Line Comparison Study. Project report of the UIC Asset Management Working Group

Transcription

1 Line Comparison Study Project report of the UIC Asset Management Working Group January 2011

2 This booklet has been prepared by the members of the project group Line Comparison, on behalf of the UIC WG Asset Management. It presents the results of four Line Comparison Workshops. IMPORTANT: This study was solely done for research purposes, in order to increase the understanding of differences and similarities in asset management approaches. The data used was not validated for other purposes, and therefore is to be considered as samples for the R&D purposes of this report only. ISBN Warning No part of this publication may be copied, reproduced or distributed by any means whatsoever, including electronic, except for private and individual use, without the express permission of the International Union of Railways (UIC). The same applies for translation, adaptation or transformation, arrangement or reproduction by any method or procedure whatsoever. The sole exceptions - noting the author's name and the source -are "analyses and brief quotations justified by the critical, argumentative, educational, scientific or informative nature of the publication into which they are incorporated" (Articles L and L122-5 of the French Intellectual Property Code). International Union of Railways (UIC) - Paris, 2011

3 Contents Executive Summary p Introduction and Approach of the Line Comparison Study 1.1 Introduction p Line Comparison study approach p. 6 Comparison of Asset Management Practices 2.1 Differences and Similarities between Asset Managers p Differentiation by Line Type p Five Best Practice Examples p Usage of SAP for Asset Management: (IM F) p Implementation of a new Asset Management Structure (IM N) p Top-down Approach for Budget Allocation (IM H) p Level Approach for differentiated Budget Allocation (IM J) p Using Infrastructure Deterioration Models for Maintenance Planning (IM L) p. 22 Line Comparison 3.1 Parameters for Comparison : Usage / Cost / Performance p Comparability p Quantitative comparison analysis p High Density Lines p Regional Lines p High Density Lines versus Regional Lines p. 33 Line Comparison Study Conclusions 4.1 Trends in Railway Infrastructure Asset Management p Conclusions from the Line Comparison Study p. 35 Recommendations p. 36 Evaluation of the Line Comparison study p. 37

4 Executive Summary Nine European rail infrastructure managers have carried out a comparison study. By comparing the asset management characteristics of their organisations and of selected lines, they have analysed best practice elements. This has lead to ideas for the improvement of their asset management methods. The asset management framework defined by the UIC Asset Management Working Group was used to establish a list of elements for comparison. For each of these elements, all participants presented their approaches and solutions, and comparing these has led to interesting new insights, e.g. concerning inspection regimes, definitions of the maintenance and renewal categories, headache assets, asset strategy changes and trends, corresponding changes in organisation structures and the integration of asset information. Other fields of interest are tools and methods for planning and scheduling, budget allocation, cost management, and maintenance logging. It was concluded that the different national safety regulations caused big differences in asset management practices. Participants also concluded that there was a need for more differentiation of line type or category, both in budget allocation and setting inspection and maintenance regime limits. Five best practice examples were recognised and presented in more detail. IM F presented their widespread usage of SAP as the tool for all asset management information management. IM N explained how a new asset management structure has been implemented in their organisation. IM H explained their top-down approach for maintenance and renewal budget allocation. IM J presented a 3-level approach of differentiation of budget allocation by line. IM L indicated how they used mathematical models for asset deterioration to predict maintenance need and plan maintenance activities. 2 UIC Asset Management Working - Line Comparison Study Group

5 For the actual comparison of the lines each infrastructure manager chose a number of high density lines and regional lines. For these lines, quantitative information was collected, representing the annual maintenance and renewal cost spent on each line, the usage of each line and the performance of each line in terms of infrastructure failures or punctuality. In an iterative process, data quality and comparability could be optimised. A new graphical representation of the parameters along these three dimensions (cost, usage and performance, or CUP ) was developed, combining the information in a CUP triangle. Studying the size and orientation of this triangle enabled similarities and differences between different railway lines or the averages of groups of lines to be easily identified. Two types of CUP triangles were studied. In the first type usage was expressed in Cumulative gross tonnage since the last renewal and performance was measured in Infrastructure failures. Cost was kept the same in both graphs, as the sum of yearly averages of Maintenance and renewal cost. Comparing these two types of CUP triangles lead to a number of interesting conclusions. Many small or bigger differences could be found and explained. Some general conclusions that could be drawn were: yearly costs for maintenance and renewal are increasing with increasing age, usage of regional lines can very often be increased without increasing required maintenance and renewal cost and without risking lower performance, there is hardly any correlation between infrastructure failures and delay minutes. Apparently, when the focus is on delay minutes, it is easier to minimise Mean Time To Repair than to minimise the number of failures. A high level comparison of the activities of these nine organisations leads to the conclusion that each takes asset management very serious, both as a professional discipline and as a factor in the railway field. In their challenge for further professionalisation of their asset management practice, all feel that they need improved methods and tools, and it is felt that sharing best practice is a useful activity. In this line comparison study two types of comparison have been combined. A qualitative comparison of methods and approaches, organised element by element and which used the asset management framework, provided the comparison of basic principles leading to our asset management practices. The quantitative comparison of actual cost, usage and performance then showed what the result of our efforts was. Combining the two allowed for an analysis of where room for improvement could be found. This work was carried out between December 2009 and October Four 2-day workshops were organised at UIC Headquarters in Paris, with the active participation of all. UIC Asset Management Working - Line Comparison Study Group 3

6 1. Introduction and approach of the Line Comparison Study 1.1 Introduction Trends in railway infrastructure management: asset management is hot! Rail infrastructure managers of Europe have joined forces in an Asset Management Working Group (AMWG), under the flag of UIC. They share the challenge to improve performance as an asset manager, while spending less. They have recognised that the principles of asset management offer them a chance to further professionalise their tasks, and that joining forces in exploring the opportunities for improvement is the best way to go. Genesis of the line comparison project In its early stage, the workstream performance and costs focused on the top-level information about performance. An inventory of existing KPIs was drawn up and a certain comparison was attempted. This work was to be situated at the top of the AM-framework. The KPIs and aspects that were taken into account related to the networks as a whole and not to categories of lines. Different workstreams were initiated: Development of a framework for asset management Organisational issues: change management and cultural aspects Performance and costs Best practices The first important result of the AMWG is the publication of Guidelines for the Application of Asset Management in Railway Infrastructure Organisations. This publication provides a framework of definitions and terminology for asset management in railway infrastructure. Another important aspect for infrastructure managers is to demonstrate their effectiveness and their ability to produce value for money. That topic is addressed in the performance and costs workstream. After a while it became apparent that it was necessary to dig deeper into performance and cost information to find the aspects that make the difference. Indeed, the workstream on performance and costs did not deal with costs at that moment. While the high-level cost information available in the LICB database was seen as making comparisons possible between companies on network level, it did not supply any detailed information related to asset groups, for example. A brain storming took place during the asset management meeting in June 2009 on how to proceed with the performance and costs workstream. The idea was to analyse the relationships between cost levels, efficient working methods and good practices. During the discussion an aspect called infra-concept or architecture came up: a distinction had to be made between different kinds of infrastructure. For example, high speed lines are not comparable to regional lines. 4 UIC Asset Management Working - Line Comparison Study Group

7 The Group concluded that differences in costs may be explained by: Different working methods, maintenance approaches, rates etc. Different quality or performance levels Different architecture or infrastructure concepts. After discussion the group decided to proceed by making comparisons between different networks or tracks within the same categories and finding good practices. The cost information in LICB was considered to be a good starting point for this analysis, but there was a desire to go beyond the overview of results and to go into greater detail. The following categories were identified: 1. High speed lines 2. High density traffic lines 3. Conventional lines with mixed traffic 4. Regional, rural or secondary lines 5. Freight lines The goal of the exercise would be to show best practices to indicate how IMs manage performance versus costs, based on: The AM framework A comparison of a limited number (3-4) of lines in two categories The remaining categories were intended to be analysed after the first results had been evaluated. Improving by comparison: finding best practice The AMWG recognised the need for insight into and an overview of the various asset management practices. It was decided to collect information about the approaches and methods of a number of infrastructure managers in Europe. In order to collect comparable information, it seemed wise to collect information for comparable lines. Therefore the AMWG decided to organise a line comparison study. The purpose of this study is for all participants to learn. The rationale of the study is in the principle of understanding. Once each IM starts to understand what everyone else does (i.e. which asset management strategies and methods they employ), and with what results (in terms of cost and performance), they will understand better why they do what they do, and whether that is the best way to do it. Finding lines of comparable nature It was decided to choose two different line types. The classifications chosen for this study were high density lines and regional lines (HDL and RL). The expectation was that high density lines would have high traffic volumes, receive the most political and management attention, and ask for a more stringent asset management strategy, while regional lines were expected to be less intensively used, and less scrutinised. The comparison of different approaches within a single country was also considered to provide interesting insights. UIC Asset Management Working - Line Comparison Study Group 5

8 1.2 Line Comparison study approach Project team Asset management experts and line experts for the infrastructure managers of eight different countries formed the project team to work on this line comparison study: Infrabel and RFF organised and prepared four workshops. Other participants were SBB, ProRail, SNCF, JBV, ADIF, RFI and Network Rail. The Dutch consultancy firm DeltaRail was asked to help prepare and to moderate the workshops. Preliminary steps Before starting with line comparison itself, the following actions were taken: Defining High Density and Regional Lines Choosing different lines of each type in each country Defining a set of data to be collected Collecting data and checking consistency of the collected data. Defining High Density and Regional Lines The line categories are defined as follows: High density commuter line Line serving urban or suburban areas or converging to big cities. Line characteristics: Length : around 30 km Traffic type : predominantly passenger commuter traffic Traffic level : at least train*km/km main track/year (~ 70 trains per day and per track) Train services : local trains, regional trains, Intercity trains Regional line Regular non-tourist passenger railway services within a medium sized territorial and political entity larger than a city and smaller than a country Line characteristics: Length : about 40 to 80 km Traffic type : passenger or mixed traffic with predominantly local and/or regional passenger traffic Traffic level : less than train*km/km main track/year (~ 25 trains per day and per track) Train services : local and/or regional trains 6 UIC Asset Management Working - Line Comparison Study Group

9 Choosing different lines of each type in each country The choice of the lines for comparison took place over two stages: Choice of a limited number of lines, for which key information was gathered Shortlisting to one line in each category, for each IM, focusing on those with the most comparable infrastructure Defining a set of data to be collected The data set to be collected was defined following two axes: Which parameters will be collected? How are those parameters to be defined? Collecting data and checking consistency of the collected data Data collection turned out to be a work intensive and iterative process due to grey areas in definition, different interpretations of definitions in the different countries, and the (in)ability to provide data corresponding to the definition. Following the structure of the Asset Management Framework After this preliminary action, a total of four 2-day workshops were organised during The structure of the asset management framework (see Figure 1) was used to define the order in which the topics would be covered in the first two workshops. Before each workshop information was collected about all selected lines and then this information was discussed during the workshops. The programme for each of these sessions is presented in Table 1. Network Objectives Route Strategies Asset component Operational component Asset Strategy Operational Strategy Route Asset Plans Route Operational Plans Route Delivery Plans Timetable and Access Planning Execution of work Network Operation Figure 1: Asset management framework (from Guidelines for the Application of Asset Management in Railway Infrastructure Organisations, UIC, 2010) UIC Asset Management Working - Line Comparison Study Group 7

10 Line comparison Structure of the line comparison study The activities of the four workshops can be summarised by the opposite schematic workflow: Characteristics High Density and Regional Line selection Qualitative info - Approaches - Habits Quantitative info - Cost - Usage - Performance Eye-openers: Best practice presentations Comparability Understanding Differences & Similarities Conclusions Figure 2: Schematic workflow diagram of the line comparison study Workshop 1 (January 2010) Workshop 2 (February 2010) Workshop 3 (March2010) Workshop 3 (March2010) - presentation of line characteristics (geography, line properties, track type, traffic) - approaches for Asset Strategy and Route Asset Plan - initial quantitative data about cost, usage and performance - approaches for Route Delivery Plan and Execution of Work - level of implementation of asset management framework (also looking at Network Objectives chosenand Route Strategies defined) - identification of best practice on five issues: information systems, AM structure, budget allocation, line differentiation and infrastructure deterioration modelling - further improvement of data definitions to improve comparability - presentation on best practice for the five issues - further analysis of quantitative data, final definition of data to be compared - final quantitative comparison actions - final conclusions Between Workshops 3 and 4 it was concluded that some differences between quantitative data for the lines could be traced back to very specific characteristics, which were not always representative for the national network. It was believed that a better comparison could be made if an average figure would be used for each network and each line type. As a consequence each participant collected information regarding several comparable high density lines and several comparable regional lines. After a representivity check, the averages of the quantitative characteristics of these national lines were used for the international comparison. Table 1: Content of the workshops (references to asset management framework elements are indicated in bold) Guideline for the reader The purpose of this report is to document, summarise and disclose the information from the four workshops. In Chapter 2 the most important conclusions from the comparison of asset management practices are presented. Chapter 3 gives the actual line comparison results, explaining the figures that were collected and the conclusion from the comparison. Chapter 4 summarises the conclusions and presents the recommendations the participants have formulated for their own organisations. 8 UIC Asset Management Working - Line Comparison Study Group

11 2. Comparison of Asset Management Practices 2.1 Differences and Similarities between Asset Managers In Workshops 1 and 2, national approaches were compared, using the asset management framework as a guideline for discussion. In this section, the most notable conclusions are summarised. Comparing inspection regimes Replacing foot patrol inspection with remote surveillance is a common aspiration. In addition, video inspection and image recognition are being tried. Surprisingly, hardly anyone has inspection intervals that depend on the UIC line category. Even expensive inspections like track geometry and ultrasonics are mostly planned at fixed periods. Comparing definitions for maintenance and renewal Each IM has a slightly different distinction between renewal and maintenance (some IMs have names for the grey area in between, e.g. refurbishment ). No international standard exists for the definition of renewal and maintenance. Without exception, budget constraints (resulting from political choices) determine how a renewal programme is defined and prioritised. Headache assets The variety of assets that cause the biggest RAMS or cost problems is quite high. For high density lines most problems are focused on safety or punctuality, for regional lines the variety is even greater and includes costrelated issues. Asset strategy changes and trends When IM plans for the further improvement of asset management approaches were compared, a trend was noted in the further integration of condition-based maintenance, in the implementation of differentiation for line category (both in terms of desired condition and intervention levels and maintenance and renewal strategies), and in the further integration of AM framework components (such as the urge to understand the dependence between renewal and maintenance needs). UIC Asset Management Working - Line Comparison Study Group 9

12 Comparing organisation structures It was concluded that organisational issues have a strong influence on asset management practices. Several organisational aspects determine which asset management policies are adopted and how they work out: autonomy of regions vs. centrally controlled in-house organisation of maintenance vs. outsourced maintenance (IMCs) asset management strategy on network basis vs. line basis vs. route basis are small-scale and large-scale maintenance and renewal organised by the same part of the organisation, or are different parts responsible? It was concluded that it would be useful to see the organisational charts of all the IMs on the asset management framework structure. Integrated asset information is a challenge There is a huge variety in asset management-related information systems. Each department in each organisation has its own templates and standards, depending on their individual purposes. Moreover, each tool has developed over time. Harmonisation of data structures is poor, which leads to huge difficulties in integrating these systems within a company. Comparing possessions claiming and planning Without exception, in each country possessions are regarded as extremely undesirable because they cause disruption to the service. Nevertheless, there are big differences in the way possessions are being dealt with. The strategy of combining and clustering possessions into big multiple day, and sometimes even multiple week, possessions is being tried. Comparing tools for planning and scheduling A variety of solutions can be found for planning maintenance and renewal, varying from handmade Excel tools, to MS Project and SAP. Some new dedicated software tools are being developed and tested at present. Once a possession and activity is planned, not everyone uses further tools for the detailed scheduling of the activities and equipment during the possessions. 10 UIC Asset Management Working - Line Comparison Study Group

13 Comparing budget allocation principles All IMs are budget controlled, and the way the budget is negotiated with the ministry is considered to be quite comparable in each country. However, the methods to allocate budget to individual projects are very different, especially in the usage of prioritisation criteria: prediction models, actual condition and expert opinion. It is agreed that there is an urgent need for degradation models that can be used to support this prioritisation work. Comparing cost management systems It can be concluded that the financial systems are primarily meant for accounting, and they are not as well suited for maintenance planning. It is to be expected that these two fields will move closer in the near future. This process will require the redefinition of data models (e.g. in terms of level of detail and harmonisation of the object tree). Comparing solutions for maintenance logging It is commonly agreed that a clear insight into the work carried out is indispensable. While it can be concluded that maintenance logging software is not readily available, many different solutions do exist and require improvement. Comparing safety regulations The national safety regulations of each country can be seen to be quite different. Therefore, the impact on the asset management process is also quite different. A few common observations can be made: often inspection and maintenance are dealt with under the same safety regime, while it is agreed that many inspection activities are much less safety critical; with safety regulations getting stricter and stricter, some equipment will become obsolete and will require replacement. For example, solutions will have to be sought for equipment that could be used between trains, now access to the track is not granted between trains (repair grinding, insulation joint repair, etc.) UIC Asset Management Working - Line Comparison Study Group 11

14 2.2 Differentiation by Line Type Different AM strategies Initially, workshop discussions about asset management habits were held separately for regional lines and high density lines. It soon became clear that the principles differences between these two line types were very small, and therefore the discussions were later combined. In general, no differentiation is implemented between asset management strategies. However, all IMs realise that there is room for improvement here. Inspection regimes for high density lines and regional lines The inspection regimes seem not to be related to the use of the track since the regimes are the same for both HD and R lines. The regime is generally based on the availability schedule of the inspection equipment or is based on a predetermined (fixed) inspection interval per infrastructure element. For example, a switch has to be inspected and maintained every three months, independent of usage. Some switches are barely operated in that period, in which case the maintenance itself causes more wear than the usage. Differentiation in maintenance Maintenance budget is often allocated on a line-type basis. Each IM deals with this in a slightly different way. One IM has a method to differentiate maintenance effort that appealed to the rest of the project team. This approach is explained in more detail in paragraph Safety Availability Life Cycle Costs LCC optimal Keep it as it is Rest of the lines Table 2: Schematic representation of differentiate maintenance 12 UIC Asset Management Working - Line Comparison Study Group

15 2.3 Five Best Practice Examples In Workshop 2 five examples of situations where an IM has implemented or is experimenting with a new approach became clear. These five best practice examples were presented and discussed more elaborately in Workshop Usage of SAP for asset management (IM F) The need to improve the IM F process management has led to the implementation of an Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) system. IM F realised the significance of a process-focused management system, integrating several railway maintenance specialisations in one overall process instead of a management system organised sector by sector. In this context the process itself is very significant and an ERP system becomes an important support for managing this in all its aspects. After a thorough assessment phase IM F has chosen an SAP platform that, appropriately customised, today guarantees the company evolution, managing all processes and permitting quality, action efficiency and cost control. The main steps of the maintenance management process are: asset knowledge, asset inventory and asset maintenance conditions, planning activities, programming maintenance, actual costs accounting, material management, personnel management, reporting and controlling. Asset knowledge, asset inventory and asset condition The implementation of this SAP platform was gradual and started from the asset knowledge and asset inventory that represents the company s asset portfolio. As IM F is an infrastructure manager, many IM F processes are focused directly and/or indirectly on the asset life cycle; the IM F core business is to fully cater for community needs in the field of train mobility regarding safety, quality and efficiency (failure minimisation) by the best infrastructure asset management. A SAP system offers the classification instrument that allows a lot of specific information about every functional object to be recorded in the system. This information is put into the system directly by the work centre chief under the supervision of the local planning department and represents the data bank of the company. Special codes indicate the position in the life cycle of each object and indicates whether the object is new, inactive, suppressed, working normally, out of order or if it will be activated in the future. The asset condition and maintenance needs are also managed using SAP notification. In the ERP system there are many types of notifications, for example for failures, activities, diagnostic train information (both for the overhead line and the tracks) and others, each with their own life cycle marked by special codes in the system. In particular failure notifications contain very detailed coded information about the object part involved, problem codes, failure causes, suppressed trains, train delays, and other consequences. UIC Asset Management Working - Line Comparison Study Group 13

16 Planning Extraordinary maintenance (for example renewals or investments) is treated in SAP using WBS (work breakdown structures), which can be seen as economic containers under which the network SAP objects can better specify the needs of each contract in terms of materials, internal work activities, external activities and resources. (External resources are supplied by firms that can execute specific activities under a contract from IM F.) There is a very articulated process that could be roughly divided into two main steps: a first approval phase two years before and a second budget assignment step one year before. After that the execution phase starts. Both phases are SAP-based and supported by the BW (Business Warehouse) instrument. The annual material requirement during this phase is calculated on a statistical basis. The work order is the SAP system object IM F uses to manage normal maintenance. Normal maintenance is planned two years before (on the business warehouse instrument as well), derived from the actual costs and hours from the past year s work orders and from activity notifications. In particular, the cyclical maintenance work orders contain the cyclical standard activities necessary for asset maintenance; these standard activities are coded in the SAP system as task lists; these task lists contain information about the work centres involved in the activities, the object of these activities, times and number of people involved and a detailed description of the activities. This method enables the amount of cyclical maintenance involving every work centre in terms of hours and number activities to be accurately estimated (and two years in advance). Programming Extraordinary maintenance is programmed by networks that in this phase possess all the information in terms of working hours, materials, planned costs, machines, track possessions and delays necessary to execute all maintenance activities on assets. Dealing with possessions and scheduled delays can only be carried out after the ERP system and the train circulation management system have been integrated. This permits an accurate control on the correct utilisation of maintenance slots. The same information is put in work orders during the programming phase of the ordinary maintenance. Every order has its own life cycle marked by special status codes and the different types of ordinary maintenance are treated in the ERP system with different types of work orders (e.g. corrective, cyclical maintenance, on condition, on condition from diagnostic train notification, predictable, etc.) There are work orders for non-maintenance activities and teaching activities as well. 14 UIC Asset Management Working - Line Comparison Study Group

17 Every three months special maintenance programmes are scheduled in the system, which permits the automatic generation of cyclical work orders. The other types of work orders are created manually in the system starting from the related type of notifications; this allows the work centre manager and his assistants to have a complete week-by-week overview of the forecast activities of ordinary and extraordinary maintenance that his work centre will have to execute. There is a special customised software module that permits the work centre manager to assign the planned hours to each working person every week. This module allows the optimisation of the planned working hours per person and logging of the actual hours spent. Actual costs accounting Every week the work centre manager (or his assistants) uses a SAP module to load the worked hours in the system, person by person, day by day, activity by activity. These hours will be transformed automatically into costs according with the fixed rates and these costs are automatically allocated to networks and work orders to enable cost accounting. The actual machine hours, track possessions and programmed delay hours are also recorded. Material The Material Management SAP module records all relevant information about material type and category and stocks. The material requirement planning is managed in the ERP system in two different ways, depending on the material considered: - by reorder point, in order to assure a certain period (in months) of material availability covering a certain stock level; - by the needs expressed directly in temporal or quantitative requirements. Personnel management Using the HR (Human Resources) module the work manager can input the typologies of presences, absences, substitutions, availabilities of his staff directly into the system. This way staff salaries are automatically based on activities executed. All the organisational units, work centre structures and the hierarchy able to view the allocated personnel are managed in the SAP modules HR and PM (Plant Maintenance). Controlling and reporting Several InRete.2000 modules monitor actual costs and actual worked hours. Using this information it is possible to see the whole maintenance history for a given object or list of objects, simply by reporting all the work orders, notifications and other SAP documents such as measuring points and documents. This, integrated with a data warehouse system that takes its data from SAP, permits cost, failure and RAM analysis. It can be concluded that, regarding the present company needs and aims, SAP ERP integrated with specific support systems (in particular for technical analysis related aspects) has accomplished all maintenance management needs. It is necessary however to emphasise that such a structured system must evolve gradually with the company and its processes. UIC Asset Management Working - Line Comparison Study Group 15

18 2.3.2 Implementation of a new Asset Management Structure (IM N) Overview Since 2007 IM N has taken major steps to develop and embed the use of asset management techniques to shape the delivery of core activities in the specification, installation, management, maintenance and renewal of its assets. A key part of this activity has been the development of an organisational structure that responds to our strategic asset management priorities. Asset management of the railway infrastructure is fundamentally about delivering the outputs valued by the customers, funders and other key stakeholders, in a sustainable way, for the lowest total life cost. This approach promotes new ways of thinking with emphasis in three main areas: It explicitly focuses maintenance, renewal and enhancement activities on delivering sustainable outputs valued by customers and funders at the lowest total life cost, as opposed to prioritising work predominantly according to condition; It provides an integrating mechanism that crosses boundaries between organisational functions and asset disciplines, and between the infrastructure manager and contracting organisations; It places a greater weight on evidence-based decision making, using knowledge of how assets degrade and fail in order to optimise maintenance and renewal interventions. Monitoring and review Delivery plans and execution route utilisation, output & funding specification Enablers: People Processes Information Technology Asset policies Standards & work instructions IM N s approach to asset management is summarised in our framework shown in Figure 3. The framework shows key deliverables in a plan-do review format, along with the enabling components that allow the activity to take place robustly. (Although not shown here, a broader framework that shows how operational activities integrate with fixed asset management has also been developed and forms part of the overall asset management strategy.) Route asset management plans Figure 3: IM N asset management framework 16 UIC Asset Management Working - Line Comparison Study Group

19 Committing to Asset Management In IM N, engineering-led approaches based on knowledge accrued over many years are traditionally used. The use of asset management builds on this expertise but also promotes cost efficiencies through emphasising the delivery of outputs at the lowest total life cost. This approach also enables valuable fact-based transparency around investment decisions, which is critical for a regulated industry. The first step to embedding a robust asset management regime is establishing buy in at senior levels and across the organisation. And one of the strengths of asset management as a discipline lies in its cross-functional, cross-asset focus. This allows asset management activity to be seen in relation to the larger dimensions of the company and the rail industry. Understanding the IM N organisation and how it fits with asset management objectives led to the creation of an Asset Management Directorate. This provides the mechanism to embed asset management principles and techniques from board room to ballast. Senior staff are responsible for the core components of the framework. The directors of asset management, maintenance and logistics are responsible for transferring asset management plans into investment on the ground. Asset information is crucial at all levels as an enabling component, while the engineering function specifies technology, design and standards.technology, design and standards.technology, design and standards. Director Asset Management route utilisation, output & funding specification Asset policies Director of Engineering Director of Logistics Delivery Service Director of Maintenance Monitoring and review Delivery plans and execution Enablers: People Processes Information Technology Standards & work instructions Route asset management plans Director of Asset Management by discipline Director of Asset Information Figure 4: IM N Asset Management Directorate UIC Asset Management Working - Line Comparison Study Group 17

20 Managing at Route Level In order to properly link investment to outputs, common understanding is important at all levels of the organisation. To provide a mechanism to support this common understanding, a way to segment the asset network to the level at which the effect of investment can be matched to the outputs delivered has been developed. These segments are lines with broadly uniform traffic known as Strategic Route Sections (SRSs). They are the building blocks from which all our plans and strategies can be built, and they form the unit at which asset management performance monitoring is carried out. The use of common sections underpins consistency in the approach to the rest of the asset management process. Figure 5: Route criticality mapping in IM N One area of commonality developed using SRSs is the understanding of route criticality. By plotting a route s frequency of failure against the cost of failure it has been possible to distinguish routes into four separate quadrants, which can be used to develop asset policies to optimise investment. Asset policies are generated alongside life cycle costing tools and are the method by which intervention to asset type, location, usage, condition and life cycle is tailored. Policies based on criticality allow scenarios to be developed that find the best balance between maintenance, refurbishment and renewals activity, which, when coordinated with other disciplines in a route plan, makes a powerful and focused delivery programme aimed at achieving customer requirements. Route Asset Management Plans Route Asset Management Plans (Route AMPs) are produced for each strategic route section. They are documents that describe the characteristics, demands, and performance of a given route, and then show how maintenance, renewals, and enhancements are to be targeted in order to deliver the outputs required. They are jointly produced across all rail disciplines and provide a five-year horizon view of activity. Route AMPs are more than just management summaries; they are a crucial mechanism for applying asset management techniques to the actual activity taking place on the railway. 18 UIC Asset Management Working - Line Comparison Study Group

21 2.3.3 Top-down Approach for Budget Allocation (IM H) IM H has a long-term agreement with the government for funding. Every year a business plan is drawn up, containing all the activities IM H is planning to undertake over the coming ten years. One of the regular activities is the maintenance of the rail network. Every year, on the basis of the business plan and the long-term agreement, funding is granted for the upcoming year. A model is used to forecast maintenance ten years ahead. This model produces an estimation of the maintenance budget required, depending on the number of assets that have to be maintained, the traffic density and the working conditions (amount of work possible per day). The cost estimation is based on average yearly maintenance costs per assettype (e.g. track, switches, level crossings, etc.) and for each asset type the relation between maintenance and traffic. Also the effect of shifting day work to night is included. The maintenance forecast in the business plan is the adjusted model forecast with expert adjustments and special programmes. At IM H all the day-to-day maintenance activities are outsourced to contractors. The network is split into approximately 40 areas; each area is subcontracted to service providers. The maintenance contract is a multi-annual contract, in which for the most part contract activities are contracted on a Price x Quantity level. Every year the quantities and the price levels per activity are negotiated. Although the maintenance contracts are fixed for several years there is still room for yearly negotiation over the number of activities and prices (=amount of work carried out within the activity), so that the maintenance contracts stay within the granted yearly budget. The large maintenance activities are subcontracted individually and are treated as a project. These large maintenance activities are identified yearly and put into a production plan with a prioritisation score. Since all activities have a prioritisation score and the budget for large maintenance is limited, all activities are ranked by prioritisation score and the budget limits the activities that can be carried out. UIC Asset Management Working - Line Comparison Study Group 19

22 Level Approach for differentiated Budget Allocation (IM J) Like all European infrastructure operators, IM J is facing the challenge of having to optimise their physical asset cost. With the steady growth in rail traffic, the volume and complexity of infrastructure maintenance increases as well. At the same time, budget constraints are imposed by the owner or by the company itself. For political or economic reasons these budget constraints can undergo rapid changes. Under these circumstances it is important for asset managers to have efficient tools allowing them to rapidly (re)distribute the budget resources available (on the basis of objective criteria). The 3-level model presented here meets these requirements. The procedure is simple and pragmatic: all routes in the network are allocated to one of three categories of diminishing importance: Core-net 1, Core-net 2 and Remaining Network. These three categories are defined in two phases. The initial allocation is based on the classic network classification defined by the track path management department. Lines of international importance are defined as Core-net 1 ; lines of national importance as Corenet 2 and lines of regional importance are classified as Remaining Network. For each of the three levels, a maintenance and renewal strategy is defined according to the following table. Safety Availability Life Cycle Costs M&R Strategy (guiding principle) Core-net 1 Maintenance according to LCC optimisation. Objective: rapid return to LCC optimal tolerance volume. Core-net 2 Hold quality as of No availability bottlenecks. Remaining Network Further decrease in quality down to the safety limit. Lower availability is accepted (speed reduction). Table 3: Principles of the maintenance and renewal strategy for the 3-level model 20 UIC Asset Management Working - Line Comparison Study Group

23 The 3-level model is primarily used to allocate the budget for track maintenance tasks. However, it can also be broadly applied to renewal tasks. The track asset manager allocates the budget on the basis of these maintenance and renewal strategies. From the overall list of proposed maintenance tasks, those located on Core-net 1 will be selected as a first priority. With the current budget situation, all planned tasks in this category are (intended to be) carried out. With regard to the tasks on Core-net 2, certain proposed tasks may not be carried out depending on the budget situation. In most of these cases grinding will be cancelled or postponed. Availability is still guaranteed in these cases, but for these infrastructure elements the life-cycle cost optimisation system fails. Work on the Remaining Network is carried out as a last priority. Here, apart from grinding, also tamping work may be cancelled or postponed. In doing so, IM J consciously accepts that availability will no longer be fully guaranteed and that speed restrictions will have to be introduced. IM J is departing even more from the LCC optimum with the consequence that these routes will have to be renewed earlier than planned. There are already several such cases in the IM J network. If there are severe budget restrictions, some routes would have to be closed: luckily, this emergency situation has not yet arisen. Future prospects: IM J realises that this quite simple and empirical approach is a beginning and does not yet reach the standards considering LCC optimisation potential. Therefore, to improve the budget allocation process for track maintenance and renewal, a project named Standard elements has been started. The goal is to optimise life cycle costs of track stretches by considering the deterioration-curves of the components of track elements. UIC Asset Management Working - Line Comparison Study Group 21

24 2.3.5 Using Infrastructure Deterioration Models for Maintenance Planning (IM L) Introduction For an efficient asset management the influences and the existing economic equilibrium between maintenance and renewal expenses must be clarified. The objective is the budget planning for maintenance and renewal. For this statistical models to estimate lifetime and maintenance costs throughout the life cycle are required. These methods are applied at present by the IM L to the maintenance of tracks, switches and signalling equipment. They provide an answer, at least qualitatively, to the following questions: Is it possible to find an economic optimum between maintenance and renewal for the current network? Is the current use of the renewal budgets optimal? The functioning of the model is explained for the example of track maintenance. Probabilistic approach for maintenance and investment optimisation The term maintenance is used here to indicate the replacement of individual elements (rail, sleeper, etc.), only when it is necessary. The term renewal is used for a massive replacement making it possible to concentrate the means and to limit the hindrance due to work: replacement costs are lower, even though some individual components could still have lasted several years. The economic model described is based upon a failure model for all involved components. Unit costs for every replacement and every renewal are then associated with the failure model. The failure model is based on lifetime distribution for an unreplaced component and of lifetime distribution for a replaced component. Single unreplaced component: The survival model for unreplaced components is defined by establishing the failure rate λ ( t). The failure rate represents the probability of observing an instantaneous failure given that the component has not failed before time t. If components are subjected neither to wear nor to ageing, it is possible to consider a distribution with a constant failure rate. In that case the exponential distribution is obtained. In reality this is not the case, the distribution commonly used is a distribution with a power failure rate. A class of failure distribution, the Weibull distribution, that can β be described by the cumulated density function F ( t) = 1 exp( ( t η ) ) is then obtained. The Weibull distribution depends on two parameters: The shape parameter β which determines the distribution of the failures on the time axis: if β is small, the failures are distributed over a large time span, if β is high, the failures appear with a short time interval. The scale parameter η defines the time scale. When the function F ( t) is close to 1, the whole population that was put into service at time t = 0 has failed. The parameters β and η have to be estimated using real feedback data. A good method for the relevant cases seems to be the Wayne-Nelson method. 22 UIC Asset Management Working - Line Comparison Study Group

25 Successive replacement of a component: In practice it is necessary to take into account the effect of successive replacement for in-service components. Failing components are replaced by new ones which, in turn, will be subject to wear or to ageing. It is necessary to define the function ( ) h t, the renewal density, that gives the replacement due to a failure at t. This function can be written as a sum of n convolutions: h( t) = [(1 F( t))'] n n= 1 where * denotes the convolution. There is no simple analytical expression for this function; however the term can be calculated numerically. It can be seen that for a small β the failures are spread over the time, and that the overlap of the successive replacements leads to a fast attenuation of the replacement peaks. For high β, all failures are concentrated a certain time interval, the overlap between successive replacements is small and the attenuation of the replacement peaks is very slow. From the failure model to the cost model The annual maintenance expenses are, on the one hand, due to expenses related to failures resulting in the replacement of components (product of the unit expenses c u for every replacement and the number of replacements to be carried out) and, on the other hand, of expenses not directly related to the repla cement of components (surveillance operations and normal maintenance). In this way, the maintenance expenses per year for a new installation are given by Y ( t) = ci ( t) + c.. u n h( t) where n is the number of components of the installation and ( ) h t is the renewal density at time t. T 1 t+ 1 E T = The cumulated maintenance expenses at time T are then: ( ) Y ( t). t= 0 t The renewal expenses X are chosen as constant. This value is based on real costs stated over the last few years. The maintenance expenses and unavailability costs including renewal are defined as the sum of the maintenance expenses and renewal expenses over a period T. In order to calculate expected costs during the lifetime of an installation, we define the expected annual maintenance costs that include periodical renewal by the expression: C( T ) / T = [ X + E( T )] / T, in per year. The minimum of these expected costs defines the optimal renewal period T 0. This period is a direct function of the parameters of the failure model (β, η) and of the ratio between the renewal expenses by means of a systematic renewal X and by means of maintenance Y. For a component with a high parameter β, the optimal value for the renewal period T 0 is not very sensitive with respect to the X / Y ratio and the apparent minimum. In contrast, for low β, the optimal renewal period exists only if the X / Y ratio is also low. The optimum period T 0 gives the date from which on continuing normal maintenance is no longer the best economic solution. UIC Asset Management Working - Line Comparison Study Group 23