Deliverable D6.5.4

Integrated Project (IP) Thematic Priority 6: Project No. TIP5-CT-2006-031415 Sustainable Development, Global Change and Ecosystems

Life Cycle PhasesLife Cycle Phases

Technical structureTechnical structure

Cost category:material costsCost category:material costs

Life Cycle Phase: OperationLife Cycle Phase: Operation

Cost element:Material cost of component A inthe LCC phase operation

Cost element:Material cost of component A inthe LCC phase operation

Cost categoriesCost categories

Contributions

Glossary

Table of Figures

1. Executive Summary

• • •

•

2. Introduction and current state-of-the-art

Status Quo

Technical performance• Reliability• Availability• Maintainability• …

Environmental perform.• Noise• Ground born vibration• …

Costs (drivers)• Investment• Operation• Maintenance• Non availability

Economical effects

Change in initial investment (t=0)

Migration costs Costs for new regulations

Decreasing costs forenvironmental sustainability

Decrease maintenance cost

Decrease costs for non availability

…

Additional income?

Social economical effectsTraffic prognosis

Lif

e c

yc

le c

os

tin

g

Innovation / Optim.

Technical performance• Reliability• Availability• Maintainability• Tolerance against

conditions• …

Environmental perform.• Noise• Ground born

vibration• …

Change in Costs• ... D

ec

isio

n b

y L

ife

Cyc

le C

os

tStatus Quo

Technical performance• Reliability• Availability• Maintainability• …

Environmental perform.• Noise• Ground born vibration• …

Costs (drivers)• Investment• Operation• Maintenance• Non availability

Economical effects

Change in initial investment (t=0)

Migration costs Costs for new regulations

Decreasing costs forenvironmental sustainability

Decrease maintenance cost

Decrease costs for non availability

…

Additional income?

Social economical effectsTraffic prognosis

Lif

e c

yc

le c

os

tin

g

Innovation / Optim.

Technical performance• Reliability• Availability• Maintainability• Tolerance against

conditions• …

Environmental perform.• Noise• Ground born

vibration• …

Change in Costs• ... D

ec

isio

n b

y L

ife

Cyc

le C

os

t

Over

des

ign

ed

Un

de

r d

es

ign

ed

Fre

qu

en

cie

s o

f serv

ice

lif

e [

]

Bad

First change of components

Over

des

ign

ed

Un

de

r d

es

ign

ed

Fre

qu

en

cie

s o

f serv

ice

lif

e [

]

Bad

First change of components

Time [a]

Ava

ila

bilit

y [

]

Time [a]

Ava

ila

bilit

y [

]

Tech

. o

pti

mu

m

Economicaloptimum?

Tech

. o

pti

mu

m

Economicaloptimum?

• • • •

3. Principles of RAMS and LCC Analysis

Maintenance

Inspection / Diagnostic Service Repair

planned / predetermined Maintenance(no equipment condition monitoring)

Condition-based Maintenance(equipment condition monitoring, Activity on condition)

preventive Maintenance

ImmediateDeferred

corrective Maintenance(punctual equipment condition monitoring, unwanted condition is already happened)

Description of the LCC tasks,

specs

Boundary Conditions

Conceptual Formulation

Cost-Breakdown-Structure (CBS)

Product-Breakdown-Structure (PBS)

DefinitionOf variants

In/Out Frame

Establishing the basics

Cost MatrixCBS, PBS,

Variants

Dataassessment

Determinationof data

Analyse ofdata

Processing of data

Resilient LCC data

Determinationof LCC values

Evaluation of the LCC

Choice of the right tool, software

NPV of thevariants

Formulating Recommen-

dation

Interpretationof the results

LCC values(Break-Even,

Annuity, key value)

Formulatingof a

recommendation

Base for decision

Making decisionDeveloping of LCC contract

Tender procedure

ImplementationValidation

Monitoring, FeedbackUpdate of LCC data

Ensuring the circuit of knowledge

SensitivityAnalysis

specify the task, problem, question

to be solved

system or component?existing or new track?

definition of RAMSparameter, targets,

needs (CRS)

definition of bound. conditions,

monitoring

feedback fromoperation to

planning, construction

update andassessment

of RAMS data

determinationof data

analyse and assessement of

data(verification)

RAMS analyse

interpretation ofthe results

taking reference to the fixed specs

validation of RAMSand LCC

calculationsVariant study

Approval of RAMSspecs

RAMS targets,preferred variants

RAMS dataRAMS (LCC)

analyseRAMS (LCC)

resultsMonitoring, Feedback

To Do

Output

report(compilation of

the results)

implementation

Implementation

processing of data

modelling, review of models

definition of the specs,

requirements,key values

In/Out FrameIn/Out Frame

Chapter 4.3 - 4.5Chapter 4.3 - 4.5

Shareholders,customer, team

Customer, teamWho

Chapter,Temp-late, Tool

Shareholder, customer, team

ValidationValidation

Key valuesKey values

chapter 4.10, 7.2 chapter 4.10, 7.2

RAMS analysis necessary,feasible?

any expectingbenefit?

combined RAMS/LCC

analyse

Definitionof

RAMS/LCC task

Establishmentof the basics

Dataasssessment

RAMS (LCC)analyse

Validation,Output

Monitoring,Feedback

ReportImplementation

TeamTeam Team Asset Manager. Team, supplier

System Requirements Specs (SRS)

according to the LCC procedure of WMP from DB (dated: 05.09.2006)

DatabseDatabse

ChapterChapter

DatabaseDatabase

Chapter 3.0, 4.6 Chapter 3.0, 4.6

e. g. D-LCC,RAMSOffice

e. g. D-LCC,RAMSOffice

Chapter 4.6 – 4.9,5.2 - 5.3

Chapter 4.6 – 4.9,5.2 - 5.3

LCC/RAMS taskLCC/RAMS task

Chapter 4.1, 4.2,4.6

Chapter 4.1, 4.2,4.6

ImplementationImplementation

Chapter 6.0Chapter 6.0

Maintenancedatabase

Maintenancedatabase

Chapter 7.1, 7.3Chapter 7.1, 7.3

• • • • • •

• •

Procurement (incl. Disposal)

Operation, Maintenance, Non-availability

Disposal

Installation

Operation

Development

Construction

(Prototype)

(Test)

Production

Decommissioning

LCC

see Procurement costs

•

Life Cycle PhasesLife Cycle Phases

Technical structureTechnical structure

Cost category:material costsCost category:material costs

Life Cycle Phase: OperationLife Cycle Phase: Operation

Component: AComponent: A

Cost element:Material cost of component A inthe LCC phase operation

Cost element:Material cost of component A inthe LCC phase operation

From EN 60300-3-3 the shown cost matrix is

known. Basis: means of production.

From EN 60300-3-3 the shown cost matrix is

known. Basis: means of production.

This view separates the life cycle phases

and the categories in two dimensions

This view separates the life cycle phases

and the categories in two dimensions

Cost categoriesCost categories

II. Operation

II.1 Service II.1.2 Energy

II.10 Other costs

III. Maintenance

III.1 Inspection and service (track)

III.2 Maintenance –preventive

III.4 Maintenance - corrective

III.7 Design and systemsupport

III.10 Other costs

IV. Non Availability

IV.1 Planned IV.1.1 MalfunctionsIV.1.2 DelaysIV.1.3 Serviceability

IV.2 Unplanned IV.2.1 MalfunctionsIV.2.2 DelaysIV.2.3 Serviceability

IV.10 Other costs

I. Procurement

I.1 Preparation - one-time

I.2 Preparation recurrentproject-specific

I.3 Investment

I.4 Imputed residual value

I.5 Decommissioning / retraction / sale /removal (tasks)

I.6 Disposal / recycling

I.10 Other costs

V. Social Economics

V.1 Energy consumption V.3 Delay

V.2 Environment V.10 Other costs

Cost matrix – top level

Purchasecosts

Reference:

. . .

1. year 2. year 3. year 4. year 5. yearCurrent costs from

Delivery year

C2 ·1

(1+i)2C2 ·

1

(1+i)2C2 ·

1

(1+i)2C6 ·

1

(1+i)6

6. year

554!

312!

554!

312!

1. year 2. year 3. year 4. year 5. year

Current costs in

C2·1

(1+i)2

6. yeare.q.: i=1,08/1,02 -1

C6·1

(1+i)6

NPV

•

•

BV 4.0 %

DB 5.9 %

NR 6.5 %

ProRail 4.0 %

Public investor !!!! 4.0 %

Private investor 5.0 % ++

InnoTrack !!!! 4-5 %

For infrastructure

For comparison

Depending on risk

Public

Private

Public

Private

•

•

DB

NR

Pu

bli

c

Pri

vate

•

•

"="

=TLT

THV

TLT

THTLTVRV

AssetAsset1

RV Asset

V 51

Calculatory residual value

respectively disposal

Normalisation of period of time for analysis

Financial return (e.g. scrap return) or costs for disposal

TLT – Technical lifetime

t0 t40 tTLT

Disposal costs

t0 t40 tTLT

Calculatory residual value

A

B

In/Out-frame

to clarify

Outside of calc.

Inside of the LCC calculation

II. Operation

II.1 Service II.1.2 Energy

II.10 Other costs

III. Maintenance

III.1 Inspection and service (track)

III.2 Maintenance –preventive

III.4 Maintenance - corrective

III.7 Design and systemsupport

III.10 Other costs

IV. Non Availability

IV.1 Planned IV.1.1 MalfunctionsIV.1.2 DelaysIV.1.3 Serviceability

IV.2 Unplanned IV.2.1 MalfunctionsIV.2.2 DelaysIV.2.3 Serviceability

IV.10 Other costs

I. Procurement

I.1 Preparation - one-time

I.2 Preparation recurrentproject-specific

I.3 Investment

I.4 Imputed residual value

I.5 Decommissioning / retraction / sale /removal (tasks)

I.6 Disposal / recycling

I.10 Other costs

V. Social Economics

V.1 Energy consumption V.3 Delay

V.2 Environment V.10 Other costs

Nom. discount rate: __ %

Mean inflation rate: __ %

Effective rate: __ %

Time horizon __ years:

Remarks

Parameter Reference case

Technical Parameter 1

Innovation A

Technical Parameter 2

Technical Parameter 3

The nominal discount rate should based on asset life

The inflation rate should be estimated from the last years

Technical Parameter …

Technical Parameter n

Cost block

Investment

Operation

MaintenanceActivity A

Maintenance Activity B

MaintenanceActivity C

Reference case Innovation AData structure

EuroCycleSourceQuality

EuroCycleSourceQuality

EuroCycleSourceQuality

EuroCycleSourceQuality

EuroCycleSourceQuality

•Conceptual formulation

•Establishing the basics

•Determination of LCC-data

•Processing of data

•Formulating of recommendation

•Making a decision

•Developing a LCC-contract

•Ensuring the circuit of knowledge

•Tender procedure & placing

•Monitoring / Verification

Start

End

0

1

0

Operation Development, manufacturinginstallation

Hig

h

Lo

w

• Investment -material• Life time• Long-term behaviour

• Investment - installation• Quality• Time to market

• Maintenance

Infl

ue

nc

e o

n L

CC

• •

•

•

InnovationReference

Conceptual probability distribution Cumulative probability distribution

•

•

•

•

System Requirements

Apportionment ofsystem requirements

Manufacturing

Risk Analysis

System Definition

Concept

Apportionment ofsystem requirements

Modification &Retrofit

Decommissioning &Disposal

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

13

12

10

9

8

12PerformanceMonitoring

12

14

System Requirements

Apportionment ofsystem requirements

Risk Analysis

System Definition

Concept

Apportionment ofSystem Requirements

Operation & Maintenance

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

12

11

10

9

8

12PerformanceMonitoring

Decommissioning &Disposal

14

Design & Implementation

Installation

System Validation

System Integration &Acceptance

Project Definition Project Test and

Integration

Verification andValidation

1212

12

1212PerformanceMonitoring

Verification andValidation

Project Test andIntegration

• • •

• •

• •

Definition of the targets

Description of object

Definition of event

Description of environment

Modelling

Allocation of data, Quality of data

AmountHomogeneityPlausibilityConsistency

Analysis, Prediction and Optimisation

Results and Verification

Impact on product & process

Documentation

History

Control loop of Reliability Management:

•

•

•

•

• • • • •

• •

• • • • • • •

Description of quality specifications through RAMS values

Definition of specifications regarding operation and maintenance quality

Cost / Benefit

Definition of specifications regarding total life cycle costs

MaintainabilityReliability SafetyAvailability

SR A M

MaintenanceProcurement Non-AvailabilityOperation

LCC

Technical specifications

Economical specifications

Operation &Maintenance

4. RAMS and LCC Analysis

• o

o o o

• o o

• • • •

• • • • • •

1. Concept2.System

definition

4.System

Require-

ments5. Apportion-

ment

SystemRequirementsSpecification

11. Operation &

Maintenance

12. Performance monitoring

13. Modification & retrofit

14. Decommissioning &

disposal

10. SystemIntegration& Accep-tance9. System

Validation

8.Installation

7.Manufacturing

6.Design &

Implemen-tation

ClientRequirementsSpecification

Engineering phase Realisation phase

Detailleddesign

Project Y / N

Time

Specifications for contract

Conceptual phase Operational phase

Reliability Availability Maintainability Safety

MTBF, Mean Time Be-tween Failure for correc-tive maintenance MTBM, Mean Time Be-tween Maintenance for preventive maintenance MTBCF, Mean Time Be-tween Critical Failure MTBSAF, Mean Time Between Service Affect-ing Failure

Train delay hours

PPM, Passenger Performance Measure

MTTR or MART, Mean Time to Repair or Mean Active Repair Time MTTM, Mean Time to Main-tain MDT, Mean Down Time

Hazard Rate Number of de-railment due to asset Number of acci-dents

•

• • • • •

#

$T

MTBF =

$#%

•

• •

•

RA

M

S

LCC

RAMS / LCC

Social Cost and

Benefit analyses

RAMS / LCC spec

2B Preferred Variant Study 3 Realisation

2A Varianten

Study 1 InvestigationAnalyse

Faster from

A B

Tunnel or

bridge

Concrete or

steel

Galvanizing

or paint

Example of

degree of detail

RAMS

New Infra

phase 1 / 2A / 2B / 3

outputinput

question

method

•

•

•

•

• •

•

•

•

•

• •

•

• • •

•

•

•

•

• Output

• o

• o

o

o

•

o &

o o

•

• •

•

•

•

•

•

• •

•

•

•

•

•

o

o

•

•

•

•

•

• • •

• •

• o

o

o

o

o

o

• o

o

• o

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

• •

•

• • •

• • •

• •

• •

• •

•

•

• • • • • •

• •

• o

o

o

o

• •

• • •

• • o o o o o

1 Costs of Corrective Maintenance as part of the life cycle costs relate not only to the disrup-tions caused by timetable affecting errors, but also to the errors that do not directly affect the train service.

•

• •

•

•

•

•

•

•

• •

•

•

• •

•

• •

•

• o o

o

o

•

Social Cost and

Benefit Analysis

SCBA

others

Cost for

unavailability

LCC

A

S

M

R

Function

+

+

' (!)

Shorter journey

……..

# trains

# passengers

Value of Time

• •

•

•

• • • •

•

• •

• •

• •

• o

o o

• o o

• •

•

• •

• o o

o

o

o

•

•

o

o

o

o

• o o o

• o

•

•

•

•

• • • • • •

• • •

•

•

• o

o

o

o

• o o o o

• o o

o •

5. General analytic methods and tools

•

•

•

• • • •

2 The list of tools shows only a small extract of possible tools

Cost Breakdown Structure 1 LCC

1.1 INVESTMENT

1.1.1 Investment (Renewal)

1.1.1.1 Ballast

1.1.1.2 Sleeper incl. Fastening/ Freight

1.1.1.3 USP/ UBP

1.1.1.4 Rail incl. Freight

1.1.1.5 Substructure Measure

1.1.1.6 Installation

1.1.2 Rail Renewal

1.1.3 Disposal

1.1.3.1 Residual Value

1.1.3.2 Recycling

1.2 MAINTENANCE

1.2.1 Inspection Vehicle

1.2.2 Visual Inspection

1.2.3 Day-To-Day Track Maintenance

1.2.4 Ballast Tamping

1.2.5 Rail Grinding

1.2.6 Control of the Vegetation

1.2.7 Change ZW/ZWP

1.3 NON-AVAILABILITY

1.3.1 Planned

1.3.1.1 Day-To-Day Track Maintenance

1.3.1.2 Ballast Tamping 1.3.1.3 Rail Grinding

1.3.1.4 Rail Relying 1.3.1.5 Track Stoppage Reinvestment

1.3.2 Not-Planned

1.3.2.1 Track Stoppage

1.3.2.2 Speed Restriction

Cost Breakdown Structure

Product TreeProduct Tree

1 TRACK

1.1 Rail

1.1.1 UIC 60

1.2 Rail Pad ZW700

1.3 Sleeper

1.3.1 B 70 W

1.4 Under Sleeper Pad

1.5 Ballast 1.6 Subsoil

6. Compilation of results

7. Operational Phase and Imple-mentation

• •

• • • •

Asset Service

Asset management

Asset Management

Investment

Organisation

Maintenance strategies

Assessment and risk management

Innovationmanagement

and implementation

Actual & furtherrequirements

Standards

Innovations

Planning Construction MaintenanceFault

managementDocumentation

data

Op

timis

atio

n

Tra

ck

/ne

two

rk

Rebuilding

Technical & economical data

Specifications and strategies

Annex I Examples

Timetable affecting errors

Performance level crossing: timetable af-

fecting errors

function

repair

time

[hour]

Number

of er-

rors

Average func-

tion repair

time [hour]

Average

number of

errors

Error caused by technique 7,550 6 1,258 0,200

Error caused by third parties 30,050 20 1,503 0,667

Error caused by wheather 7,267 2 3,633 0,067

Non-timetable affecting errors

Performance level crossing: non-timetable

affecting errors

function

repair

time

[hour]

Number

of er-

rors

Average func-

tion repair

time [hour]

Average

number of

errors

Non-timetable affecting errors 731,150 125 5,849 4,167

For underpasses in comparable situations (12 found) no timetable affecting errors are regis-tered in the last 3 years. For non-timetable affecting errors no reliable data was found.

Based on every hour four passenger trains and one freight train per direction this leads to delay and cancellation of trains. Knowing it is not correct we simplified the model by assuming for this study that a timetable affecting error only leads to cancellation of trains.

Performance data

All Level

crossings

average

Netherlands

Comparable

Level cross-

ing

Comparable

Tunnel

Number of hours not available (due to errors) 0.535 1.496 0

Number of cancelled passenger trains 4.280 11.964 0

Number of delayed freight trains 0.535 1.496 0

Safety: Like performance also safety on a level crossing near a station has its own specific key fig-ures. We searched for safety figures for comparable level crossings, see next table:

Safety data Deaths /

year

Seriously

injured /

year

Slightly

injured /

year

Level crossing 0,044 0,022 0,00

Underpass 0 0 0

Cost data: For the two variants the cost data is shown in the next table:

Cost data Level crossing Tunnel Comment

Total Investment (including station and perron) 6.455.000 1.458.100

Investment (excluding station and perron) 1.854.000 9.974.000

Social costs for train free period during realization

phase

Figures can vary per

Infra Manager

Cost data Level crossing Tunnel Comment

• 1 period of 29 hours in weekend

• 1 period of 52 hours in weekend

98.000

201.000

Preventive maintenance cost per year 40.000

Periodic replacements level crossing

• Roaddeck (40 year)

• Replace track (20 year)

• Half barrier (25 year, 6 pcs)

• Barrier motor (15 year, 6 pcs)

• Maintain track (15 year)

354.300

75.000

60.000

15.000

10.000

Maintenance tunnel

• Small maintenance (1 year)

• Large inspection (10 year)

• Painting (15 year)

• Large construction repairs (40 year)

5.500

1.500

8.500

100.000

Social cost for road transport 57.000

Cost for safety:

• Deaths

• Seriously injured

• Slightly injured

1.500.000

200.000

30.000

Figures can vary per

Infra Manager

Economic value of delayed freight train per hour 1.000 1.000

Cost for repair in case of errors 1.000 1.000

Cost for cancelled train on track Eindhoven – Weert:

• Week days: based on 263 passengers per

train

• Weekend days: based on 124 passengers

per train

15.233

Figures can vary per

Infra Manager

Based on the performance, safety and cost data it is possible to make a complete RAMS / LCC analyses using the methodology shown in this guideline.

LCC: Next table shows the LCC costs using Net Present Value (interest + inflation = 4 %),:

LCC Level

crossing Tunnel

Net Present Value 30 year 3.853.417 9.890.259

Net Present Value 50 year 4.372.113 9.934.517

Net Present Value 100 year 4.717.799 9.956.606

Including all the social cost – benefits the total costs during the lifetime using Net Present Value (interest + inflation = 4 %) are:

LCC + social cost – benefits Level

crossing Tunnel

Net Present Value 30 year 7.812.598 9.890.259

Net Present Value 50 year 9.238.223 9.934.517

Net Present Value 100 year 10.238.176 9.956.606

So based on all these data the decision for a variant can be made. But be aware that RAMS / LCC is not the only parameter the project managers uses to choose for a variant!

Technical optimisation

Steel grades • R260• R350 HT• R370Cr HT• R400 HT

Rail type• S54• UIC60• UIC70plus

Process optimisation

Maintenance strategy• Corrective• Predictive• Grinding / milling machine• Possession time• Metal removal• Undergrinding of

head checks

Important boundary conditions

Probability density functions• Crack growth• Wear

Technical parameters

- limit values- wear- undergrinding of HC

Boundary conditions

- Track category - Rail type- Steel grade- Radius class- Actual Load [MGT/a]

Wear and RCF values based on field tests

Process parameters-Type of grinding machine- Maintenance strategy- Metal removal- Possession time

- Grinding specs

- Service life time

Load

Hea

d-C

heck

Load

Wear

(vert

ical)

Load

wear

(sid

e)

LCC Model

NPV of R260 vs. R350HT dep. on Load

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 100

Load [MGT]

NP

V [!/T

m]

R260

R350HT

relevant for metal removal

to clarify

R 260 and

R350HT

Grinding

Cost for investment and non-availability

Wear and RCF

Same grinding performance for

HT grade

Maintenance –fault clearance

Mixed trafficRadius 700–1500 m20-30 MGT/a

Load dependent maintenance

costs

Corrective maintenance

Service life of the rails

Variable load of track

In/Out-frame – Standard rail grade vs. hard rail grade

Outside of calculation

Interactions with other SPs

Regulations of each country

Reference to test sites and experiments

Same grinding performance for HT grade?

welding quality and costs

Inside of the LCC calculation

In/Out-frame

II. Operation

II.1 Service II.1.2 Energy

II.10 Other costs

III. Maintenance

III.1 Inspection and service (track)

III.2 Maintenance –preventive

III.4 Maintenance - corrective

III.7 Design and systemsupport

III.10 Other costs

IV. Non Availability

IV.1 Planned IV.1.1 MalfunctionsIV.1.2 DelaysIV.1.3 Serviceability

IV.2 Unplanned IV.2.1 MalfunctionsIV.2.2 DelaysIV.2.3 Serviceability

IV.10 Other costs

I. Procurement

I.1 Preparation - one-time

I.2 Preparation recurrentproject-specific

I.3 Investment

I.4 Imputed residual value

I.5 Decommissioning / retraction / sale /removal (tasks)

I.6 Disposal / recycling

I.10 Other costs

V. Social Economics

V.1 Energy consumption V.3 Delay

V.2 Environment V.10 Other costs

Used cost elements

Discount rate: 8 %

Inflation rate: 2 %

Effective rate : 5.8 %

Remark: RCF measurements at DB

ParameterReference case

R260 (standard rail grade)

Service life (R 700-1500 m)40 years

for 30 MGT/a

InnovationR350 HT (hard rail grade)

20 yearsfor 30 MGT/a

Wear rates w1: 0,2 mm/100 MGT, w3: 0,4 mm(100 MGT

w1: 0,3 mm/100 MGT, w3: 0,7 mm/100 MGT

RCF rate / Head-Check 0,30 mm/100 MGT0,75 mm/100 MGT

Grinding interval for 0,8 mm metal removal

(6 [a]30 MGT/a

(2 [a]30 MGT/a

Rail renewal Load dependent Load dependent, at least 1

during 40 years

LCC - standard rail grade vs. hard rail grade

Cost block

Investment

xxx !/Tm*)

load dependent, nom. 20 yearProcurementExperts / Analysis

xxx !/Tmload dependent, nom. 40 yearProcurementExperts / Analysis

Operation N/a N/a

MaintenanceRail renewal

xxx !/Tmload dependent, nom. 20 yearIMExperts / Analysis

1xxx !/Tmload dependent, nom. 40 yearIMEstimation / Experts / Analysis

Maintenance Rail grinding

x-xx !/m per shiftload-, radius dependent , 1 yearRIMExperts / Analysis

x-xx !/m per shiftload-, radius dependent , 3 yearIMExperts / Analysis

Non-Availability

Track Category dependent load dependent IMAnalysis

Track Category dependent load dependent IMAnalysis

Reference caseR260 (standard rail grade)

InnovationR350 HT (hard rail grade)

Data structure

EuroCycleSourceQuality

EuroCycleSourceQuality

EuroCycleSourceQuality

EuroCycleSourceQuality

EuroCycleSourceQuality

LCC - standard rail grade vs. hard rail grade

*) Tm = Track meter

Annex II Questions per project phase per RAMS / LCC analysis

Questions 1 Investigation 2A Variants study

2B Preferred al-ternative

3 Implementa-tion

RA What change in reliability and avail-ability of the train routes can (as a consequence of infrastructural changes) be ex-pected if the func-tion change is implemented?

What change in RA performance is expected for the different variants, in rela-tion to the exist-ing situation?

What change in RA performance is expected for the different options of the preferred vari-ant in relation to the current situa-tion?

What change in RA performance is expected for the chosen technical solu-tion in relation to the existing situation?

M What change in maintenance work (hours, money) is expected when the change is imple-mented in relation to the current situa-tion?

What change in maintenance work (hours, money) is ex-pected from the different variants in relation to the current situa-tion?

What change in maintenance work (hours, money) is expected for the different options of the preferred vari-ant in relation to the existing situa-tion?

What change in maintenance work (hours, money) is ex-pected after im-plementation in relation to the existing situa-tion?

S What change in the safety of the railway system can be ex-pected if the in-tended function change is imple-mented?

What change in the safety of the rail system is expected from the different variants in rela-tion to the exist-ing situation?

What change in the safety of the railway system is expected for the different options of the preferred vari-ant in relation to the existing situa-tion?

What change in the safety of the railway system is expected for the selected technical solu-tion in relation to the existing situation?

LCC What change in life cycle costs is asso-ciated with the im-plementation of the function change?

What life cycle costs are asso-ciated with the different vari-ants?

What life cycle costs are associ-ated with the dif-ferent options?

What life cycle costs are ex-pected after im-plementation?

RAMS / LCC

What reliability, availability and safety can be achieved at what life cycle costs?

What level of reliability, avail-ability and safety can be achieved per variant at what life cycle costs?

What option has the highest level of reliability, availabil-ity and safety at the lowest life cy-cle costs?

What technical solution pro-vides the high-est level of reliability, avail-ability and safety at the lowest life cycle costs?

Social cost – benefit analysis

What expected costs and benefits relate to the func-tion change?

What expected costs and bene-fits relate to every variant?

What expected costs and benefits relate to every op-tion?

What costs and benefits are ex-pected after the implementation?

RAMS / LCC specifica-tion

What RAMS re-quirements can we specify, and at what maximum life costs should it be possi-ble to implement the function change?

What RAMS requirements can we specify and at what maximum life cycle costs should it be possible to im-plement the in-fra change?

What RAMS re-quirements can we specify and at what maximum life cycle costs should it be possible to achieve the infra change?

What RAMS performance is expected in the operational phase and what are the maxi-mum life cycle costs for the selected techni-cal solution?

Annex III References