Raymond Friem

Chief Operating Officer

Metro
St. Louis, MO
314-982-1445
rfriem@metrostlouis.org

5/14/2018
Prepared by the Transit Vehicle Maintenance Division of
Bi-State Development Agency
May 23, 2002
Mission Statement
 Develop an affordable solution for the
long-term maintenance of the Agency’s
MetroBus and Call-A-Ride vehicle fleets
while improving customer satisfaction
and system reliability.
Previous Experiences
 Rolling stock declines in operability and
desirability from in-service date to
retirement date.
 Major maintenance investments made in
the declining years of bus life cycle.
 Maintenance costs vary widely between
fiscal years.
 Maintenance level of effort not coordinated
with rolling stock capital investment cycle.
Situation Prior to the Plan

 Three Garages
o Three completely different Business Models
• Inconsistent mechanic-to-bus, mechanic-to-operating mile
ratios.
• Average fleet MDBF less than 4,500 miles, varies by garage.

 Main Shop (Central Repair)

o 15% of fleet awaiting repair
• Average turn-around for bus is 117 days.
• For Sale (Scrap fleet) 20% of buses.
decommissioned have drive train components with
less than 35,000 miles.
Business Concept: MetroBus
 Perform specific maintenance at regularly
scheduled intervals based on unit mileage.
o Replace single major overhaul at 400,000 miles with
smaller scale rebuilds at 200,000.
o Perform comprehensive body and minor drive train
scheduled repairs at 100,000 mile intervals.
o Perform pre-programmed tune-ups, and minor scheduled
activities at 50,000 mile intervals.
o Utilize central maintenance facility assets in support of
preventative maintenance efforts; reduce focus on break-
down maintenance.
• Perform pre-failure overhauls on individual components.
o Implement vehicle configuration management system.
Business Concept: Call-A-Ride
 Pre-programmed overhaul activities at
50,000-mile intervals
 Development of standard work
procedures through M4 system
 Full integration of Call-A-Ride into
storeroom system
Goals & Objectives
 1st year goals
o Achieve departmental consensus on pre-
programmed maintenance activities.
• Complete audit of original manufacturer suggested
maintenance intervals against consensus
recommendations.
o Develop bill of materials/parts requirements for
support groups in advance of need.
o Develop standard work procedures for pre-
planned and routine maintenance activities.
o Determine mechanic abilities/training
requirements for proper completion of all
maintenance activities.
Goals & Objectives
 3-year goals
o Rework inspection maintenance program to
better support pre-programmed maintenance
intervals.
o Implement service writer concept (used by
profitable maintenance businesses in
automotive industry).
• Improve and standardize data acquisition.
• Free up existing staff to be more involved with quality of
tasks performed and overall product on the street.
 Full implementation of planned
maintenance activities.
Impact on Support Departments
 Create automated interdepartmental
interface to work order system, provide for
reasonable pre-notification of impending
maintenance activity.
o Reduce reliance on last-minute parts acquisition
procedures which are overused and less
accountable than standard storeroom
procedures.
o Reduce number of mechanic trips to storeroom
window.
Impact on Support Departments
 Review facility (production plant)
capabilities, upgrade as necessary
o Determine “Choke Points” where out-of-
service equipment could impact.
maintenance productivity.
• Hoists, Dynamometers
• Electrical Service
• Portable Diagnostic Test Equipment for Field
Maintenance functions
Program Risks
 Risks
o Pre-programmed maintenance outline is fatally flawed at it’s
inception
• Assumptions on component life cycles erroneous
• Missed or non-addressed components
 Addressing risk
o Monitoring of existing system reports
• Service delays
• Road calls
• Customer complaints
o Implement mean distance between failure
measure.
• Specific to unit and subsystem
 Other Performance Monitoring
Sources
 Negative Contacts, Equipment,
Bus/Van/Rail
o Compiled by Customer Service Department
 Monthly Road-calls
o From Transit Operations
 Subsystem Mean Distance Between
Failure Analysis
o New measure under development
 Financial Performance
o Corporate financial statements
Anticipated Program Rewards
 Vehicle maintenance expenses become
more predictable
 Improved “curb appeal” and quality in
passenger compartment
 Predictable vehicle reliability over entire
life cycle
 Improved maintenance productivity
without significant increase in costs
 vs. Historical Total
Maintenance Costs
120000

100000

80000
DOLLARS

60000

40000

20000

0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
PLAN YEAR
HISTORICAL COST PER BUS IN DOLLARS PLAN COST PER BUS IN DOLLARS
 vs. Historical Main
Shop Costs
70000

60000

50000

40000
DOLLARS

30000

20000

10000

0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
PLAN YEAR
MS PLAN
Key Issues
 Near term
o Review per-unit replacement schedule, develop interim
maintenance programs to extend service life as
necessary.
o Resist temptation to reduce maintenance costs in short
term.
 Long term
o “Right Sizing” of human assets between maintenance
work-sites could cause changes in location of jobs.
o Current information often lacks sufficient detail. Data
acquisition sources and content require additional review.
o Analytical skills development needed in Supervisory Staff.
o Increase coordination between capital and operating
expense plans.
 Potential Bus Replacement
Scenarios

150
Qty Replaced

100
50
0

500K Repl./Ill 12 year 500K Repl Forced 10%

Bus Replacement Cash Outlay
Options
Projected Expenditure

$40
$35
(In Millions)

$30
$25
$20
$15
$10
$5
$0

Year Expended

Plan 1 Plan 2 Forced

5/14/2018
MetroBus Road Call Analysis
Annual Mean Distance Between Failure
25000
22047 21827
20000 19166 19686 20061
18068

15000 15194
MILES

10000 10124

5000

0
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
State Of Good Repair Key Indicators

 Measurable
o Improved MDBF
o Lower maintenance cost per operated mile
o Improved fuel economy
o Fewer passenger complaints against rolling
stock
State of Good Repair Lagging Indicators

 Less training on equipment, more

training on system
 Existing staff has more “research” time
o “Isolated Failures” are really fleet problems
that haven’t drawn attention to
themselves….yet!
• This will lead to detailed study of apparent
minutia…. But let it go. You never know where
it will lead.
State of Good Repair Lagging Indicators

 Improved Test Procedures

o System and Subsystem certifications.
 Newest Fleet is averaging no more than
10% above fleet average annual miles
operated.
o Oldest fleet is conversely averaging less
than 10% below fleet average.
State of Good Repair Lagging Indicators

 Time in Shop is Dramatically Reduced

o Buses in the shop are there for scheduled
activities.
 No more Maintenance “Campaigns”
o Updates / Modernizations slotted into most
practical maintenance cycle.
• Fleet achieves conformed state.
 Tremendous Savings in parts cost.
State of Good Repair Lagging Indicators

 With a little coaching…A TEAM is Born

o Intermodal or inter-garage competitiveness
replaced with an ongoing discussion about
best practices.
o Union personnel picking from one location to
another find identical tools, procedures and
practices in place.
o Mechanics are more prepared to become
supervisors, supervisors are more
promotable.
State of Good Repair - Coaching Tips

 Develop One Common Measure for All

Managers – Incorporate into Evaluations
o Modal or garage-level measures still
necessary and important but are a lesser
measure.
State of Good Repair - Coaching Tips
 Rotate Key Manager Assignments
o Central Repair Area Supervisors learn the
impact of their teams’ work on finished
product.
o Garage Supervisors assigned to Central
Repair learn the level of difficulty involved in
meeting the customer expectation.
 Eliminate “It was Good When I Had It!”
“Inspect to Fail = Expect to Fail”