ACEM-Rail D8.1 Maintenance Performance Indicators r0

ACEM-Rail 265954 D8.
1 Maintenance
Performance Indicators
SEVENTH FRAMEWORK PROGRAMME

THEME SST.2010.5.2.1.
Automated and cost effective railway infrastructure maintenance
Automated and Cost Effective Maintenance for Railway

Contract: 265954
D8.1 Maintenance Performance Indicators (MPI).

Measurement technologies.
Deliverable number D8.1

WP8: Competitiveness, quality, sustainability and environmental
Work Package number
impact
Task 8.1 Definition of Maintenance Performance Indicators
Task
(MPIs) and measurement methodologies
Revision 0
Due date 2013/03/31 Submission date 2013/04/29
Distribution Security PU Deliverable type R
Noemi Jimnez-Redondo, Sergio Escriba Marn (CEMOSA)

Authors
Francisco Garca Bentez (US), Noelia Cceres (US)
Partners CEMOSA, US
Verification F. G. Benitez (US)
Approval (coord.)
N. Jimenez-Redondo (CEMOSA)
[2013/4/29] Page 1 of 48
ACEM-Rail 265954 D8.1 Maintenance
[2013/4/29] Page 2 of 48
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................................... 9
2. DEFINITION OF MAINTENANCE PERFORMANCE INDICATORS (MPIS) ............ 13
2.1. MAINTENANCE PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT SYSTEM .......................................................... 13
2.2. MAINTENANCE PERFORMANCE INDICATORS (MPI) .................................................................. 13
2.3. ARCHITECTURE OF PERFORMANCE INDICATORS ....................................................................... 15
3. MPIS IN DIFFERENT FIELDS ............................................................................................. 19
3.1. MECHANIC INDUSTRY ................................................................................................................... 19
3.2. NUCLEAR INDUSTRY ..................................................................................................................... 19
3.3. OIL AND GAS INDUSTRY ................................................................................................................ 20
3.4. PROCESS INDUSTRY ...................................................................................................................... 20
3.5. UTILITY INDUSTRY ....................................................................................................................... 21
3.6. RAILWAY INDUSTRY ..................................................................................................................... 22
4. ACEM-RAIL MPIS SYSTEM................................................................................................ 27
4.1. SELECTION AND CLASSIFICATION OF RELEVANT MPIS IN ACEM-RAIL ................................. 27
4.2. DEFINING THE FACTORS ............................................................................................................... 29
5. INITIAL EVALUATION OF MPIS IN FERROVIE DEL GARGANO ........................... 33
5.1. GENERAL OVERVIEW OF FERROVIE DEL GARGANO DEMO SITE ............................................... 33
5.2. EVALUATION OF FACTORS IN FERROVIE DEL GARGANO .......................................................... 33
5.2.1. Renewal investment .................................................................................................................................. 33
5.2.2. Total Maintenance Cost ............................................................................................................................ 34
5.2.3. Asset Replacement Value ......................................................................................................................... 35
5.2.4. Rail services .............................................................................................................................................. 35
5.2.5. Total personnel cost spent in maintenance ................................................................................................ 36
5.2.6. Inspection cost .......................................................................................................................................... 36
5.2.7. Punctuality of service ................................................................................................................................ 37
5.2.8. Traffic disruptions due to maintenance works .......................................................................................... 37
5.2.9. Total working time of maintenance team.................................................................................................. 38
5.2.10. Occupancy of time windows ................................................................................................................ 38
5.2.11. Ballast supplied for tamping ................................................................................................................ 39
5.2.12. Sleeper replacement ............................................................................................................................. 40
5.2.13. Travel distances for execution of maintenance tasks ........................................................................... 40
5.2.14. Time spent in travels by maintenance teams ........................................................................................ 40
5.2.15. CO2 emissions from maintenance works .............................................................................................. 41
5.2.16. Mean time between general tamping.................................................................................................... 41
5.2.17. Number of derailments ......................................................................................................................... 41
[2013/4/29] Page 3 of 48
5.2.18. Customer satisfaction ........................................................................................................................... 42

5.3. INITIAL EVALUATION OF MPIS .................................................................................................... 42
6. CONCLUSIONS ...................................................................................................................... 53
7. REFERENCES AND BIBLIOGRAPHY............................................................................... 54
ANNEX I: Questionnaire sent to Ferrovie del Gargano
[2013/4/29] Page 4 of 48
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Horizontal classification of Performance Indicators (Allander, 1997)............................... 15

Figure 2. Horizontal classification of Performance Indicators (Pallister, 2002) ............................... 15
Figure 3. Vertical classification of Performance Indicators (Wireman, 1998) .................................. 16
Figure 4. Example of items included in MPI inside each group ........................................................ 17
Figure 5. Maintenance influencing factors and Maintenance Performance Indicators ...................... 18
Figure 6 Maintenance influencing factors and Matrix of Maintenance Performance Indicators
(UNE-EN 15341:2007) ...................................................................................................................... 18
Figure 7. Rail services in line San Severo Peschici, 2013 (Ferrovie del Gargano) ........................ 35
Figure 8. Operational load in line San Severo Peschici, 2013 (Ferrovie del Gargano) ..................... 35
Figure 9. Auscultation vehicle for monitoring track geometry in Gargano ....................................... 36
[2013/4/29] Page 5 of 48
[2013/4/29] Page 6 of 48
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Main objectives and benefits expected in ACEM-Rail.......................................................... 9

Table 2. Evaluation of ACEM-Rail objectives through quantitative factors ....................................... 9
Table 3. Architecture of MPIs in ACEM-Rail ................................................................................... 28
Table 4. Definition of MPIs in ACEM-Rail ...................................................................................... 28
Table 5. Renewal investment in Ferrovie del Gargano ...................................................................... 33
Table 6. Distribution of maintenance costs during the last 4 years in Ferrrovie del Gargano ........... 34
Table 7. Estimated personnel costs in Gargano ................................................................................. 36
Table 8. Track inspection costs in Gargano ....................................................................................... 37
Table 9. Punctuality of service ........................................................................................................... 37
Table 10. Traffic disruptions due to maintenance works ................................................................... 37
Table 11. Most relevant maintenance tasks and estimation of working days and occupancy of time
windows in Gargano .......................................................................................................................... 38
Table 12. Ballast supplied in Gargano ............................................................................................... 40
Table 13. Sleeper replacement in Gargano ........................................................................................ 40
Table 14. Estimation of travel distances ............................................................................................ 40
Table 15. Estimation of time spent in travel by maintenance teams.................................................. 41
Table 16. CO2 emissions of different vehicles and activities ............................................................ 41
Table 17. Estimation of number of derailments in Gargano .............................................................. 42
Table 18. Measurement of social impact in Gargano ........................................................................ 42
[2013/4/29] Page 7 of 48
[2013/4/29] Page 8 of 48
1. Introduction
This deliverable deals with the definition of the performance measurement system that generates
useful indicators required to evaluate in a quantitative way the achievement of ACEM-Rail
objectives.
The ACEM-Rail project aims to improve the competitiveness, quality, sustainability and
environmental impact of rail services by the application of new methodologies and systems for an
automated and cost-effective maintenance. The main benefits expected in the railway infrastructure,
as related in the DoW document, are:
Table 1. Main objectives and benefits expected in ACEM-Rail
Objective Benefits expected
Improvement of Reduction of the time required in maintenance operations.
competitiveness
Reduction of the impact on rail traffic and services.
Improvement of the infrastructure capacity and, as a consequence, improvement in the

competitiveness of freight rail transport
Improvement of Improvement of the safety, reliability and quality (with emphasis on passenger comfort and
quality train punctuality) of the services.
Improvement of the maintenance quality.
Improvement of Increase in the transport of freight by rail.

sustainability
Reduction of Reduction of CO2 emissions
environmental impact
In order to measure the effectiveness and efficiency of the maintenance management system
developed in ACEM-Rail in a quantitative way, it is necessary to translate these objectives into
numeric values. The following table shows an estimation or the improvements expected to achieve
in several factors linked to the main objectives of the project:
Table 2. Evaluation of ACEM-Rail objectives through quantitative factors
Objective Quantitative factors Value Comments
The improved inspection technologies
and the better planning of maintenance
tasks will have a medium impact in the
total maintenance cost. However, in the
Reduction of total maintenance cost -10% validation pilot in Ferrovie de Gargano,
the reduction of maintenance cost will
be lower (around 5 %) because of the
high renewal investment already
included in the budget allocation. .
High impact due to the better resource

Improvement of Reduction of personnel cost spent in management and planning of
competitiveness -10%
maintenance maintenance tasks.
[2013/4/29] Page 9 of 48
Objective Quantitative factors Value Comments

High impact of new techniques for
Reduction of inspection costs -30 % automatic inspection and monitoring
Improvement of Tamping is included in maintenance

quality tasks at a fixed frequency. Therefore,
the impact of ACEM-Rail on this issue
Reduction of the frequency of in the short term will not be that much
-5 % significant. However, in the long term,
general tamping
because of better maintenance tracks,
the frequency of tamping operation can
be enlarged
High impact due to the better

Reduction of corrective and knowledge of track condition thanks to
-20 % the automatic continuous monitoring
unexpected maintenance works
achieved within ACEM-Rail
High impact because of the optimal

Reduction of traffic disruptions due planning of technologies developed
-30 %
to maintenance works within ACEM-Rail.
Improvement of Automatic track inspection during rail

sustainability services together with the improved
maintenance planning will increase the
capacity of track, particularly during the
Reduction of time windows for night. This will have a high impact in the
maintenance works allowing for -20 % improved shared of freight services by
increased freight services train. In the validation case at Ferrovie de
Gargano, there are no freight services.
However, the reduction of maintenance
time windows will be evaluated.
The infrastructure management tool and

Reduction of the use railway the better planning of maintenance tasks
-10 % will make a better use of the inventory
materials in maintenance works
and stock.
Reduction of Optimally planned work orders and

environmental impact Reduction of CO2 emissions in routes for maintenance teams will reduce
-15 %
travel and maintenance works CO2 emissions during maintenance trips.
As explained above, the technologies

developed within ACEM-Rail will
improve the track capacity which will be
Reduction of CO2 emissions in available during the night for freight
-20 % services. Therefore the share of road
freight services
freight transport will be reduced while
rail freight transport (more environment
friendly) will increase.
[2013/4/29] Page 10 of 48
This document is structured as follows:

The first chapter present the scope of this report.
The second one describes why Maintenance Performance Indicators (MPIs) are important,
what they should evaluate and how they can be structured. A revision on the European
Standard UNE_EN 15341:2007 is provided.
The third one describes MPIs in different fields including railway.
The fourth one presents the proposal of MPIs of the ACEM-Rail project. It describes the
architecture of such MPIs system and details the indicators computation procedure.
Finally, Chapter 5 applies the above set of MPIs to the validation pilot of the ACEM-Rail
project in the facilities provided by Ferrovie de Gargano in Foggia.
Chapter 6 provides the conclusions reached up to the date of this deliverable.
References and Annexes with data of Ferrovie de Gargano are also included.
.
[2013/4/29] Page 11 of 48
[2013/4/29] Page 12 of 48
2. Definition of Maintenance Performance Indicators (MPIs)
2.1. Maintenance performance measurement system

Maintenance Performance is the result of the utilization of resources in carrying out maintenance
tasks to retain an asset in, or restore it to, a determined condition in which it can perform the
required function.
Performance measurement system provides the bases to assess how well a methodology, tool or
technique is progressing towards its predetermined objectives, and helps to identify areas of
strength and weakness, and decides on future initiatives, with the goals of improving its
performance.
It is assumed that measurement provides a means of capturing performance data, which can be used
to inform decision making. The requirements of an appropriate performance measurement system
should consider:
Its development from strategy and be related to specific goals (targets).
That it is clearly defined and simple to understand.
That it produces a prompt and accurate feedback.
That the fast feedback produced is part of a closed management loop.
That it can be influenced or controlled by the user alone or in cooperation with others.
That it includes relevant measures that have an explicit purpose.
That indicated are clearly defined by a formula and that the data source is clear.
The Maintenance Performance is dependent upon both external and internal influencing factors
such as the economic, technical and organisational aspects, and is achieved by implementing
maintenance processes by organisational methodologies, tools and operating techniques.
In order to follow up and evaluate the effectiveness and efficiency of the maintenance management
system developed in ACEM-Rail, it is a requisite to generate useful Maintenance Performance
Indicators (MPI), because performance cannot be managed if it cannot be measured (Wireman,
1998).
2.2. Maintenance Performance Indicators (MPI)

An Indicator can be defined as a number that describes the prevalent performance for a specific
activity or occurrence (Allander, 1997). The number is normally related to a fixed measurement
scale, e.g. the thermometer showing -17C or the speedometers 75km/h. If the indicators are
extended to measure the performance of working life related issues, they are called Performance
Indicators.
A Key Performance Indicator (KPI) is defined as a performance indicator with a strategic
significance, which is perceived as critical under given business circumstances and preferably
selected from a pool of performance indicators (Liyanage, et al., 2001).
From the maintenance point of view, the Maintenance Key Performance indicators, or simply the
Maintenance Performance Indicators (MPI), must yield objective information regarding
maintenance, e.g. preventive maintenance, spare parts logistics, planning and follow up.
Maintenance Performance Indicators can be defined as quantitative measures of maintenance
[2013/4/29] Page 13 of 48
performance by comparison of actual conditions with a specific set of reference conditions

(requirements/targets), in order to assess whether the maintenance management is achieving the
proposed objectives or not (Wireman, 2005).
The system of MPIs will allow the organisation to get objective and quality information about the
improvement of maintenance performance with the new methodology. In particular, these analyses
can be carried out using proper indicators in order to:
Measure the status.
Evaluate the performance.
Compare performance.
Identify strengths and weaknesses.
Define objectives.
Plan strategies and actions.
Share the results in order to inform and motivate people.
Control the progress and changes over time.
In order to compare and evaluate the different MPI, they must reflect the outcomes in monetary
terms or other comparable measures such as reliability of infrastructure assets. Any indicator can be
evaluated as a ratio between factors (numerator and denominator) measuring activities, resources or
events, according to a given formula. The following example shows one of the MPI proposed in the
European Standard UNE-EN 15341:2007 Maintenance Key Performance Indicators (European
Commitee for Standardization, 2007):
When calculating indicators, denominator and numerator factors shall be referred to the same
activity/item and to the same period of time (year, quarter, month, etc.). It is also important to
consider all the influencing factors and prerequisites in order to avoid misleading evaluations and
comparisons through not having homogeneous conditions. These factors can be grouped as follows:
External factors are variable conditions outside the company management control. Some
most common external influencing factors are the following ones:
o Location
o Society culture
o National labour cost
o Market situation
o Technical and operational regulations
o Climate
Internal factors are variable conditions outside the maintenance management control, but
inside of the company management control. The following list shows some of usual
internal influencing factors:
[2013/4/29] Page 14 of 48
o Company culture
o Training services
o Utilisation rate
o Age of infrastructure
o Criticality
2.3. Architecture of performance indicators

Three basic models or systems are used when developing and implementing PIs: i) horizontally
structured, ii) vertically structured or iii) in a matrix structure combining the characteristics if
horizontal and vertical structures.
In a horizontally grouped PI system, the PIs are arranged in independent logical groups, covering
perspectives related to the maintenance process such as reliability/maintainability,
preventive/predictive maintenance, planning and scheduling, materials management, skills training,
maintenance supervision, and work process productivity (Ahrn, 2008).
The following two figures show examples of horizontal classifications schemes: Quality of working life
Effectiveness
Budget/Profit
Productivity
Innovation
Efficiency
Quality
Figure 1. Horizontal classification of Performance Indicators (Allander, 1997)

Operational
Confidence
Behavioral
Strategic
Specific
Ethical
Figure 2. Horizontal classification of Performance Indicators (Pallister, 2002)
[2013/4/29] Page 15 of 48
When developing and implementing the use of indicators within an organisation in a more
systematic way, they are often put together in a vertical indicator system similar to traditional
hierarchical organisation structure. In this vertically aggregated indicator system, the indicators are
arranged in a pyramid structure, where a large number of indicators on a bottom level are
aggregated upwards in the pyramid structure and often reduced to one or a few indicators at the
strategic level.
The next figure shows an example of vertical classification scheme:
Corporate indicators
Financial performance indicators
Efficiency and Effectiveness performance indicators
Tactical performance indicators
Functional performance indicators
Figure 3. Vertical classification of Performance Indicators (Wireman, 1998)
A more sophisticated structure organise PI in a matrix taking the advantages of both the horizontal
and vertical classifications shown above. This is the case of the European Standard UNE-EN
15341:2007 Maintenance Key Performance Indicators.
UNE-EN 15341:2007 proposes an indicator system which combines horizontally grouped
indicators with vertically aggregated ones and provides semi-independent logical PI groups
arranged in a horizontal or vertical structure, i.e. no indicator aggregation between the indicator
groups, although logical links exist between them.
This system of performance indicators is structured into three groups (economic, technical and
organisational) in order to cover all aspects of maintenance. In this architecture of indicators three
levels have been defined. Each level is linked to a indicators in a lower level (level 3) represents a
detailed description of indicators at a higher level.
Level 1 corresponds to the company level. The objective is to identify how maintenance can be
managed in order to improve global performance (profits, market shares, competitiveness, etc.). In
this case, the most efficient means of maintenance improvement shall be determined.
Level 2 correspond to the system level and production lines. In this case, the maintenance
objectives can address some particular performance indicators, which have been identified through
previous analysis, such as:
Improvement of availability
Improvement of cost-effective maintenance
Retaining the health, safety and environment preservation
Improvement in cost-effective management of the value of the maintenance inventory
Reduction of cost of contracted services
[2013/4/29] Page 16 of 48
Level 3 correspond to the equipment level, machines or workers (unit level). Indicators included in
this level measure the reliability of the equipment, the efficiency of maintenance activities, the costs
of maintenance tasks, the duration of stops due to maintenance works, etc.
The following figure shows an example of the relationship between items that make up indicators
corresponding to different levels inside the same group.
Total maintenance cost Total operating time Number of internal

maintenance personnel
Company level
Personnel costs spent in Down time related to Production operator

maintenance planned maintenance maintenance man hours
System level
Corrective maintenance Number of failures Number of work orders

cost performed as scheduled
Unit level
Figure 4. Example of items included in MPI inside each group
The indicators in this standard are labelled according to the indicator group (E for Economic, T for
Technical and O for Organisational) and numbered according to the level depending on how wide
and general the scope of the factors involved is (level 1, 2 or 3) and not as an indication of
importance.
The following matrix illustrates the external and internal factors that influence maintenance
performance and consequently the three groups of key indicators linked to the 3 levels defined
above.
[2013/4/29] Page 17 of 48
External influencing
factors
Location
Society Culture Indicator Level
National Labour Cost Level 1 Level 2 Level 3
Laws Regulations
Sector / Branches
Economicindicators E1 E2 E3
Indicator Group
Internal influencing
factors Technical
T1 T2 T3
Market situation indicators
Company Culture
Process Severity
Variety of Services Organisational
O1 O2 O3
Infrastructure Size indicators
Utilisation Rate
Age of Infrastructure
Criticality
Figure
Figure
6 Maintenance
5. Maintenance
influencing
influencing
factors
factors
and Matrix
and Maintenance
of Maintenance
Performance
Performance
Indicators
Indicators
(UNE-EN 15341:2007)
[2013/4/29] Page 18 of 48
3. MPIs in different fields
A different approach is used for developing MPIs for different industries, as per the stakeholders
requirements. Each organization under a specified industry is unique and such the MPIs are
required to be modified or developed specifically to meet its unique organizational and operational
needs.
Some MPI approaches and frameworks, as in use or under development by different societies,
organisations and industries, are discussed as under.
3.1. Mechanic industry

The quantitative evaluation of quality and reliability of machines was the origin of the MPIs
philosophy. That is the reason why the following indicators are broadly extended not only in the
mechanic industry, but also in other industries:
MTBF: Mean Time Between Failures (hours)
MTTR: Mean Time To Repair (hours)
MTTRS: Mean Time To Restore System (hours)
MTTRF: Mean Time To Restore Function (hours)
DLH/MA: Direct labour hours per maintenance action (hours)
TPCR: Total parts cost per removal or replacement ()
PFD: Probability of fault detection (%)
OEE: Overall Equipment Effectiveness (%)
3.2. Nuclear industry

In the nuclear industry, a high level of safety is essential, as well as the productivity and
environmental issues. The World Association of Nuclear Operators proposes the following list of
MPIs to be used in nuclear plants (WANO, 2010); most of them are related to safety issues:
1. Unplanned automatic shutdowns per 7.000 h of performance
2. Industrial accident rate per 200.000 work-hours
3. Collective radiation exposure
4. Unit capability factor
5. Unplanned capability loss factor
6. Forced loss rate
7. Safety system performance
8. Fuel reliability
9. Chemistry performance
10. Grid-related loss factor
[2013/4/29] Page 19 of 48
3.3. Oil and gas industry

As well as in the nuclear industry, the safety in oil and gas industry is an important attribute to be
measured, but due to their more competitive nature of business, specific indicators are defined to
manage the production and operation/maintenance costs (Parida, et al., 2009). Some of the MPIs
reported from plant level to result level for the Norwegian oil and gas industry are grouped into
different categories as follows (Kumar, et al., 2000):
Production:
o Produced volume oil (m3)
o Planned oil-production (m3)
o Produced volume gas (m3)
o Planned gas-production (m3)
o Produced volume condensate (m3)
o Planned condensate-production (m3)
Technical integrity
o Backlog preventive maintenance (man-hours)
o Backlog corrective maintenance (man-hours)
o Number of corrective work orders
Maintenance parameters
o Maintenance man-hours safety system
o Maintenance man-hours system
o Maintenance man-hours other systems
o Maintenance man-hours total
Deferred production
o Due to maintenance (m3)
o Due to operation (m3)
o Due to drilling/well operations (m3)
o Weather and other causes (m3)
3.4. Process industry

Measuring maintenance performance has drawn considerable interest in the utility, manufacturing
and process industry in the last decade (Parida, et al., 2009). Organizations are keen to know the
return on investment made in maintenance spending, while meeting the business objectives and
strategy. Specific modificaion of the maitnenance performance measurement models (MPM) were
developed for the industry in order to implementate and achieve the total maintenance effectivenes.
The following list shows the MPIs used in a pelletization plant and energy producing service
industry in Sweden (Parida, et al., 2005):
1. Downtime (hours)
2. Change over time
[2013/4/29] Page 20 of 48
3. Planned maintenance tasks

4. Unplanned maintenance tasks
5. Number of new ideas generated
6. Skill and improvement training
7. Quality returned
8. Employee complaints
9. Maintenance cost per ton
3.5. Utility industry

The MPIs as identified for the energy utility sector organization of Europe can be grouped into 7
classes, covering not only plant or process related issues, but also personal satisfaction (customers
and employees):
1. Customer satisfaction related: It is one of the main requirements for the Electric
companies and it is analysed by the MPIs proposed in the Guide for Electric Power
Distribution Reliability Indices IEEE 1366-2003 (Institute of Electrical and Electronic
Engineers, 2003):
o SAIDI: System average interruption duration index
o CAIDI: Customer average interruption duration index
o CSI: Customer satisfaction index (obtained through customer survey)
2. Cost related: In most of the European countries, the total maintenance cost has to be
controlled and the profit margin has to follow the Governments directive:
o Total maintenance cost
o Profit margin (has to follows the Governments directive)
3. Plant/Process related:
o Down time
o OEE rating (overall equipment effectiveness)
4. Maintenance task related:
o Number of unplanned stops (number and time)
o Number of emergency work
o Inventory cost
5. Learning and grow/innovation related:
o Number of new ideas generated
o Skill and improvement training
6. Health, safety and environment (HSE) related:
o Number of accidents
o Number of HSE complaints
[2013/4/29] Page 21 of 48
7. Employee satisfaction related: Employees motivation is an important factor to achieve the

organisational goals:
o Employee satisfaction level
3.6. Railway industry

The railway infrastructure is a complex system with two business and technical faces, freight and
passenger transportation, and where political and social considerations have to be taken into account
(e.g. safety and environmental impact) as well as public demands for safe, reliable and cost-
effective transportations.
When looking at the railway network as a whole, it is important to maintain the existing
infrastructure through effective and efficient maintenance in order to keep high utilisation within
the highest possible safety levels, as well as increased punctuality. There is a need for continuous
improvements in the area of maintaining the railway infrastructure, since maintenance not only
ensures safety and track performance, but also creates additional value of the business process
(Karlsson, 2005).
One of the key issue for Infrastructure Managers (IM) is therefore to verify that the undertaken
maintenance activities produce the expected results. There isnt a common approach between IMs.
Each one has its own MPIs collected throughout years as a function of the most usual problems they
had.
Because of the way that MPIs in railway industry have been generated, it is difficult to find a
system that groups MPI into technical, economical and organisational factors as proposed by the
European standard UNE-EN 15341:2007 reference above.
Themost relevant MPIs considered by different Railway Infrastructure Managers (in Sweden, Italy,
France, the Netherlands, the UK, Germany, Spain and Australia) are listed below. Furthermore, a
brief description of MPIs selected by the on-going FP7 project AUTOMAIN is also included.
Trafikverket (Sweden)
1. Capacity restriction of infrastructure
2. Hours of train delays due to infrastructure
3. Number of delayed freight trains due to infrastructure
4. Number of disruptions due to infrastructure
5. Degree of track standard (Q-factor)
6. Markdown in current standard
7. Number of broken and parked railroad cars
8. Number of inspections due to wheel flats
9. Derailments
10. Maintenance cost per track-kilometre
11. Share of unplanned maintenance
12. Use of environmental hazardous material
13. Use of non-renewable materials
14. Total number of functional disruptions
[2013/4/29] Page 22 of 48
Rete Ferroviaria Italiana (Italy)

1. Availability
2. Number of expected failures
3. Number of preventive maintenance actions
4. Number of inspections
5. Number of corrective maintenance actions
6. Downtime due to preventive maintenance
7. Downtime due to inspections
8. Downtime due to corrective maintenance
Queensland Rail (Australia)

1. Track and structures transit time delays
2. Trackside transit time delays
3. Derailments caused by infrastructure
4. Buckles, pull-aparts
5. Rail defects (number per 10 km)
6. Wayside faults reported
7. Wayside equipment MTBF
8. Wayside equipment MTTR
9. Fault response time for traction power
10. Completed trackside isolations
11. Re-sleepering against programme
12. Resurfacing against programme
13. Ballast undercutting against programme
14. Track recording against programme
15. Trackside percentage of routine maintenance completed
SNCF (France)
1. Number of train delays caused by infrastructure
2. Total delay in minutes
3. Duration to repair infrastructure failures
4. Number of train path-days affected by unscheduled work possesions
5. Length of unused lines targeted by conservation projects in the year of their closure to
traffic
6. Cost of renewal on main track (/km)
7. Cost of train-km for maintenance (/train-km)
[2013/4/29] Page 23 of 48
Prorail (The Netherlands)

1. Capacity distribution
2. Delivered trainpaths
3. Partially delivered trainpaths
4. Trainpath quality
5. Punctuality
6. Major disruptions
7. Availability
8. Maintenance time (planned possesions)
9. Downtime (disturbances)
Network Rail (UK)

1. Delay minutes per 100 train kilometres
2. Number of broken rails
3. Number of track related derailments
4. Number of track buckles
5. Number of Bridge strikes
6. Number of earthworks failures
7. Number of signalling failures (>10 minutes delay)
8. Number of temporary speed restrictions
9. Traction power supply failures
10. Track geometry failures
11. Points and circuit failures
DB (Germany)
1. Number of speed reductions
2. Number of delay minutes
3. Number of delayed trains (unplanned availability)
4. Theoretical loss of travel time
5. Number of defects on the infrastructure
6. Assessment of asset quality
7. Supply guarantee of power
8. Number of faults and MTTR
9. Mean age of important assets
10. Condition categories of bridges and tunnels
[2013/4/29] Page 24 of 48
ADIF (Spain)
ADIF manages a list of Corporate Social Responsibility and Sustainability indicators (CSR), which
include a whole variety of factors, some of them related to maintenance (ADIF, 2010). The list of
CSR is structured into different commitments or scopes the company pursues.
COMMITMENT 1: Overall Safety of the Rail System
No. of hours of training. (hours/employee)
Elimination of and improvement to level crossings
No. of work-related accidents per 1000 Adif employees
Accident rate attributable to Adif per millions of train/km
COMMITMENT 2: Respect for the environment

Number of ISO 14001 certificates and number of Adif areas that manage certificates
CO2 generated by Adif activity (Tonnes)
Water consumption (Million m3)
COMMITMENT 3: Professional development and sense of pride at belonging

No. of training hours per employee
% of women in management structure and support posts
COMMITMENT 4: Increased value in local environments

% of passengers who access stations adapted for disabled people
No. of events and open days involving Adifs estate
Estimated loss of earnings owing to areas assigned to NGOs in stations (in euros)
Investment in RD&I (in euros)
Assignment of assets in disuse for social and/or environmental purposes (km)
COMMITMENT 5: Further development and extension of the ethical and socially responsible
management model
Employee satisfaction rate
No. of reported breaches of Code of Ethics and Conduct
COMMITMENT 6: Transparency and dialogue with stakeholders

No. of complaints received due to information or communication problems relating to
customers at stations
No. of people who received information at Information Points and Customer Service
Desks
No. of collaboration agreements signed
[2013/4/29] Page 25 of 48
Adifs position in the Merco Empresas reputation ranking
AUTOMAIN (on-going FP7 project))

It is worth reviewing the on-going FP7 research project AUTOMAIN which shares some issues
in common with ACEM-Rail. AUTOMAIN also deals with maintenance but under a more
constrained view. The main goal of AUTOMAIN is the reduction of track possession time for
maintenance by 40%.
AUTOMAIN (Luiten, et al., 2012) identifies five methods to reduce possession time for
maintenance. AUTOMAIN define a Key Performance Indicator (KPI) linked to each one of this
method (e.g. KPI1 represent the reduction in track possession by using the method number 1). These
five methods are:
1. Adopting best practises from in outside rail industry using a lean approach (KPI1).
2. Incorporating novel track inspection approaches (KPI2).
3. Adopting of innovative techniques for large scale maintenance (KPI3).
4. Using a modular infrastructure design (KPI4).
5. Developing a planning and scheduling tool to optimise the programme (KPI5).
KPIx indicators above are quantified. The measurement procedure consists of:
A measurement of the actual performance situation, either by actual measurement or by
estimations of the actual numbers
Quantification of the effect of the improvements achieved by the WP by measuring, by
estimating or by using the results of the demonstrator (WP6)
Calculating an overall effect for the objective, basically using the formula:
( )
The point of view adopted by ACEM-Rail is more general than that of AUTOMAIN. The reduction
of track possession is only one of the main consequences of a better track maintenance. Other
consequences are reduction of cost, reduction of disruptions of rail services, reduction of ballast,
reduction of sleepers or rail replacements, reduction of accidents or improved perception of rail
services. ACEM-Rail will define a MPIs set that will adopt a wider point of view for the evaluation
of the improvement of track maintenance.
[2013/4/29] Page 26 of 48
4. ACEM-Rail MPIs system
4.1. Selection and classification of relevant MPIs in ACEM-Rail

Once the objectives have been defined, and the performance parameters to be measured have been
identified, the next step is to find the indicators which allow measuring and comparing these
parameters.
An indicator is relevant when its value, or its evaluation, is correlated with the evaluation of the
performance parameter to be measured. A relevant indicator shall be one element of decision
making. That means that the data involved in the calculation of a particular indicator shall have a
relation to a defined objective. This link can be proved by analysis or through interviews to experts.
Statistical techniques can also be utilised in order to ascertain correlations between indicators.
Some of the ACEM-Rail MPIs have been selected among the 71 indicators proposed in the standard
UNE-EN 15341:2007 because of their relation to the ACEM-Rail goals. Other indicators more
focused on rail systems have been chosen based on the experience of some Infrastructure Managers.
ACEM-Rails MPI have been structure in an architecture similar to the one proposed in the standard
UNE-EN 15341:2007 (Section 2.3) based on the definition of groups and levels. Five groups of
indicators have been chosen for the ACEM-Rail project. The first three ones are the economical,
technical and operational indicators as in the referenced standard (see Figure 6). The last two ones
have been incorporated to include relevant external factors. These are the social and environmental
indicators.
With respect to the different levels of the ACEM-Rails MPI architecture, three levels are defined
with the same aggregation philosophy as in UNE-EN 15341:2007. However, the level concept ha
been adapted as explained below:
Level 1 (Company level): It includes indicators that are linked to either to strategies
decisions within the company that are taken taking into account general results of the
company (such as railway services or renewal investment) or regulatory/legal issues (such
as the minimum service provided)..
Level 2 (System level): It includes indicators affected by the general performance of
railway maintenance.
Level 3 (Unit level): It includes indicators affected by specific maintenance tasks, related
to a specific railway asset or involving an specific maintenance team.
Table 3 below shows ACEM-Rails MPI architecture and named the selected indicators. Table 4
defines each indicator. Section 4.2 describes the elements involved in the computation of each
indicator.
[2013/4/29] Page 27 of 48
Table 3. Architecture of MPIs in ACEM-Rail
INDICATOR LEVEL
Level 1 Level 2 Level 3

Indicator Groups Unit level
Company level System Level
Economic Indicators MPIE1, MPIE2, MPIE3, MPIE4, MPIE5
Operational MPIO2, MPIO3 MPIO4, MPIO5

MPIO1
Indicators
Technical Indicators MPIT1 MPIT2 MPIT3, MPIT4, MPIT5
Social indicators MPIS1 MPIS2, MPIS3 MPIS4
Environmental MPIN2 MPIN3, MPIN4, MPIN5

MPIN1
indicators
The following table shows the definition of each MPI:
Table 4. Definition of MPIs in ACEM-Rail

Indicator MPI Equation
Level
Groups
1 MPIE1
2 MPIE2
Economic 2 MPIE3
3 MPIE4
3 MPIE5
1 MPIO1
2 MPIO2
Operational 2 MPIO3
3 MPIO4
3 MPIO5 Mean time between general tamping
Technical 1 MPIT1
[2013/4/29] Page 28 of 48
Indicator MPI Equation

Level
Groups
2 MPIT2
3 MPIT3
Technical
3 MPIT4
3 MPIT5
1 MPIS1 Punctuality of service
2 MPIS2 Satisfaction percentage of passengers (comfort)

Social
2 MPIS3 Number of complaints
3 MPIS4 Number of accidents with injured caused by railway
1 MPIN1
2 MPIN2 Total CO2 emissions from maintenance activities
Environmental MPIN3 Number of new wooden sleeper consumed in maintenance

3
3 MPIN4 Number of new concrete sleeper consumed in maintenance
3 MPIN5 Volume of ballast from quarries consumed in maintenance
4.2. Defining the factors

This section describes the different items included in Table 4 above.
Renewal investment
The standard EN 15341:2007 defines the factor improvement maintenance cost as the cost of
maintenance carried out to improve the availability of the item, without changing the required
function. In railway infrastructure, this concept mainly deals with the renewal of the track which is
an expensive cost.
Total Maintenance Cost

According to the standard EN 15341:2007, Total Maintenance Cost includes costs referred to:
Wages, salaries and overtimes for managerial, supervision, support staff and direct staff
[2013/4/29] Page 29 of 48
Payroll added costs for the above mentioned persons (taxes, insurance, legislative
contributions)
Spares and material consumables charged to maintenance (including freight costs)
Tools and equipment (not capitalized or rented)
Contractors, rented facilities
Consultancy services
Administration costs for maintenance
Education and training
Costs for maintenance activities carried out by production people
Costs for transportation, hotels, etc
Documentation
CMMS (computerized maintenance management software) and Planning Systems
Energy and utilities
Depreciation of maintenance capitalized equipments and workshops, warehouse for spare-
parts.
Exclusions:
Costs for product changeover or transaction time (e.g. Exchange of tools)
Depreciation of strategic spare parts
Downtime costs
Asset Replacement Value

The Asset Replacement Value (ARV) is defined as the estimated amount of capital that would be
required to build the Asset. ARV is an estimate of the current costs to replace in kind what now
exists. In railway infrastructure, it means the amortization cost of the track during its lifecycle.
Rail services
There are two factors related to rail services involved in the definition of several indicators:
Number of services: Annual amount of trips by passenger and freight trains
Operational load: Annual Gross Tonnes from passenger and freight traffic.
Total personnel cost spent in maintenance

This factor refers to the cost of internal personnel engaged in maintenance, including payroll added
costs.
Inspection cost
It includes both visual inspection and automated inspection with auscultation vehicles or other
systems.
[2013/4/29] Page 30 of 48
Punctuality of service
The punctuality of service is perhaps the most important factor related to customer satisfaction and
the railway operators are really keen to achieve the highest values.
Traffic disruptions due to maintenance

This factor varies in opposite way to the preceding one. Sometimes, when a maintenance tasks
cannot be done during a time window, it is necessary to take possession of the track during several
hours more and to cancel some rail services. An optimised maintenance planning tends to reduce
this kind of disruptions.
Occupancy of time windows

In most of railway infrastructure, there are time windows of 4 to 6 hours duration at nights for
maintenance works or freight traffic.
The more optimized the maintenance planning is, the greater availability of the time windows for
rail services (including freight traffic) and, as a consequence, higher profitability of the railway
system.
Maintenance materials
The use of materials in maintenance tasks is related not only to economic issues but also to
environmental ones. Some of the railway components, such as wood in sleepers or natural stone in
ballast, have a severe environmental impact in the origin. The generated waste is also an
environmental problem. However, it is a general procedure to reuse materials such as damaged
sleepers or worn rail in other parts of railway infrastructure.
Most common materials used and wasted in railway infrastructure are:
Wooden sleepers
Concrete sleepers
Ballast
Rails
Travel for execution of maintenance tasks

This factor evaluates the distance and the time consumed on trips to the location where a defect is to
be evaluated/repaired.
The optimal maintenance planning has an important impact in this factor, which is related to
economic (fuel consumption) and environmental (CO2 emission) issues.
Total working time of maintenance team

The working time is the amount of time available for maintenance tasks during a year. It depends on
the contract conditions between the company and the workers.
Mean time between general tamping
[2013/4/29] Page 31 of 48
Tamping is by far the most expensive maintenance task in railway systems. Therefore, it is worth to
explicit consider this factor. In most of railway lines, the general tamping of the track is done once a
year as a preventive treatment and correction of small geometry defects throughout the track.
A well maintained track does not require tamping that often. The frequency and cost of tamping
operations is very much related to the quality and operational constraints of maintenance.
Length of renewal actions

The length of renewal actions is a factor affecting technical indicators because early defect
detection prevents from an uncontrolled growing of it and the final failure of the infrastructure at
the defect location.
The repair of defects at their initial stage usually requires cheaper and faster maintenance tasks:
therefore.it can have an important economic impact.
Number of derailments
It is a factor considered by most of Infrastructure Managers. It is directly related to the track
condition.
Customer satisfaction
The customer satisfaction is related to the quality of rail service. It is evaluated/estimated through
the surveys carried out by rail operators and the complaints submitted by the customers at stations.
It is a measure of the social impact of railway services.
The following factors are usually included in this group:
Punctuality of service
Customer satisfaction
Number of complaints
Number of accidents caused by railway facilities
CO2 emissions due to maintenance activities

This is the most important environmental factor and, in a simplify way, it is related to the fuel
consumption of the following actions:
Travel of maintenance teams from the maintenance base to the work location by road
Normal functioning of heavy machinery to perform maintenance tasks
[2013/4/29] Page 32 of 48
5. Initial evaluation of MPIs in Ferrovie del Gargano
5.1. General overview of Ferrovie del Gargano demo site

The central validation site of ACEM-Rail technologies takes place in Gargano (Italy) at the
facilities of Ferrovie de Gargano. The target line is the one between San Severo and Peschici in
Puglia. It is a 90 km long track. It includes:
A single main track: 78,7 km
Additional tracks at stations: 11,3 km
This infrastructure was constructed in different phases during the XX century, between 20s and
30s. There are two types of rails (UNI 36 and UNI 50), three types of sleepers (wooden, concrete
and double concrete) and three types of fastenings (RN, Vossloh and Nabla). The track is provided
with jointed rail in 30,8 km (39% length) and long welded rail in 47,8 km (61% length).
The infrastructure manager, in this case Ferrovie del Gargano, subcontracts annually the
maintenance tasks to Lavori Ferroviari.
For the initial evaluation of MPIs in ACEM-Rail, several sources of data have been used:
1. Annual report on maintenance cost provided by Ferrovie del Gargano
2. Quality indicators of railway service (Carta dei Servizi) provided by Ferrovie del Gargano
3. Questionnaire to be filled by Ferrovie del Gargano
4. Evaluation of track condition by ACEM-Rail inspection techniques
5. Literature
6. Previous research projects
Annex I includes the questionnaire sent to Ferrovie del Gargano. At the date of drafting this version
of D8.1 the document hasnt been returned yet. Nevertheless, a review of initial indicators and a
final evaluation of them will be included in D8.2 to be submitted at a later step.
5.2. Evaluation of factors in Ferrovie del Gargano

5.2.1. Renewal investment
The following table shows the renewal annual costs, the length of the renewed stretch and the cost
per km during the last three years in the line San Severo-Peschici.
Table 5. Renewal investment in Ferrovie del Gargano
Cost per km
Year Asset Site Length Cost per km Total cost
full line
San Severo
Station 500 m 89.850 /km
station
2009 64.989,05 812,36 /km
Single Curve n18 near
365 m 54.970 /km
track San Severo
2010 Station San Severo 500 m 84.990 /km 42.495,00 531,19 /km
[2013/4/29] Page 33 of 48
Cost per km
Year Asset Site Length Cost per km Total cost
full line
station
Station Vico station 500 m 234.520 /km

Station Carpino station 480 m 158.580 /km
2011 350.305,91 4.378,82 /km
Station Ischitella station 457 m 159.010 /km
Rodi Garganico
station
Station San Marco station 400 m 87.970 /km
Curve between
Single
Cagnanao and 6000 m 18.570 /km
track Peschici
2012 Station Carpino station 480 m 158.580 /km 378.941,31 4.736,77 /km
Station Ischitella station 457 m 158.970 /km

Rodi Garganico
station
As shown in previous table, the renewal cost in station ranges from 2 to 5 times higher than for
single tracks, which are in between stations. During the last 2 years, the renewal cost has been
abnormally high because the company is under a certification process of its infrastructure by the
Italian government.
5.2.2. Total Maintenance Cost

Table 6 below shows the total maintenance cost during the last 4 years. This piece of information
has been provided by Ferrovie de Gargano (see Annex 1). Corrective maintenance include local
tamping and levelling, rail replacement, ballast replacement, sleeper replacement, gauge correction
and level crossing repairs. Preventive maintenance includes stress homogeneization in rails, ditches
cleaning and vegetation control. The full list of maintenance works carried out annually is included
in Annex 1. A description of all the maintenance tasks can be found in (D.6.1).
Table 6. Distribution of maintenance costs during the last 4 years in Ferrrovie del Gargano
2009 2010 2011 2012
Corrective 1.024.394,80 10% 166.307,12 14% 165.577,12 14% 215.449,52 17%
Preventive 108.467,12 90% 1.038.759,16 86% 1.032.191,64 86% 1.024.116,22 83%

Subtotal 1.132.861,80 1.205.066,28 1.197.768,76 1.239.565,74
Renewal 64.989,05 42.495,00 350.305,91 378.941,31
Total 1.197.850,85 1.247.561,28 1.548.074,67 1.618.507,05
[2013/4/29] Page 34 of 48
5.2.3. Asset Replacement Value

The construction cost of a railway track usually ranges from 0,3 to 1,6 M/km and depends on the
designed speed, the initial quality required, the allowed load per axle, the construction difficulties
due to the location such as hilly terrain or geotechnical problems, and the availability of
construction materials, among other factors.
In Ferrovie del Gargano, due to the age of the infrastructure, the little traffic supported, the low
speed of trains and the good geotechnical conditions of the track foundation, the estimated ARV is
0,5 M/km. The life of the infrastructure (period between renewal activities) is 50 years, so the
ARV per km and year is 10.000 /km.
5.2.4. Rail services

In Gargano, the number of rail services has been approximately a constant value throughout the last
3 years. The operational load (gross tonnes) can be calculated taking into account the weight of the
different vehicles that run on the line and an average occupation of 50 %.. There are no freight
services in Ferrovie de Gargano infrastructure. The following figures show the monthly values for
2013.
Trips/month
700 644
613
600 517 517 517 517 517 530 514 486 486 501
500
400
300
200
100
0
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Figure 7. Rail services in line San Severo Peschici, 2013 (Ferrovie del Gargano)
Tonnes x 1000/month
60 56
52
50
40 36 36 36 36 36 37 36 35
34 34
30
20
10
0
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Figure 8. Operational load in line San Severo Peschici, 2013 (Ferrovie del Gargano)
[2013/4/29] Page 35 of 48
5.2.5. Total personnel cost spent in maintenance

In Gargano, maintenance activities are subcontracted to Lavori Ferroviari, which has the following
team and personnel costs:
Table 7. Estimated personnel costs in Gargano
Estimated net Estimated gross

Position N Total annual cost
salary salary
Executive director 1 40.000 60.000 60.000
Work manager 1 35.000 52.500 52.500
Foreman 1 35.000 52.500 52.500
Operational technicians 6 30.000 45.000 270.000
Workers in the field 16 24.000 36.000 576.000
Total 25 - - 1.011.000
5.2.6. Inspection cost

Between 60 % and 80 % of total inspection cost in Ferrovie del Gargano is related to visual
inspection carried out by specialized personnel of Lavori Ferroviari walking along the lines. Once a
year, the subcontractor Tecnomatica, partner of this project, performs a geometric inspection of the
track using small semi-automated auscultation equipment that can record the vertical profile,
superelevation, versine and track gauge at a maximum speed of 5 km/h.
Figure 9. Auscultation vehicle for monitoring track geometry in Gargano
The cost of this inspection is about 3 /m and the annual investment on this measurement is
20.000. On the other hand, Ferrovie dello Stato, the national railway infrastructure manager,
carries out a mandatory geometric auscultation of the track with automated inspection vehicles
every four years, with a cost of 50.000 for Ferrovie del Gargano.
The following table summarizes the annual cost of track inspection during the last 4 years.
[2013/4/29] Page 36 of 48
Table 8. Track inspection costs in Gargano
Inspection 2009 2010 2011 2012
Visual inspection 129.531,18 68.209,60 68.209,60 148.490,00
Geometric inspection
with semi-automated 20.000 20.000 20.000 20.000
inspection equipment
Geometric inspection
12.500 12.500 12.500 12.500
with auscultation vehicle
Total inspection cost 162.031,18 100.709,60 100.709,60 180.990,00
5.2.7. Punctuality of service

The annual quality report published by this company (Ferrovie del Gargano s.r.l., 2012) (Ferrovie
del Gargano s.r.l., 2013) shows the following data related to punctuality of service:
Table 9. Punctuality of service

Punctuality 2011 2012
Trains on time 6225 97,88% 6257 98,38%
Trains delayed 135 2,12% 103 1,62%
5.2.8. Traffic disruptions due to maintenance works

It is estimated that a 20 % of delays included in previous section are related to maintenance works,
so the reduction of 30 % pursued by ACEM-Rail will be turned into a 6 % reduction of trains
delayed.
According to these data, the following table shows the number of traffic disruptions per year due to
maintenance works.
Table 10. Traffic disruptions due to maintenance works
Punctuality 2011 2012
Trains delayed 135 100% 103 100%
Trains delayed due to

27 20% 21 20%
maintenance
[2013/4/29] Page 37 of 48
5.2.9. Total working time of maintenance team

It is assumed that a worker in Gargano has a contract of 1.800 h/year, what means 225 working
days.
5.2.10. Occupancy of time windows

In Gargano, Sundays are always available for maintenance tasks or freight transit. In peak season
there isnt time windows during the nights, whereas in low season there are 6 to 8h length time
windows available for maintenance.
Due to the high number of work orders in Ferrovie de Gargano, it is supposed that every Sunday
and every night during winter the infrastructure is taken by maintenance tasks. The next table shows
some information on the most relevant maintenance tasks in Ferrovie de Gargano and the resulting
estimation of total working days, total time windows for maintenance tasks and time windows
available for more rail services such as freight (although in the case of Ferrovie de Gargano, there
are no rail services).
Table 11. Most relevant maintenance tasks and estimation of working days and occupancy of time windows in
Gargano
Maintenance task 2009 2010 2011 2012
ACEM_BT: Ballast tamping
Track length per year (m/year) 80.000 80.000 80.000 80.000
Performance (m/h) 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000
Annual working hours (h/year) 80 80 80 80
Average time window at night (h/day) 4 4 4 4
Working days per year (days/year) 20 20 20 20
ACSTRHO: Rail stress homogeneization
Track length per year (m/year) 18.392 18.392 18.392 18.392
Performance (m/h) 30 30 30 30
Annual working hours (h/year) 613,1 613,1 613,1 613,1
ACEM_SR: Sleeper replacement
Units per year (ud/year) 7.029 12.000 11.942 9.217
Performance (ud/h) 3 3 3 3
Annual working hours (h/year) 2.343 4.000 3.980 3.072
Working days per year (days/year) 586 1.000 996 769
ACEM_BR: Ballast replacement
Units (m) 2.000 2.000 2.000 2.500
Performance (m/h) 1 1 1 1
Annual working hours (h/year) 2.000 2.000 2.000 2.500
[2013/4/29] Page 38 of 48
Maintenance task 2009 2010 2011 2012

ACEM_DDC: Ditches cleaning
Units (m) 4.000 5.000 2.000 2.640
Performance (m/h) 200 200 200 200
Average time window during daylight (h/day) 8 8 8 8
ACEM_SGV: Vegetation control
Units (m) 40.000 40.000 50.000 70.400
Performance (m/h) 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000
Annual working hours (h/year) 40 40 50 70,4
TRACK INSPECTION
Units (m) 13.521 7.120 7.120 10.000
Performance (m/h) 500 500 500 500
TOTAL WORKING DAYS 1.270 1.683 1.678 1.579
Number of working days per maintenance team
115 153 153 144
(Total working days / 11 teams)
Number of time windows per year
208 208 208 208
(182 days on peak season + 26 Sundays on low season)
PERCENTAGE OF TIME WINDOWS OCCUPIED BY
55% 73% 73% 69%
MAINTENANCE WORKS
PERCENTAGE OF TIME WINDOWS AVAILABLE

45% 27% 27% 31%
FOR FREIGHT TRAFFIC
The maintenance crew in Ferrovie del Gargano consists of 6 operational technicians and 16 field
workers. They are usually grouped in pairs, so there are 11 maintenance teams. As can be observed
in gray shaded rows above, a 70% of time windows are occupied by maintenance works, meanwhile
a 30% is currently available for freight traffic.
5.2.11. Ballast supplied for tamping

The amount of ballast supplied for tamping is important not only from the technical (performance)
and economic (cost) point of view, but also from the environment perspective because of its relation
[2013/4/29] Page 39 of 48
to the volume of stone extracted from quarries. Better known track condition and more useful
prediction tools prevent from the uncontrolled increase of track defects and allow to plan corrective
maintenance tasks with minimum cost and minimum usage of raw material.
The following table shows the ballast consumption during the last four years in Ferrovie de
Gargano.
Table 12. Ballast supplied in Gargano
2009 2010 2011 2012
12.036,57 m3 12.036,57 m3 12.036,57 m3 9.437,00 m3
5.2.12. Sleeper replacement

As well as in the case of ballast for tamping, sleeper replacement has an impact not only from the
economic and technical point of view but also from the environmental one. In Gargano, there is a
huge number of sleepers replaced every year. Most of them are wooden sleepers due to waste
production and use of resources. The following table shows the values during the last four years.
Table 13. Sleeper replacement in Gargano
Type of
2009 2010 2011 2012
sleeper
Wooden 7.190 12.137 12.137 9.437
Concrete 200 133 75 50
5.2.13. Travel distances for execution of maintenance tasks

The travel distance can be estimated through the following assumptions:
The maintenance base is located at San Severo station.
The defects are located equally distributed along the line San Severo Peschici, so the
average distance to be travelled is 40 km.
The work orders generated have the average length, average duration and average cost of
the typical maintenance task involved.
The following table shows an estimation of travel distances obtained from the number of work
orders according to Annual Reports .
Table 14. Estimation of travel distances
2009 2010 2011 2012
260.000 km 295.000 km 295.000 km 325.000 km
5.2.14. Time spent in travels by maintenance teams

The estimation of travel time in ACEM-Rail has computed considering an average speed of 60
km/h for the maintenance teams in their vans/cars and the travelled distance shown in Table 14
above. The table below shows the estimation of travel time during the last 4 years:
[2013/4/29] Page 40 of 48
Table 15. Estimation of time spent in travel by maintenance teams

2009 2010 2011 2012
4.333 h 4.917 h 4.917 h 5.416 h
5.2.15. CO2 emissions from maintenance works

It is assumed that almost all CO2 emission come from rolling-stock internal combustion engines,
cars and track maintenance vehicles. CO2 emissions of manual machinery are ignored.
CO2 emission rate from a common diesel engine is 2,6 kg/l (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change (IPCC), 2006).
Diesel cars consume around 10 litres every 100 km, which means 6 l/h assuming an average travel
speed of 60 km/h. Multiplying this factor by the time spent in travel as shown in Table 15, the total
fuel consumption and, as consequence, the CO2 emissions can be estimated.
On the other hand, track maintenance vehicles are usually heavy machinery with high fuel
consumption. A tamping machine of 500 HP, for example, uses around 30 l/h of fuel. The time of
operation with heavy machinery has been estimated from the Table 11 adding ACEM_BT and
ACEM_SGV working hours.
The next table shows the estimation of fuel consumption and CO2 emissions of travels by road and
operation with heavy machinery during the last four years in Ferrovie de Gargano:
Table 16. CO2 emissions of different vehicles and activities
CO2 emissions
CO2 emissions
Fuel travel/working
Vehicle 2009 2010 2011 2012
consumption
Car 6 l/h 15,6 kg/h 67,6 ton 76,7 ton 76,7 ton 84,5 ton
Heavy
30 l/h 78,0 kg/h 9,4 ton 9,4 ton 10,1 ton 11,6 ton
machinery
TOTAL - - 77,0 ton 86,1 ton 86,8 ton 96,1 ton
5.2.16. Mean time between general tamping

In Ferrovie de Gargano, as in most of railway infrastructures around Europe, general tamping is
accomplished once a year as part of the programme preventive maintenance in order to correct
small geometry defects throughout the track.
5.2.17. Number of derailments

The Carta dei Servizi provided by Ferrovie de Gargano includes a number of accidents in rail
services affecting only to the track and rolling stock. It has been assumed that these accidents were
derailments. The amount is similar to that of other European railway infrastructures, taking into
account the age of Garganos facilities.
[2013/4/29] Page 41 of 48
Table 17. Estimation of number of derailments in Gargano

2011 2012
Number of accidents in train services
affecting infrastructure and rolling stock 2,06 5,69
(per million kilometres)
Annual kilometres 0,5 M km 0,5 M km
Number of derailments
1,05 2,90
(100% of rail accidents)
5.2.18. Customer satisfaction

All factors related to customer satisfaction have been obtained from the Carta dei Servizi
provided by Ferrovie de Gargano, which is a summary of the surveys and complaints collected
during a year.
The following table shows the most relevant values that have been considered within this factor:
Table 18. Measurement of social impact in Gargano
Factor 2011 2012
Punctuality of service 98% 98%
Satisfaction percentage of passengers 92% 94%
Number of complaints 30 27
Number of accidents with injuried caused by railway
0,09 0,27
(per passenger-kilometer)
5.3. Initial evaluation of MPIs

This Section presents the initial evaluation of the ACEM-Rail MPIs (Table 4) in the validation pilot
in Ferrovie de Gargano. Indicators are group in five groups: economic, operational, technical, social
and environmental.
Economic Indicators
Indicator MPIE1
100%
90%
ACEM objective
Equation 80%
Trend line
70%
Initial value 60%
MPIE1
23% 50%
(2012)
40%
Forecast value 30%
24%
(2013) 20%
10%
Objective 0%
5% reduction of renewal investment
ACEM 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
Year
Expected value
19%
(2013)
[2013/4/29] Page 42 of 48
Indicator MPIE2
300%
250%
Equation
200%
Initial value
MPIE2
150% 150%
(2012)
100%
Forecast value
211% ACEM objective
(2013) 50%
Trend line
Objective 0%
5% reduction of maintenance cost
ACEM 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
Year
Expected value
201%
(2013)
Indicator MPIE3
300,00
250,00
Equation
200,00
Initial value
188,34 /service
MPIE3
150,00
(2012)
100,00
Forecast value
265,56 /service ACEM objective
(2013) 50,00
Trend line
Objective 0,00
5% reduction of maintenance cost
ACEM 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
Year
Expected value
252,28 /service
(2013)
Indicator MPIE4
100%
90%
Equation 80%
70%
Initial value 60%
MPIE4
62% 50%
(2012)
40%
Forecast value 30%
60% ACEM objective
(2013) 20%
10% Trend line
Objective 10 % reduction of personnel cost 0%
ACEM spent in maintenance 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
Year
Expected value
54%
(2013)
[2013/4/29] Page 43 of 48
Indicator MPIE5
100%
90%
ACEM objective
Equation 80%
Trend line
70%
Initial value 60%
MPIE5
11% 50%
(2012)
40%
Forecast value 30%
15%
(2013) 20%
10%
Objective 0%
30% reduction of inspection cost
ACEM 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
Year
Expected value
11%
(2013)
As can be shown in previous graphs, the economic indicators remain practically constant or with a
light increase during the last 4 years. This is so because maintenance activities are subcontracted to
Lavori Ferroviari on the base of an annual fixed budget. The budget for year 2013 is already fixed
and therefore there wont be cost reduction for maintenance tasks thanks to ACEM-Rail
technologies. However, ACEM-Rail will achieve an improvement in track quality and a better
planning of maintenance tasks (so that less workers will be required and less renovation of material
will be required). Therefore after some time using ACEM-Rail technologies, Ferrovie de Gargano
will be able to re-analyse maintenance costs and to re-negotiate the maintenance contract with
Lavori Ferroviari reducing their budget.
Operational Indicators
Indicator MPIO1
1,00%
0,90%
ACEM objective
Equation 0,80%
Trend line
0,70%
0,60%
Initial value
MPIO1
0,32% 0,50%
(2012) 0,40%
0,30%
Forecast value
0,22% 0,20%
(2013)
0,10%
Objective 10% reduction in traffic disruptions due 0,00%
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
ACEM to maintenance works Year
Expected value
0,16%
(2013)
[2013/4/29] Page 44 of 48
Indicator MPIO2
100%
90%
Equation 80%
70%
Initial value 60%
MPIO2
63% 50%
(2012)
40%
Forecast value 30%
60% ACEM objective
(2013) 20%
10% Trend line
Objective 20% reduction in corrective and 0%
ACEM unexpected maintenance cost 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
Year
Expected value
48%
(2013)
Indicator MPIO3
100%
90%
Equation 80%
70%
60%
Initial value
MPIO3
69% 50%
(2012) 40%
30%
Forecast value ACEM objective
65% 20%
(2013) 10%
Trend line
Objective 0%
20% reduction 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
ACEM Year
Expected value 52%

(2013)
Indicator MPIO4
100%
90% ACEM objective
Equation 80%
Trend line
70%
60%
Initial value
MPIO4
14% 50%
(2012) 40%
30%
Forecast value
15% 20%
(2013)
10%
Objective 0%
15% reduction in travel time 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
ACEM Year
Expected value 13%

(2013)
[2013/4/29] Page 45 of 48
Indicator MPIO5
1,2
Equation Mean time between general tamping 1
0,8
Initial value
MPIO5
1 year 0,6
(2012)
0,4
Forecast value
1 year ACEM objective
(2013) 0,2
Trend line
Objective 0
5% increasing 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
ACEM
Year
Expected value 1,05 year
(2013)
Operational indicators will be highly improved due to the implantation of ACEM-Rail technologies.
One of the main benefits of ACEM-Rail will be a better understanding of track evolution and
defects which will allow for a better definition of preventive/predictive maintenance tasks and a
reduction of corrective maintenance tasks. Corrective maintenance is usually more expensive and
may cause disruptions of rail services. The predominance of preventive/predictive maintenance
tasks with respect to corrective maintenance allows for a better organization of maintenance teams
and an optimal occupancy of time windows by maintenance works, among others. All these
objectives are addressed by this operational of indicators.
Technical indicators
Indicator MPIT1
100%
90%
ACEM objective
Equation 80%
Trend line
70%
Initial value 60%
9,8%
MPIT1
50%
(2012)
40%
Forecast value 30%
17,2%
(2013) 20%
10%
Objective 00%
20% reduction 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
ACEM
Year
Expected value 13,8%
(2013)
[2013/4/29] Page 46 of 48
Indicator MPIT2
0,200%
0,175% ACEM objective

Equation
0,150% Trend line
0,125%
Initial value
0,046%
MPIT2
0,100%
(2012)
0,075%
Forecast value
0,075% 0,050%
(2013)
0,025%
Objective 0,000%
20% reduction 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
ACEM
Year
(2013)
Indicator MPIT3
0,250
ACEM objective
Equation 0,200
Trend line
Initial value 0,150

0,081 m3/m
MPIT3
(2012)
0,100
Forecast value 3
0,092 m /m (average value 2009-2012)
(2013) 0,050
Objective 0,000
5% reduction of ballast supplied 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
ACEM
Year
Expected value 0,087 m3/m
(2013)
Indicator MPIT4
30,0
Equation 25,0
20,0
Initial value
20,4 sleepers / M tonnes
MPIT4
15,0
(2012)
10,0
Forecast value 22,2 sleepers / M tonnes
ACEM objective
(2013) (average value 2009-2012) 5,0
Trend line
Objective 0,0
5% reduction 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
ACEM
Year
Expected value 21,1 sleepers / M tonnes
(2013)
[2013/4/29] Page 47 of 48
Indicator MPIT5
10,0
Equation 8,0
Initial value 6,0

5,4 m / M tonnes
MPIT5
(2012)
4,0
Forecast value 6,5 m / M tonnes
ACEM objective
(2013) (average value 2009-2012) 2,0
Trend line
Objective 0,0
5% reduction 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
ACEM
Year
Expected value 6,1 m / M tonnes
(2013)
Regarding technical indicators, a high reduction in renewal necessities and number of derailments is
expected thanks to an early detection of rail defects by the automated ACEM-Rail monitoring
methods during rail services. Early defect detection will prevent from uncontrolled increase of
defects size and will increase the useful life of the infrastructure. On the contrary, the reduction on
the use of railway materials such as ballast or sleepers will be small because the policy in Ferrovie
de Gargano is to renew a nearly constant number of items per year.
Social Indicators
Indicator MPIS1
100%
Equation 80%
Initial value 60%

98,38%
MPIS1
(2012)
40%
Forecast value
95% ACEM objective
(2013) 20%
Trend line
Objective 0%
0% (Keeping current value) 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
ACEM
Year
(2013)
[2013/4/29] Page 48 of 48
Indicator MPIS2
100%
Equation 80%
Initial value 60%

94%
MPIS2
(2012)
40%
Forecast value
96% ACEM objective
(2013) 20%
Trend line
Objective 0%
+2% (Keeping current trend) 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
ACEM
Year
Expected value 96%
(2013)
Indicator MPIS3
50
Equation 40
Initial value 30
27
MPIS3
(2012)
20
Forecast value
25 ACEM objective
(2013) 10
Trend line
Objective 0
-10% 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
ACEM
Year
Expected value 23
(2013)
Indicator MPIS4
10
9 ACEM objective
Number of accidents with injured caused
Equation 8 Trend line
by railway
7
Initial value 6
4,5
MPIS4
5
(2012)
4
Forecast value 3
7,4
(2013) 2
1
Objective 0
-5% 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
ACEM
Year
Expected value 7,1
(2013)
With respect to the quality of rail services perceived by users, the impact of the ACEM-Rail
technologies wont be very important as such perception doesnt depend that much on maintenance
tasks. In any case, the better the track quality is, the lower the accelerations inside the trains is
reached and, therefore better comfort will be perceived by the users of the rail services. The
[2013/4/29] Page 49 of 48
punctuality of rail services and the number of disruptions will also be improved thanks to ACEM-
Rail technologies. Other important issues which are relevant for users perception, out of the
influence of ACEM-Rail, are the type of seats inside the wagons, the cleanliness and warmness of
stations and the friendliness of employees.
Environmental indicators
Indicator MPIN1
100%
90% ACEM objective
Equation 80% Trend line
70%
60%
Initial value
MPIN1
31% 50%
(2012) 40%
30%
Forecast value
35% 20%
(2013) 10%
Objective 0%
20% increasing 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
ACEM Year
Expected value 43%

(2013)
Indicator MPIN2
150
Total CO2 emissions from maintenance 125

Equation
activities
100
Initial value
MPIN2
96,1 ton 75
(2012)
50
Forecast value
105,4 ton ACEM objective
(2013) 25
Trend line
Objective 00
15% reduction 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
ACEM
Year
Expected value 89,6 ton
(2013)
Indicator MPIN3
14.000
Number of new wooden sleeper 12.000

Equation
consumed in maintenance 10.000
Initial value 8.000

MPIN3
9437
(2012) 6.000
Forecast value 4.000

10.225 (average value 2009-2012) ACEM objective
(2013) 2.000 Series3
Objective 00
5% reduction 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
ACEM
Year
Expected value 9714
(2013)
[2013/4/29] Page 50 of 48
Indicator MPIN4
400
Number of new concrete sleeper 350 ACEM objective

Equation
consumed in maintenance 300 Trend line
250
Initial value
50
MPIN3
200
(2012)
150
Forecast value
115 (average value 2009-2012) 100
(2013)
50
Objective 00
5% reduction 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
ACEM
Year
Expected value 109
(2013)
Indicator MPIN5
15.000
Volume of ballast from quarries 12.500

Equation
consumed in maintenance
10.000
Initial value 3
MPIN3
9.437 m 7.500
(2012)
5.000
Forecast value
11.387 m3 (average value 2009-2012) ACEM objective
(2013) 2.500
Trend line
Objective 00
5% reduction 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
ACEM
Year
Expected value 10.817 m3
(2013)
Finally, environmental indicators will be highly reduced by ACEM-Rail methods because there will
be a strong optimization of travel distances by maintenance teams due to better schedule of work
orders. The optimization of time possession booking will also have impact on the availability of the
infrastructure for freight traffic, with the consequent theoretical reduction of CO2 in freight road
transport. On the other hand, the use of natural resources (such as ballast or the material for
sleepers) will also be optimized thanks to the improvement on the track state and to the better asset
management developed in ACEM-Rail. The system developed within ACEM-Rail will be aware on
the amount and location of resources and will improve the reusability of wasted materials such as
ballast or sleepers.
[2013/4/29] Page 51 of 48
[2013/4/29] Page 52 of 48
6. Conclusions
This deliverable deals with the selection and initial evaluation of Maintenance Performance
Indicators (MPIs) for analysing the impact of ACEM-Rail techniques on railway infrastructure, in
particular the improvement of the following general objectives:
Competitiveness
Quality
Sustainability
Environmental impact
In order to perform a quantitative evaluation, 11 MPIs have been defined in relation to the general
objectives cited. They have been structured in a matrixscheme of five groups dealing with
economical operational, technical, social and environmental and three levels from company level to
unit level as shown in Table 3.
The proposed MPIs allows to evaluate the maintenance procedure from different angles (economic,
technical, operational, etc) and point of views (general manager, maintenance manager, operators,
customers, etc)
An initial evaluation of MPIs for the validation pilot in Ferrovie de Gargano has been carried out,
together with an estimation of future values consequence of the use of ACEM-Rail technologies. At
the end of the Project, a new evaluation of these MPIs (Deliverable D8.2) will allow us to evaluate
the achievement degree of ACEM-Rail objectives.
[2013/4/29] Page 53 of 48
[2013/4/29] Page 54 of 48
7. References and Bibliography
ADIF Sustainability Report [Report]. - 2010.

Ahrn Thomas Maintenance performance indicators (MPIs) for railway infrastructure:
identification and analysis for improvement [Report] : Doctoral Thesis / Department of Civil,
Mining and Environmental Engineering ; Lulea University of Technology. - Lulea : [s.n.], 2008. -
ISSN: 1402-1544.
Ahrn Thomnas A Study of Maintenance Performance Indicators for the Swidish Railroad System
[Informe] : Licenciate Thesis / Department of Civil Engineering ; Lulea University of Technology. -
Lulea : [s.n.], 2005. - ISSN: 1402-1757.
Allander H. Objectives Matrix Provides Information Balance [Publicacin peridica] // Water
Engineering and Management. - [s.l.] : Water Engineering and Management, 1997. - 144. - pgs.
30-31.
European Commitee for Standardization EN 15341:2007 Maintenance - Manintenance Key
Performance Indicators [Informe]. - 2007.
Ferrovie del Gargano s.r.l. Carta dei Servizi [Informe]. - Bari : [s.n.], 2012.
Ferrovie del Gargano s.r.l. Carta dei Servizi [Informe]. - Bari : [s.n.], 2013.
Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers IEEE Std. 1366-2003 Guide for Electric Power
Distribution Reliability Indices [Informe]. - New Jersey (USA) : IEEE Standards Department, 2003.
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Guidelines for National Grennhouse Gas
Inventories [Informe]. - 2006.
Karlsson V. An overall view of maintenance [Publicacin peridica] // European Railway
Review. - 2005. - pgs. 11-17.
Kumar U. and Ellingsen HP. Development and implementation of maintenance perfromance
indicators for the norwegian oil and gas industry [Conference] // 14th International Maintenance
Congress (Euro maintenance 2000). - Gothenburg (Sweden) : [s.n.], 2000. - pp. 221-228.
Liyanage J.P. [et al.] Terminology [Report] / Centre for Maintenance and Asset Management ;
Stavanger Univeristy College. - 2001.
Luiten Ted [et al.] Deliverable D1.2: Description of demonstration scenarios and evaluation
criteria [Report]. - 2012.
Pallister J., Isaacs, A. A Dictionary of Business [Libro]. - [s.l.] : Oxford University Press, 2002.
Parida A., Chattopadhay G. and Kumar U. Multi criteria maintenance performance
measurement: a conceptual model [Conference] // Proceedings of the 18th International Congress
COMADEM. - Cranfield (UK) : [s.n.], 2005. - pp. 349-356.
Parida Aditya and Kumar Uday Maintenance Productivity and Performance Measurement [Book
Section] // Handbook of Maintenance Management and Engineering / book auth. Ben-Daya M. [et
al.]. - [s.l.] : Springer, 2009. - XXVII. - ISBN 978-1-84882-471-3.
WANO Performance indicators [Report] / World Association of Nuclear Operators. - London :
[s.n.], 2010.
[2013/4/29] Page 55 of 48
Wireman Terry Developing Performance Indicators for Managing Maintenance [Book]. - New
York : Industrial Press, Inc., 2005.
Wireman Terry Developing performance indicators in maintenance [Book]. - New York :
Industrial Press, 1998.
[2013/4/29] Page 56 of 48
Annex I: Questionnaire sent to Ferrovie del Gargano
[2013/4/29] Annex I
Questionnaire
Questionnaire related to economic, technical and organizational issues to provide the necessary
input to the last phase of the ACEM-Rail project, funded by the EC.
All questions relative to line San Severo - Peschici

To be filled by Ferrovie del Gargano managers.
Please answer every question, although you dont have the exact information. Approximate
data is also valuable for us.
Economic data
1) Number of services (train operations)
Numero dei servizi (circolazione dei treni)
2009 2010 2011 2012
Comments/Osservazione
2) Number of lost services due to planned maintenance works

Numero dei servizi perduti a causa di lavori di manutenzione programmata
2009 2010 2011 2012
3) Number of lost services due to unplanned maintenance works

Numero dei servizi perduti a causa di interventi di manutenzione straordinaria
2009 2010 2011 2012
1 de 6
4) Number of corrective maintenance works (immediate, unplanned)
Numero di interventi di manutenzione correttiva (immediato, non pianificata)
2009 2010 2011 2012
5) Downtime (hours) due to planned maintenance (out of possession time)

I tempi (ore) di inattivit a causa di interventi di manutenzione programmate (fuori di tempo di
possesso)
2009 2010 2011 2012
6) Downtime (hours) due to unplanned maintenance (out of possession time)

I tempi (ore) di inattivit a causa di interventi di manutenzione straordinaria (fuori di tempo di
possesso)
2009 2010 2011 2012
7) Downtime (hours) due to urgent inspection (out of possession time)

I tempi (ore) di inattivit a causa di unispezione urgente (fuori di tempo di possesso)
2009 2010 2011 2012
2 de 6
8) Penalties () for interrupting traffic due to unplanned maintenance or overrunning possession
time
Sanzioni() in caso di interruzione del traffico a causa di interventi di manutenzione straordinaria
o di tempo di possesso superamento
2009 2010 2011 2012
Cost per hour/cost orario ():
9) Corrective maintenance cost ()

Costi di manuntenzione correttiva ()
2009 2010 2011 2012
10) Preventive maintenance cost ()

Costi di manuntenzione preventiva ()
2009 2010 2011 2012
11) Inspection/auscultation cost ()

Costi di ispecione/auscultazione ()
2009 2010 2011 2012
3 de 6
Technical data
1) Number of temporary speed restrictions
Numero di limitazioni di velocit temporanee
2009 2010 2011 2012
2) Number of broken rails

Numero di rotaie fratturate
2009 2010 2011 2012
3) Rail resurfacing (units)

Ricarica (saldatura) di rotaia (unit)
2009 2010 2011 2012
4) Tamping length (meters)

Lunghezza livelamento/rincalzatura del binario (metri)
2009 2010 2011 2012
4 de 6
5) Rail grinding length (meters)
Lunghezza rettifica di rotaia (metri)
2009 2010 2011 2012
6) Derailments caused by infrastructure

Deragliamenti causati da infrastrutture
2009 2010 2011 2012
Organisational data
1) Total maintenance man-hours
Ore uomo per manutenzione
2009 2010 2011 2012
2) Man-hours used for planning maintenance operations (management)

Ore uomo per pianificare le operazioni di manutenzione (gestione)
2009 2010 2011 2012
5 de 6
3) Man-hours used in executing planned and scheduled maintenance tasks (field works)
Man-ore di utilizzo in esecuzione di pianificato e programmato manutenzione (opera di campo)
2009 2010 2011 2012
4) Man-hours used in executing unplanned maintenance tasks (field works)

Man-ore di utilizzo in esecuzione di manutenzione non programmati (opera di campo)
2009 2010 2011 2012
5) Man-hours used in visual inspection

Man-ore di utilizzo in ispezione visiva
2009 2010 2011 2012
6 de 6

ACEM-Rail D8.1 Maintenance Performance Indicators r0

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

ACEM-Rail D8.1 Maintenance Performance Indicators r0

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

ACEM-Rail 265954 D8.

SEVENTH FRAMEWORK PROGRAMME

Automated and Cost Effective Maintenance for Railway

D8.1 Maintenance Performance Indicators (MPI).

Deliverable number D8.1

Noemi Jimnez-Redondo, Sergio Escriba Marn (CEMOSA)

5.2.18. Customer satisfaction ........................................................................................................................... 42

Figure 1. Horizontal classification of Performance Indicators (Allander, 1997)............................... 15

Table 1. Main objectives and benefits expected in ACEM-Rail.......................................................... 9

Improvement of the infrastructure capacity and, as a consequence, improvement in the

Improvement of the maintenance quality.

Improvement of Increase in the transport of freight by rail.

High impact due to the better resource

Objective Quantitative factors Value Comments

Improvement of Tamping is included in maintenance

High impact due to the better

High impact because of the optimal

Improvement of Automatic track inspection during rail

The infrastructure management tool and

Reduction of Optimally planned work orders and

As explained above, the technologies

This document is structured as follows:

2. Definition of Maintenance Performance Indicators (MPIs)

2.1. Maintenance performance measurement system

2.2. Maintenance Performance Indicators (MPI)

performance by comparison of actual conditions with a specific set of reference conditions

2.3. Architecture of performance indicators

Figure 1. Horizontal classification of Performance Indicators (Allander, 1997)

Figure 2. Horizontal classification of Performance Indicators (Pallister, 2002)

Financial performance indicators

Efficiency and Effectiveness performance indicators

Tactical performance indicators

Functional performance indicators

Figure 3. Vertical classification of Performance Indicators (Wireman, 1998)

Total maintenance cost Total operating time Number of internal

Personnel costs spent in Down time related to Production operator

Corrective maintenance Number of failures Number of work orders

Figure 4. Example of items included in MPI inside each group

3. MPIs in different fields

3.1. Mechanic industry

3.2. Nuclear industry

3.3. Oil and gas industry

3.4. Process industry

3. Planned maintenance tasks

3.5. Utility industry

7. Employee satisfaction related: Employees motivation is an important factor to achieve the

3.6. Railway industry

Rete Ferroviaria Italiana (Italy)

Queensland Rail (Australia)

Prorail (The Netherlands)

Network Rail (UK)

COMMITMENT 2: Respect for the environment

COMMITMENT 3: Professional development and sense of pride at belonging

COMMITMENT 4: Increased value in local environments

COMMITMENT 6: Transparency and dialogue with stakeholders

Adifs position in the Merco Empresas reputation ranking

AUTOMAIN (on-going FP7 project))

4. ACEM-Rail MPIs system

4.1. Selection and classification of relevant MPIs in ACEM-Rail

Table 3. Architecture of MPIs in ACEM-Rail

Level 1 Level 2 Level 3

Economic Indicators MPIE1, MPIE2, MPIE3, MPIE4, MPIE5

Operational MPIO2, MPIO3 MPIO4, MPIO5