Yuku free message boards

The notion that a wet lease would be cheaper / efficient / better in comparison to owning, operating and maintaining the plant ourselves need to be tested by comparing the data. We have operated leased (dry as well as wet) tamper regulators in our project and I do have their costing. Although the rates of hiring vary a lot but still an average can be worked out.

From my experience, it appears to be cheaper to own and operate a plant for a continuous usage scenario. But I must admit that I am not fully aware of actual cost of owning and operating a plant in IR. In contrast I have full information on our basis for costing here in the leased scenario.

I would still rather go for leasing given the option, but not for the same reasons. The benefit to me will be on these lines:

(1) Full expenditure involved will be known before hand so no surprises.
(2) No need to do tedious processing for individual spares from time to time.
(3) No need to deal with the disgruntled staff.
(4) One will be able to concentrate on the more productive and meaningful task of managing the tamping work itself rather than the machines, thus maximising the benefit to the asset at less expenditure of individual effort.
(5) Overcome the partisan allotment of tamper inputs in the section.
(6) Will be able to specify the tamper type and method of tamping and get the same for a definite cost, instead of having to do with old lame tampers because the new ones happen to go to the MF DEN's section.
(7) Of course it will by the way also relieve my men from the hassle of transporting a drum full of diesel ( quantity adjusted for EVAPORATION losses as usual) from divisional fuel depot to station on a cycle rickshaw, and from there loading it on to the SLR of the train ( by overcoming the friction of rules for carriage of inflamable materials by 'Chanakya Niti' brand of lubricant !) every third day or so. Probably we will save some expenditure on this account as the contractor would only price for diesel to be bought from nearest pump.
(8) And last but not the least it will remove the very hassle and burden of managing a machine by an organisation whose core expertise is in its deployment and usage and not its maintenance (machine's). Thus eliminating resultant inefficiencies from the shoddy management of plant maintenance.

The same would hold true for other types of machines also.

But there would be pitfalls which needs to be explored. The machines are critical in overall maintenance requirement of todays track any failure of leasing contract will jepardise the operations. That is why most of the airlines still go for their own planes or self lease for separate accountal. Yes the smaller airlines who don't want to manage the aircraft and only want to manage the passenger part of business go for leasing. Also the maintenance set up in their case is capital intensive and you need a minimum no. to cover the fixed cost.

Just like a costly and complex aircraft needs a pilot who would earn more than almost 99% of the passengers whom he would be flying, track machine operators also would have to be compensated at market rates for that type of skill (sooner or later). On a rough comparison a leased machine operator would earn 4 to 5 times what we would be paying now to our operators.

Lease or self own, the choice is not that easy.