when used in proper manner. Over 90 % of the risk in recent years resulted from misuse by users in the form of errors
or abuses. The rest is due to other causes such as equipment failure, reduced visibility or failure of the railway operator. Typical examples of
user errors are incorrect operation, incorrect timing of the train to reach the intersection, or false assumptions about the priority of the use,
direction of travel, or presence of a second train, normally coming from the opposite direction. Typical examples of user abuse include users
driving around half barriers or when the cross light is red. The analysis of 5 year data of accidents for the period 2007 to 2012 shows that large
parts of 779 deaths (58 %) and 670 injuries (27.5 %) are attributable to unmanned railway crossing caused by negligence of road users by 36.4 %
of total train accidents and manned rail crossing resulted in 4.8 % deaths and 5.5 % injuries. The reasons for casualties at level crossings involve:

a. Due to open or improperly closed gates.

b. Road vehicles coming over the level crossings where barriers on the other side has been closed.
c. Road vehicles crashing into the lifting gates or breaking the lock and opening it.
d. Road vehicles breaking or opening the chains at level crossings closed by the chains.
e. Road vehicles left at level crossings.
f. Disregard of signals by drivers
g. Non-issues of caution order to driver when gate telephone is out of order
h. The Figure 1 shows the Accident data at Manned and Unmanned level crossings of Indian railways.

Volume 7 Issue 11 2017 115

International Journal of Advanced in Management, Technology and Engineering Sciences ISSN NO : 2249-7455

Figure 1: Accident Data at Manned and Unmanned Level Crossings of Indian Railways [2]

The most effective way to reduce the risk of level crossing is to completely eliminate the crossroad. In addition, the closure of a public pedestrian
crossing may cause an alternative route to be provided either in the form of a bridge over the railway line, an underpass or by providing a
deflection path to a nearby existing bridge. The Indian railways systematically checked for the security control of the railway crossing and the
justification for improved cross-border protection. In general, the train vehicle unit (TVU) is used as the criterion to identify which rail level
crossing will have a priority over modernization. The TVU, as known in India, is identical to the traffic moment indicators used in other
countries because it is a result of the multiplication of the daily traffic volume at a train crossing with the daily number of trains passing through
that intersection. The TVU criteria adopted in India is listed in the Table 1.

Table 1: TVU Criteria Adopted in India [3]

Sr. no. Daily traffic density Level Crossing Type

1 TVU < 6000 Unmanned Level crossing
2 6000 TVU < 10000 All unmanned level crossings to be manned
3 10000 TVU < 100000 Manned level crossing
4 TVU 100000 Road over/under bridge

All the above mentioned issues could be overcome through:

a. Replacement of all level crossings by grade separators.

b. Elimination of level crossing vision-2020 (Mr. Narendra Modi, Prime Minister of India).
c. Construction of rail over or under bridge where TVU is more than 1 lakh.
d. Construction of diversions where TVU is less than 1 lakh.


2.1: Identifying the Study Problem

The broad gauge railway line runs through the connecting route of Haryana and Rajasthan. This railway line is of very great importance because
most of the passenger and freight movement take place through Rajasthan-Haryana-Delhi and due to the connection of the main road to the city
of Haryana. The traffic at this junction is also high as shown in the following Figure 2.

Figure 2: Loharu Rail Level Crossing

Volume 7 Issue 11 2017 116

International Journal of Advanced in Management, Technology and Engineering Sciences ISSN NO : 2249-7455

At a manned railway crossing during the closure of the gate, some of the drivers of the vehicle were asked to find their reaction to the obstacles
caused by the closure of the gate, most of the cyclists and pedestrian tried to sneak the closed railway gate. Since the four-wheelers had no
choice but to stop at the closed railway gate, there is more congestion problem at level crossing because a large queue is made to cross level
crossing which result in collisions of vehicles, thereby leading to more consumption of fuel while idling standing of vehicles at level crossing
when gates are closed. This also results in the delay travel time of the passengers. The passengers have to travel 1 km (approx.) additionally to
cross level crossing. Some of Level Crossing accidents occur due to carelessness or human error of both road user and Railway staff.

2.2: Accident Data at Loharu Level Crossing

This data is taken from the Railway Police Force (RPF) Station. The Police station is located at the Loharu Railway Station. The Table 2 shows
the accident scenario at Loharu rail crossing in the year 2014.

Table 2: Accident data at Loharu Level Crossing [4]

Sr. No. Date Type of vehicle Impact of Accident

1 16-3-2014 Truck Injury
2 12-5-2014 Jeep Injury
3 01-08-2014 Truck Injury
4 02-09-2014 Truck Injury
5 25-10-2014 Truck Injury
6 20-11-2014 Truck Injury

2.3: Passenger Car Unit (PCU)

The Table 3 below shows the PCU values for the various vehicle types.

Table 3: PCU Values for Various Vehicle Types

Vehicle Type Passenger Car Unit (PCU)

Bus / Truck 3
Three Wheelers 1.2
Tractors 4
Camel cart and Others 6
Car / Jeep 1
Two Wheelers 0.5

Appropriate data is required to carry out the work. The different types of traffic surveys conducted are:

a. Traffic volume and its classification.

b. Railway gate closure detail.
c. Survey of traffic delay.

3.1: Volume Count Survey: This survey is done for 7 days to calculate the number for trains and vehicles passes through the rail level
crossing. The survey is conducted for whole day (24 hrs.). The Table 4 shows the volume count survey to calculate traffic vehicle unit from
Loharu to Parvezpur.

Table 4: Volume Count Survey from Loharu to Parvezpur [5]

Date No. of Total No. of Total No. of Light- Total No. of Total No. of
Trains Heavy-Vehicle of Vehicle of Full Units Camel Cart etc. Half Vehicle
Full Units of Full Units units (Auto, etc.)
01-03-2015 18 540 2232 322 104
02-03-2015 20 526 2852 206 126
03-03-2015 19 598 2452 342 132
04-03-2015 19 523 2236 206 146
05-03-2015 18 652 2442 312 92
06-03-2015 19 654 2458 426 108
07-03-2015 16 532 2468 468 112
Total 129 4029 17140 2282 818
Average 18.429 575.571 2448.571 326.000 58.430

Traffic vehicle unit (TVU) = Total average no. of vehicle unit Total avg. no. of trains = 62819.97.

Volume 7 Issue 11 2017 117

International Journal of Advanced in Management, Technology and Engineering Sciences ISSN NO : 2249-7455

Similarly, the Table 5 shows the volume count survey to calculate traffic vehicle unit from Parvezpur to Loharu.
Table 5: Volume Count Survey from Parvezpur to Loharu [4]

Date No. of Trains Total No. of Total No. of Total No. of Total No. of
Heavy-Vehicles Light-Vehicles of Camel Cart etc. Half Vehicles
of Full Units Full Units of Full Units Units (Auto, etc.)
1-03-2015 18 560 2320 350 110
2-03-2015 20 543 2858 218 132
3-03-2015 19 574 2522 350 143
4-03-2015 19 559 2278 236 152
5-03-2015 18 643 2534 342 99
6-03-2015 19 648 2498 449 109
7-03-2015 16 540 2512 475 112
Total 129 4067 17522 2420 857
Average 18.429 575.571 2503.14 345.71 61.21

Traffic vehicle unit (TVU) = Total avg. no. of vehicle unit Total avg. no. of trains = 64236.69

It can be analyzed that from Loharu to Parvezpur the TVU is 62819.97 in the junction on the other hand from Parvezpur to Loharu the TVU
is 64340.23. Which is the almost equal in both directions and sum of these TVUs is coming more than 1 lakh i.e. 1, 27,160. Hence, rail over
bridge could be provided at the railway crossing.

3.2: Timing of Railway Gate Closure

Total 18 number of trains passes through the Loharu railway line crossing in a day. In which there are 5 different types of trains such as 5
passenger train, 1 goods train and 12 express trains passes through it. The railway gate closure period is of 3.05 hrs in a day, when these number
of train passes through the crossing in a day. The Table 6 shows the details of the gate closure at LoharuParvezpur level crossing.

Table 6: Gate Closure Period at Loharu-Parvezpur level crossing

From To Total Time (in min.) Type of Train

09:15 09:25 00:10 Passenger
10:17 10:27 00:10 Express
10:45 10:55 00:10 Express
11:50 12:00 00:10 Express
12:20 12:30 00:10 Passenger
13:35 13:50 00:15 Goods
13:53 14:03 00:10 Express
14:07 14:17 00:10 Express
16:00 16:10 00:10 Passenger
18:40 18:50 00:10 Express
21:07 21:17 00:10 Passenger
00:18 00:28 00:10 Express
00:35 00:45 00:10 Express
01:20 01:30 00:10 Express
02:25 02:35 00:10 Express
02:55 03:05 00:10 Express
03:58 04:08 00:10 Passenger
04:43 04:53 00:10 Express

3.3: Delay time of vehicle affected by gate closure

Here we have calculated the number of vehicles getting delayed due to the closer of rail gates when train passes through the crossing were
calculated and tabulated in Table 7.
Table 7: Number of Vehicles Getting Delayed

Direction LHU-PVZ PVZ-LHU Total

Heavy Vehicle 218 216 434
Light Vehicle 2852 2858 5710
Camel cart & Other Vehicles 78 79 157
Auto 122 126 248
Total 3270 3279 6549

Total 6549 vehicles are affected due to closure of railway gate for a period of 3.05 hr in a day. The highest value of Volume Count Survey for
Heavy Vehicles (LHU-PVZ) has been considered from Table 1 as 654. Therefore, vehicles affected by gate closer for heavy vehicles = (6543)
i.e. 218 whereas passenger car unit (PCU) for heavy vehicles is 3. All the others values could be calculated in a similar fashion.

Volume 7 Issue 11 2017 118

International Journal of Advanced in Management, Technology and Engineering Sciences ISSN NO : 2249-7455

3.4: Per Minute Vehicle Delay

The Figure 3 below shows the per minute vehicle delay for various types of vehicles.

Figure 3: Per Minute Vehicle Delay for Various Vehicle Types [6]

Collected data from the field is analyzed by keeping in view the primary objective which involves the computation of the total average delay of
vehicles for analyzing the idling fuel consumption cost. The computed vehicle hrs are converted into passengers hrs, based on occupancy of

4.1: Vehicle Occupancy Chart

The Figure 4 represents the vehicle occupancy chart for various vehicles.

Figure 4: Vehicle Occupancy Chart for Various Vehicles

4.2: Total Passengers Hour at Loharu Railway Crossing

The Table 8 represents the passengers hour at Loharu railway crossing.

Table 8: Total Passengers Hour at Loharu Railway Crossing
Vehicle Type Number of vehicle Vehicle Delay in hrs. Passengers delay in hrs Passengers delay in
per day hrs per year
Heavy 434 56 3603 1315259
Light vehicle 5710 818 1146 418290
Camel cart & 157 23 87 15330
other vehicles
Auto 248 36 87 31755
Total 1780634

4.3: Calculations
Here total no. of heavy vehicles per day = 434
Delay time for heavy vehicle (Bus) per minute (from Figure 3) = 7.82 Delay in vehicle hrs = (Total no. of heavy vehicles per day Delay time-
vehicle per minute) i.e. = (434 7.82) / 60 = 56.3 vehicle-hrs.
Similarly, delay in passenger hrs per day = Occupancy of the vehicle delay time in vehicle-hrs i.e. 64 56.3 = 3603.45 passengers-hrs per day.
Delay in passenger hrs per annum = (3603.45 365) = 1315259.2 passengers-hrs per year.

Volume 7 Issue 11 2017 119

International Journal of Advanced in Management, Technology and Engineering Sciences ISSN NO : 2249-7455

4.4: Consumption of Fuel Due to Idling Standing

Fuel consumption delay due to idling standing of vehicle is done by calculating the overall delay of vehicle in hrs of each vehicle category by the
respective Idling fuel consumption coefficient [6]. Coefficients of idling fuel consumption of vehicles are given below in Table 9.

Table 9: Coefficient of Idling Fuel Consumption for Vehicles

Vehicle Type Consumption of fuel at Idling

Two-Wheelers 0.34
Three-Wheelers 0.42
Cars 0.54
Buses 0.86
Light commercial vehicle 0.69

According to PCRA study it has been analyzed that at the selected intersection on an average daily 59012.7 liters of petrol and 111404.9 liters of
diesel is calculated to be wasted because of idling of vehicles. The Table 10 shows the average fuel loss per day on each category of traffic

Table 10: Fuel consumption cost of delayed vehicles at the study area in the area of 2015

Type of Fuel Liters/year Rs./Liters Amount in Rs.

Petrol 59012.7 65 38,35,831
Diesel 111404.9 46 51,24,625
Total 89, 60, 456

The calculated vehicle hour is converted based on the vehicle occupancy in passenger hour. The following average occupancy value is
determined for different modes of transport taking into account the type of land use in the investigated area.

4.5: Saving in Term of Travel Time

The Table 11 below shows the monetary savings in terms of travel time i.e. rupees/passenger-hr.
Table 11: Monetary Savings in Terms of Travel Time [6]

Vehicle Type Savings in Terms of Travel

Time (Rupees / Passenger-Hr)
Two-Wheelers 62.48
Three-Wheelers 34.81
Car 10.23
Bus 10.23

4.6: Travel Time Saving Evaluation

The Table 12 represents the travel time savings evaluation in terms of passenger-hr travel time savings (in rupees) along with savings in travel
time per annum (in rupees).
Table 12: Travel time Savings Evaluation
Passenger-Hr Delay Per Passenger-Hr Savings in Travel Time in
Vehicle Type
Annum Travel Time Savings in Rs. Rs. Per Annum
Heavy Vehicles 1315259 10.23 13455099.57
Light Vehicles 418290 62.48 26134759.2
Camel Carts and Others
Auto 31755 34.81 1105391.55
Total 1780634 40695250.32
From the above table it can be analyzed that by the implementation of ROB, the following benefit can be achieved, as shown in Table 13.
Table 13: Travel Time and Fuel Time Savings
Sr. No Savings Value (in Rupees)
1 Travel Time saving 40695250
2 Fuel Time Saving 89, 60, 456
Total 4,96,55,706

Volume 7 Issue 11 2017 120

International Journal of Advanced in Management, Technology and Engineering Sciences ISSN NO : 2249-7455

4.7: Construction Cost of Rob

The construction cost of the Rob has been represented in the following Table 14 as shown [7].
Table 14: Construction Cost of the Rob

Sr. No. Work Type Cost (In Rs)

1 Value of ROB approach and railway portion 4,66,111,00
2 Additional 3 % Consultancy fees 1,39,83,33
3 Additional 10.30 % service tax on consultancy fees 1,44,028
Total Cost of Railway Over Bridge 4,81,53,461
a. Cost of Steel Girder for 45 m span = Rs. 3,17,03600-/
b. Labor and Painting Cost = Rs. 2,64000-/
c. Cost of the construction of rail over bridge is 4, 81, 53,461/-including all the things.


With the help of the above data Economic Evaluation of Rail over bridge at a selected study area can be calculated by Benefit Cost Ratio
method and Net Present Value (NPV).

a. Benefit Cost Ration must be equal or greater than 1.

b. NPV value must be positive.
5.1: Benefit Cost Ratio (B/C Ratio)

B/C Ratio = Benefit (Travel Time + Fuel consumption) / Cost of Bridge

i.e. (4, 96, 55,706 / 4, 81, 53,461) = 1.03
It shows that the Benefit Cost Ratio is coming approximately equal to 1.

5.2: Net Present Value (NPV)

NPV = Benefit (Travel Time + Fuel consumption) Cost of Bridge
i.e. (4, 96, 55,706 4, 81, 53,461) = 1,50,2245
NPV value is coming positive.
Since both the conditions of B/C Ratio and NPV have been met hence it can be concluded that the project is feasible.

As per the observation we can provide rail over bridge at Loharu level crossing to minimize the accident rate, delay in travel time and fuel
consumption. The project is economical feasible as the B/C Ratio is obtained as 1 whereas Net present value (NPV) as positive. Here by
constructing rail over bridge the extra distance of 1 km, can be cut down which a user has to travel while crossing level crossing. Same method
can be applied for eliminating level crossing by economic evaluation for rail over bridge on other level crossing, because according to Indian
railway all level crossings must be eliminated by rail over or under bridge by 2020.

[1] ayManualCh9_data.htm (accessed on 29th
August, 2017)
[2] (accessed on 7th September, 2017)
[3] S. Jain, A. Kumar Level crossing scenario of Indian Railways International Railway Safety Conference 2012. 810 October, London,
[4] Loharu Police Station, Loharu, Biwani, Haryana. (Personal communication)
[5] Senior Section Engineer (Permanent Way), Loharu Railway Station, Loharu, Biwani, Haryana. (Personal communication)
[6] A.M. Patel, Economic Evaluation for Proposed Highway Railway Over Bridge-A Case Study of Naroda Rail Crossing, Global Research
Analysis 1(2012) 8688.
[7] R.K. Gupta Economics of steel bridges v/s concrete bridges Indian Institute of Bridge Engineers 2002. 119, April.

Volume 7 Issue 11 2017 121