Transcript Document 7279925

Institute for Railway Engineering
and Transport Economy
Amsterdam
2nd December 2005
Outsourcing
of
Track Maintenance
Peter Veit
Peter Veit
Graz, University of
Technology
[email protected]
Institute for Railway Engineering
and Transport Economy
Amsterdam
2nd December 2005
Outsourcing
can be understood as
- outsourcing of defined maintenance
work (type of work, time, section) or
outsourcing based on
job specifications
Peter Veit
Graz, University of
Technology
- outsourcing of the entire maintenance
regime for a track section and a defined
period
outsourcing based on
functional requirements
Institute for Railway Engineering
and Transport Economy
Amsterdam
2nd December 2005
Outsourcing based on
job specifications
infrastructure owner
maintenance company
Infrastructure organisation as owner
optimises maintenance strategies
(based on actual track quality data)
defining
- which maintenance job has to be
done
- when it has to be done and
- where it has to be done
Maintenance company executes the
defined maintenance work in the
defined track possession
Infrastructure organisation controls
the quality of maintenance work and
reopens track
Peter Veit
Graz, University of
Technology
Infrastructure owner is responsible
for long term optimisation of track
behaviour (technically and
economically)
Maintenance company is
responsible for quality of
maintenance work
Institute for Railway Engineering
and Transport Economy
Amsterdam
2nd December 2005
Outsourcing based on
functional requirements
infrastructure owner
Infrastructure organisation as
owner defines functional
requirements for permanent way
(availability, riding quality, safety)
to be met by the maintenance
company for a defined period of
time
Infrastructure controls the
functional requirements
Peter Veit
Graz, University of
Technology
Infrastructure owner is responsible
for the functional requirements being
in line with long term optimisation of
track behaviour (technically and
economically)
maintenance company
Maintenance company develops a
maintenance regime to meet the
functional requirements for the
defined period of time
Maintenance company executes this
maintenance regime
Maintenance company is
responsible to meet the functional
requirements for a defined period
Institute for Railway Engineering
and Transport Economy
Amsterdam
2nd December 2005
Functional requirements for
track maintenance must be in
line with technical and
economical behaviour of track
in order to allow optimisation
of track maintenance
Exact knowledge of track behaviour is a
precondition to define functional requirements
Peter Veit
Graz, University of
Technology
Track behaviour can be understood in taking all
service life into account only!
Institute for Railway Engineering
and Transport Economy
Amsterdam
2nd December 2005
Content
- optimisation of track strategies
- methodology of economic evaluation
- cost driver
- quality behaviour of track
- consequences for outsourcing of
maintenance
Peter Veit
Graz, University of
Technology
Institute for Railway Engineering
and Transport Economy
Amsterdam
2nd December 2005
Life Cycle Costs based Strategies
This quality
behaviour
proofed with
thea track
experience:
a good
trackisbehaves
well,
poor one
recording
car data from
1992 to 1999
deteriorates
faster
AND
all data show, that it is not possible to surpass the initial
deterioration depends quality!
on the present quality level
-b.t
Q =Q 0 . e
Peter Veit
Graz, University of
Technology
costs of operational
hindrances
investment + maintenance
= LCC
Institute for Railway Engineering
and Transport Economy
Amsterdam
2nd December 2005
Quality Behavior of Track
Austrian quality figure “MDZ” is
based on calculated differences
of accelerations resulting from
track irregularities
-b.t
Q =Q 0 . e
Peter Veit
Graz, University of
Technology
Institute for Railway Engineering
and Transport Economy
Behaviour of Track Quality
Amsterdam
2nd December 2005
MDZ_500m
MDZ-A
0
-5
-10
-15
-20
-25
-30
-35
-40
-45
-50
-55
-60
-65
-70
Peter Veit
Graz, University of
Technology
-75
280.0
280.2
280.4
280.6
280.8
281.0
281.2
281.4
281.6
281.8
282.0
km
Institute for Railway Engineering
and Transport Economy
Behaviour of Track Quality
Amsterdam
2nd December 2005
MDZ_500m
MDZ_200m
MDZ_100m
MDZ-A
0
-5
-10
-15
-20
-25
-30
-35
-40
-45
-50
-55
-60
-65
-70
Peter Veit
Graz, University of
Technology
-75
280.0
280.2
280.4
280.6
280.8
281.0
281.2
281.4
281.6
281.8
282.0
km
Institute for Railway Engineering
and Transport Economy
Behaviour of Track Quality
Amsterdam
2nd December 2005
Florian Auer, TUGraz, now ÖBB
MDZ_500m
MDZ_10m
MDZ_200m
Bahnhof
MDZ_100m
Brücke
MDZ_50m
EK
MDZ_20m
Weiche
MDZ-A
0
-5
-10
-15
-20
-25
-30
-35
-40
-45
-50
-55
-60
-65
-70
Peter Veit
Graz, University of
Technology
-75
280.0
280.2
280.4
280.6
280.8
281.0
281.2
281.4
281.6
281.8
282.0
km
Institute for Railway Engineering
and Transport Economy
Behaviour of Track Quality
Amsterdam
2nd December 2005
MDZ_200m_110402
MDZ-A
-5
-10
-15
-20
-25
-30
-35
Peter Veit
Graz, University of
Technology
-40
276.0
276.2
276.4
276.6
276.8
277.0
277.2
277.4
277.6
277.8
278.0
km
Institute for Railway Engineering
and Transport Economy
Behaviour of Track Quality
Amsterdam
2nd December 2005
MDZ_200m_110402
MDZ_200m_100702
MDZ-A
-5
-10
-15
-20
-25
-30
-35
Peter Veit
Graz, University of
Technology
-40
276.0
276.2
276.4
276.6
276.8
277.0
277.2
277.4
277.6
277.8
278.0
km
Institute for Railway Engineering
and Transport Economy
Behaviour of Track Quality
Amsterdam
2nd December 2005
MDZ_200m_110402
MDZ_200m_100702
MDZ_200m_290802
MDZ-A
-5
-10
-15
-20
-25
-30
-35
Peter Veit
Graz, University of
Technology
-40
276.0
276.2
276.4
276.6
276.8
277.0
277.2
277.4
277.6
277.8
278.0
km
Institute for Railway Engineering
and Transport Economy
Behaviour of Track Quality
Amsterdam
2nd December 2005
MDZ_200m_110402
MDZ_200m_050603
MDZ-A
-5
MDZ_200m_100702
MDZ_200m_290802
excellent quality, slow
deterioration
-10
-15
-20
-25
-30
-35
Peter Veit
Graz, University of
Technology
-40
276.0
less quality, faster
deterioration
Present status of track and its history
allows to calculate deterioration factor b
for specific sections and so to define
section specific investment and
276.2
276.4
276.6
276.8
277.0
277.2
277.4
277.6
277.8
maintenance strategies
278.0
km
Institute for Railway Engineering
and Transport Economy
Input Data – Working Cycles
Amsterdam
2nd December 2005
based on good subsoil conditions
characteristics of standard kilometre
main line Vienna - Munich
400<R<600
double track
gross tons per day and
track
profile
grade
80.000
60E1
life span
0
track relaying
1
levelling-lining-tamping
1
1
investment
service life
R260
2
3
1
4
5
1
6
7
1
8
9
1
additional spare part
exchange
10
11
1
12
13
1
14
15
1
1
17
1
1
grinding
16
18
19
1
20
21
22
1,5
1,5
1
1
1
1
rail exchange
1
0,3
joint maintenance
rail pad exchange
spot repair
0,5
0,5
0,5
0,5
0,5
0,5
0,5
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1,5
1,5
1,5
1,5
1,5
planed maintenance
small maintenance
Peter Veit
Graz, University of
Technology
Calculating of all track work given in the cycle including their
costs of operational hindrances  life cycle cost
Institute for Railway Engineering
and Transport Economy
Amsterdam
2nd December 2005
Methodology of Evaluation
main line Vienna - Munich
400<R<600
double track
gross tons per day and
track
profile
grade
80.000
60E1
life span
0
track relaying
1
levelling-lining-tamping
1
R260
1
2
3
1
4
5
1
6
7
1
8
9
1
additional spare part
exchange
10
11
1
12
13
1
14
15
1
1
17
1
1
grinding
16
18
19
1
20
21
22
1,5
1,5
1
1
1
1
rail exchange
1
0,3
joint maintenance
rail pad exchange
spot repair
0,5
main line Vienna - Munich
0,5
0,5
400<R<600
0,5
0,5
0,5
0,5
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1,5
1,5
1,5
1,5
1,5
double track
Comparing profile
both cycles
shows the benefits of rails with the profile
grade
60E1
for this standard kilometre
80.000
49E1
R200
gross tons per day and
track
life span
0
Track relaying
1
levelling-lining-tamping
1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
1
1
1
1
1
1
additional spare part
exchange
1
grinding
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
rail exchange
1
22
RV
1
1
1
1
1
1
1,5
0,5
0,5
0,5
0,5
0,5
1
1
joint maintenance
rail pad exchange
spot repair
Peter Veit
Graz, University of
Technology
0,5
0,5
0,5
0,5
0,5
0,5
1
1
1
1
1
1
1,5
1,5
1,5
1,5
1,5
Comparing track strategies results in
stable rankings,
though absolute life cycle cost are not stable.
Institute for Railway Engineering
and Transport Economy
Amsterdam
2nd December 2005
Main results track and turnout:
Cost driver for track maintenance
Speed < 160 km/h
1. Initial track quality defines maintenance
requirements
2. Subsoil quality: 1 to 8 times
3. Switch density: 1 unit equals 450 m track
4. Alignment (Radii, ….): 1 to 3
5. Cost of operational hindrances: up to 30%
6. Traffic density: ~ linear, if superstructure and
substructure matches the traffic requirements
Peter Veit
Graz, University of
Technology
7. Quality of motive power units: ± 10%
Institute for Railway Engineering
and Transport Economy
Amsterdam
2nd December 2005
Track Costs for Different Radii
cost factor
maximal
average
minimal
radii [m]
Peter Veit
Graz, University of
Technology
Cost differences up to 1:3 even on good subsoil!
Institute for Railway Engineering
and Transport Economy
Cost Analysis
Amsterdam
2nd December 2005
TOTAL ANNUAL COST
120
depreciation
annual
annual cost
cost [[%]
%]
100
cost due to operational hindrances
m aintenance cost
80
60
40
100%
67%
50%
47%
67%
57%
33%
17%
20
0
50
100
150
number of trains per day and track
Permanent way strategies aim to extend service life of track
Reducing maintenance accepting a reduction of service life
is highly uneconomical
Peter Veit
Graz, University of
Technology
Operational costs caused by maintenance work
(or a lack of maintenance) are decisive
Institute for Railway Engineering
and Transport Economy
Economic Impacts of Different
Motive Power Units
15.0%
new locos!
10.0%
D
5.0%
A
0.0%
-10.0%
-15.0%
age: 35 years
R > 600 m
400 < R < 600 m
B
250 < R < 400 m
-5.0%
Motive power unit E 1044-200 = + 0,0%
Peter Veit
Graz, University of
Technology
E
R < 250 m
Differences in total annual cost compared
to present situation
Amsterdam
2nd December 2005
G
C
F
Radii
Conventional track user charges do not include
any incentive to invest in rolling stock quality!
Institute for Railway Engineering
and Transport Economy
Amsterdam
2nd December 2005
Behaviour of Track Quality
time
deterioration
quality effect of
maintenance action
total quality function
threshold value E
technical service life
quality
Peter Veit
Graz, University of
Technology
Institute for Railway Engineering
and Transport Economy
Amsterdam
2nd December 2005
Behaviour of Track Quality
time
but
quality
Peter Veit
Graz, University of
Technology
Institute for Railway Engineering
and Transport Economy
Behaviour of Track Quality
Amsterdam
2nd December 2005
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
0
800
900
days
-5
Q0
Q=
Q0e-bt
-10
fighting the causes
Qm  sustainable maintenance
Q = Qme-bt
-15
threshold value
-20
Qtv
Q = Q0e-ct
fighting the symptoms
 short term results
-25
-30
Peter Veit
Graz, University of
Technology
MDZ-A
Description of quality needs status data AND its
behaviour over time!
Institute for Railway Engineering
and Transport Economy
Amsterdam
2nd December 2005
Conform Threshold Function
time
deterioration
quality effect of
maintenance action
total quality function
conform threshold function E
quality
Peter Veit
Graz, University of
Technology
Institute for Railway Engineering
and Transport Economy
Behaviour of Track Quality
Amsterdam
2nd December 2005
Q = Q0e-
b
b t
Analysis show a not linear
behaviour of bi, becoming
critically after a certain number of
tamping cycles
(good subsoil conditions)
10
15
number of interventions
Peter Veit
Graz, University of
Technology
Institute for Railway Engineering
and Transport Economy
Amsterdam
2nd December 2005
Behaviour of Track Quality
Q = Q0e-bt
b = f(basic conditions)
MAIN BASIC CONDITIONS
Peter Veit
Graz, University of
Technology
track superstructure
- initial quality
- type of superstructure
- radii (speed)
- traffic density
- subsoil quality
-?
-?
turnout
- additional operational
conditions
Institute for Railway Engineering
and Transport Economy
Amsterdam
2nd December 2005
Summary of Track Strategies
INITIAL QUALITY;
QUALITY IN MAINTENANCE;
SERVICE LIFE OF TRACK;
The best track is the cheapest,
if high initial quality is transposed
into longer service life
by adequate maintenance
Peter Veit
Graz, University of
Technology
Quality is the key for reduced life
cycle cost
Institute for Railway Engineering
and Transport Economy
Amsterdam
2nd December 2005
Long Term versus Short Term Savings
Strategies for the permanent way aim to enlarge
service life of track by quality management of
investment and maintenance
 high economical efficiency
short term costs, long term savings
Example
Drainage
short term savings,
long term costs
RISK
Peter Veit
Graz, University of
Technology
Reduction of maintenance results in a
reduction of service life
 highly uneconomical
Institute for Railway Engineering
and Transport Economy
Amsterdam
2nd December 2005
Example Drainage
not maintaining
drainage for
some years!
Peter Veit
Graz, University of
Technology
Institute for Railway Engineering
and Transport Economy
Amsterdam
2nd December 2005
Consequences for Outsourcing
Risk sharing depends on contract period
Long term contracts (~ service life of track)
result in risks for the maintenance
company
Short term contracts (remarkable less than
service life of track) result in risks for the
track owner
Peter Veit
Graz, University of
Technology
Institute for Railway Engineering
and Transport Economy
Amsterdam
2nd December 2005
Consequences for Outsourcing
Contracts have to base on the
knowledge concerning quality
behaviour of track!
The type of outsourcing should be in
line with this knowledge.
Peter Veit
Graz, University of
Technology
Institute for Railway Engineering
and Transport Economy
Amsterdam
2nd December 2005
One more problem
Costs due to track closures
Cost of operational hindrances can be twice as
much as maintenance cost
but depend on traffic volume, time and duration of
track possession, schedule of trains
Optimisation in this field is a day to day work and
difficult to be described in a contract
Peter Veit
Graz, University of
Technology
Institute for Railway Engineering
and Transport Economy
Amsterdam
2nd December 2005
Summary
However, outsourcing can be done
with relatively small risk,
if consequences of outsourced work
are predictable.
Maintenance requirements can be estimated only,
knowing the history of track
(initial quality, transport volume, executed
maintenance and its quality levels)
Peter Veit
Graz, University of
Technology
Institute for Railway Engineering
and Transport Economy
Amsterdam
2nd December 2005
Consequences
Contracts have to take long term
quality figures into account, which
have to be developed!
RESEARCH
to ensure long term optimisation of track
Peter Veit
Graz, University of
Technology
Institute for Railway Engineering
and Transport Economy
Amsterdam
2nd December 2005
Summary
Outsourcing can help to optimise the system
railway, if contracts can describe the
requirements for maintenance and the
consequences in track behaviour
Do we know enough about quality behaviour?
Peter Veit
Graz, University of
Technology
Yes , concerning the
short term behaviour caused
by specific track work
Outsourcing
No, concerning long term
behaviour of track
superstructure!
Keep in house
Institute for Railway Engineering
and Transport Economy
Amsterdam
2nd December 2005
Thank You for Your Attention!
Peter Veit
Graz, University of
Technology
Institute for Railway Engineering
and Transport Economy
Amsterdam
2nd December 2005
Peter Veit
Graz, University of
Technology