Case Study: Aspendale Level Crossings — 4 Visits in 5 Days

Summary

Carrum Signals Section 4201 visits Aspendale 4 separate times in 5 days (19-23 June 2026) to perform work that could be consolidated into a single visit. This example illustrates how the current scheduling approach generates unnecessary travel by treating each work order independently.

The Schedule (As Planned)

The June 21 visit is part of a larger 10-WO day covering Aspendale (2), Edithvale (4) and Kananook (4). The June 22 visit is the team's entire day — a single auto gate inspection at one level crossing.

Why This Happens

All five work orders at Aspendale are for level crossing protection equipment (auto gates and escape gate latches) with a 61-day frequency and 6-day tolerance. The scheduling system calculates each order's window independently and places the planned date at the midpoint. Because each crossing's maintenance cycle is offset by a day or two, the midpoints land on different days:

The common overlap window across all five orders is 17-28 June — 11 days in which all work could be completed on a single visit.

The Inefficiency

• 4 separate trips from Carrum depot to Aspendale (~7km each way)
• The June 22 visit sends a team for a single work order — one auto gate inspection at one crossing
• The same job type (SP387) is performed on 21 Jun AND 22 Jun, at different crossings within the same station
• All tolerance windows overlap, so there is no technical reason these must be on different days

What an Optimised Schedule Would Look Like

All 5 Aspendale work orders could be batched into the June 21 visit, which already has the team on-site doing the same type of work. Combined with the existing Edithvale and Kananook work on that day, this would bring the June 21 total to 15 WOs — above average but within normal range (teams regularly complete 12+ WOs in a day).

This would eliminate 3 unnecessary visits, saving approximately 42km of travel (3 × 7km each way) and the associated access/protection arrangements for each visit.

The Broader Pattern

This pattern repeats at Aspendale later in the year:

The same team visits Aspendale 6 times in 12 days in August. The same scheduling behaviour — each work order placed independently at its window midpoint — creates the same fragmented pattern.

Across the full year, Carrum 4201 visits Aspendale on 27 separate days. With tolerance window optimisation, this could be reduced to approximately 9 visits — a 67% reduction.

Relevance

This case study demonstrates that:

1. The scheduling system applies no geographic batching — it does not consider what other work exists at the same location when placing a work order
2. The tolerance windows are wide enough to consolidate — even with a tight 6-day tolerance on 61-day frequency jobs, there is sufficient overlap
3. The same team performs all the work — there is no competency barrier to consolidation. Carrum 4201 does SP387, SP395, SP206, SP305A, SP311, SP375, and SP208 throughout the year
4. Single work order visits are common — 31% of all location visits across the network are for just 1 work order, and 96% of these could be merged with another visit
5. The inefficiency compounds — Aspendale is one of 268 group+location combinations where visits could be consolidated. Across the network, 73% of location visits could be eliminated through tolerance window optimisation