Download
outsourcing of track maintenance n.
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
Outsourcing of Track Maintenance PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
Outsourcing of Track Maintenance

Outsourcing of Track Maintenance

89 Vues Download Presentation
Télécharger la présentation

Outsourcing of Track Maintenance

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript

  1. OutsourcingofTrack Maintenance Peter Veit peter.veit@TUGraz.at

  2. Outsourcing can be understood as - outsourcing of defined maintenance work (type of work, time, section) or These two possibilities are different at all! outsourcing based on job specifications - outsourcing of the entire maintenance regime for a track section and a defined period outsourcing based on functional requirements

  3. Outsourcing based on job specifications maintenance company infrastructure owner 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 Maintenance company is responsible for quality of maintenance work Infrastructure owner is responsible for long term optimisation of track behaviour (technically and economically)

  4. Outsourcing based on functional requirements maintenance company 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 Maintenance company develops a maintenance regime to meet the functional requirements for the defined period of time Maintenance company executes this maintenance regime Infrastructure controls the functional requirements Maintenance company is responsible to meet the functional requirements for a defined period Infrastructure owner is responsible for the functional requirements being in line with long term optimisation of track behaviour (technically and economically)

  5. 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 Track behaviour can be understood in taking all service life into account only!

  6. Content - optimisation of track strategies - methodology of economic evaluation - cost driver - quality behaviour of track - consequences for outsourcing of maintenance

  7. Q = Q 0. e -b.t Life Cycle Costs based Strategies experience: a good track behaves well, a poor one deteriorates faster This quality behaviour is proofed with the track recording car data from 1992 to 1999 AND all data show, that it is not possible to surpass the initial quality! deterioration depends on the present quality level costs of operational hindrances = LCC investment + maintenance

  8. Q = Q 0. e -b.t Quality Behavior of Track Austrian quality figure “MDZ” is based on calculated differences of accelerations resulting from track irregularities

  9. Behaviour of Track Quality

  10. Behaviour of Track Quality

  11. Behaviour of Track Quality Florian Auer, TUGraz, now ÖBB

  12. Behaviour of Track Quality

  13. Behaviour of Track Quality

  14. Behaviour of Track Quality

  15. excellent quality, slow deterioration less quality, faster deterioration Behaviour of Track Quality Present status of track and its history allows to calculate deterioration factor b for specific sections and so to define section specific investment and maintenance strategies

  16. investment characteristics of standard kilometre service life planed maintenance small maintenance Input Data – Working Cycles based on good subsoil conditions Calculating of all track work given in the cycle including their costs of operational hindrances  life cycle cost

  17. Methodology of Evaluation Comparing both cycles shows the benefits of rails with the profile 60E1 for this standard kilometre Comparing track strategies results in stable rankings, though absolute life cycle cost are not stable.

  18. 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 7. Quality of motive power units: ± 10%

  19. cost factor maximal average minimal radii [m] Track Costs for Different Radii Cost differences up to 1:3 even on good subsoil!

  20. annual cost [%] Cost Analysis 100% 67% 50% 47% 57% 33% 67% 17% Permanent way strategies aim to extend service life of track Reducing maintenance accepting a reduction of service life is highly uneconomical Operational costs caused by maintenance work (or a lack of maintenance) are decisive

  21. 15.0% 10.0% 5.0% Differences in total annual cost compared to present situation 0.0% -5.0% -10.0% age: 35 years -15.0% Motive power unit E 1044-200 = + 0,0% D E A B G C R > 600 m R < 250 m F 400 < R < 600 m 250 < R < 400 m Radii Economic Impacts of Different Motive Power Units new locos! Conventional track user charges do not include any incentive to invest in rolling stock quality!

  22. time quality effect of maintenance action deterioration total quality function threshold value E technical service life quality Behaviour of Track Quality

  23. time but quality Behaviour of Track Quality

  24. 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 0 days -5 -10 Q = Qme-bt -15 threshold value Q = Q0e-ct -20 -25 -30 MDZ-A Behaviour of Track Quality fighting the causes sustainable maintenance Q0 Q = Q0e-bt Qm Qtv fighting the symptoms short term results Description of quality needs status data AND its behaviour over time!

  25. time quality effect of maintenance action deterioration total quality function conform threshold function E quality Conform Threshold Function

  26. Q = Q0e- b t b number of interventions 10 15 Behaviour of Track Quality Analysis show a not linear behaviour of bi, becoming critically after a certain number of tamping cycles (good subsoil conditions) NEEDS VERIFICATION

  27. b = f(basic conditions) Behaviour of Track Quality Q = Q0e-bt MAIN BASIC CONDITIONS track superstructure - initial quality - type of superstructure - radii (speed) - traffic density - subsoil quality - ? - ? turnout - additional operational conditions

  28. Quality is the key for reduced life cycle cost Summary of Track Strategies INITIAL QUALITY;QUALITY IN MAINTENANCE;SERVICE LIFE OF TRACK; The best track is the cheapest, if high initial quality is transposedinto longer service lifeby adequate maintenance

  29. 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 permanent way: “short” = 5 – 7 years; “long”= service life = 25 – 50 years Example Drainage RISK short term savings, long term costs Reduction of maintenance results in a reduction of service life  highly uneconomical

  30. Example Drainage not maintaining drainage for some years!

  31. 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

  32. 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.

  33. 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

  34. 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)

  35. Consequences Contracts have to take long term quality figures into account, which have to be developed! RESEARCH to ensure long term optimisation of track

  36. 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? , concerning the short term behaviour caused by specific track work Yes Outsourcing No, concerning long term behaviour of track superstructure! Keep in house

  37. Thank You for Your Attention!