10-Years Report LICB PDF

Lasting Infrastructure
Cost Benchmarking
(LICB)
10-years of Benchmarking
1996-2005
Paris, September 2007
UIC Project – Lasting Infrastructure Costing Benchmark (LICB)

10 years of benchmarking 1996 - 2005
- 1/160-
- 2/160-
“Benchmarking is the search for best industry practices
that will lead to superior performance.”
(Robert Camp, Xerox Corp.)
- 3/160-
10 years of Benchmarking
1996 – 2005
Paris, September 2007
Document Data Sheet
Warning
No part of this publication may be copied, reproduced or distributed by any means whatsoever, including
electronic, except for private and individual use, without the express permission of the International Union of
Railways (UIC). The same applies for translation, adaptation or transformation, arrangement or reproduction
by any method or procedure whatsoever. The sole exceptions – noting the author’s name and the source are -
“analyses and brief quotations justified by the critical, argumentative, educational, scientific or informative
nature of the publication into which they are incorporated” (Articles L 122-4 and L 122-5 of the French
Intellectual Property Code). © International Union of Railways (UIC) – Paris, 2006-2007.

- 4/160-
UIC LICB Working Group
Figure 1: UIC LICB Working Group 2006
LICB Working Group 2006:
Project Chairperson: Antonio Lozano (Chairperson of Asset Management and

Technology sector in UIC Infrastructure Forum, ADIF)
Project Director: Gerard Dalton (UIC - Infrastructure Department Director)
Project Manager: Theodor Gradinariu (UIC – Infrastructure Department)
10-year LICB Report: Martin Mayer (UIC – Infrastructure Department)
BS, Denmark (since 1997) Kim Turso-Finnich

BV, Sweden (since 1997) Ulla Espling
CFL, Luxembourg (since 2006) Robert Sturm
CIE, Ireland (since 2001) Cathal Mangan
DB, Germany (since 1997) Michael Pohl
JBV, Norway (since 1996) John Ole Grinde
NR, England (since 1999) Matthew Clements
ÖBB, Austria (since 1997) Wolfram Hell
ProRail, Netherlands (since 1996) Jan Swier
RFI, Italy (since 1997) Domenico Cocciaglia
RHK, Finland (since 2001) Juha-Heikki Pasanen
REFER Portugal (since 2004) Marcos Mateus da Conceicao
SBB, Switzerland (since 1996) Michel Thomet
INFRABEL, Belgium (since 1996) Dominique Gardin

- 5/160-
Content
UIC LICB Working Group.....................................................................................................5

Content ................................................................................................................................6
Index of Tables ....................................................................................................................8
Index of Figures ...................................................................................................................9
Index of Figures ...................................................................................................................9
Foreword............................................................................................................................11
1 Executive summary ....................................................................................................13
2 Introduction.................................................................................................................15
2.1 Importance of Benchmarking............................................................................................. 15
2.2 LICB Project History .......................................................................................................... 16
2.3 Objectives of LICB............................................................................................................. 17
2.4 The main deliverables of LICB each year are : .................................................................. 18
2.5 Methodology...................................................................................................................... 19
2.6 Harmonisation steps.......................................................................................................... 20
3 Main section ...............................................................................................................23
3.1 Brief Evaluation of the development of European railway infrastructures from 1996 to 2006
(Part 1 of the Questionnaire on 10 years of benchmarking LICB).............................................. 24
3.1.1 Development of the overall substance of the infrastructure in the last decade ........................... 25
3.1.2 Awareness concerning the substance of the rail infrastructure ................................................... 26
3.1.3 Performance and quality of the European railway infrastructures ............................................... 28
3.1.4 Quality and safety of the rail infrastructure .................................................................................. 31
3.2 Descriptive overview of infrastructure subjects in the participating railway companies (Part 2
of the Questionnaire on 10 years of benchmarking LICB) ......................................................... 33
3.2.1 Organisational change ................................................................................................................. 33
3.2.2 Average age of assets ................................................................................................................. 34
3.2.3 Substance of the rail infrastructure .............................................................................................. 35
3.2.4 Quality and Performance ............................................................................................................. 36
3.2.5 Safety ........................................................................................................................................... 37
3.3 Network benchmarks......................................................................................................... 38
3.3.1 Key performance indicators ......................................................................................................... 38
3.3.2 Asset utilisation ............................................................................................................................ 40
3.4 Maintenance and renewal benchmarks – financial effectiveness....................................... 43
3.5 Maintenance and renewal rates......................................................................................... 52
3.6 Distribution of Infrastructure Costs..................................................................................... 58
3.7 Various asset performance benchmarks ........................................................................... 59
3.8 Explanation of trends from 1996 to 2005 (Part 4 of the Questionnaire on 10 years of
benchmarking LICB) ................................................................................................................. 63
3.8.1 Railway C ..................................................................................................................................... 64
3.8.2 Railway D ..................................................................................................................................... 68
3.8.3 Railway E ..................................................................................................................................... 75
3.8.4 Railway F...................................................................................................................................... 79
3.8.5 Railway G ..................................................................................................................................... 84
3.8.6 Railway H ..................................................................................................................................... 89

- 6/160-
3.8.7 Railway J ...................................................................................................................................... 94
3.8.8 Railway K ..................................................................................................................................... 98
3.8.9 Railway M................................................................................................................................... 102
3.8.10 Railway N ................................................................................................................................... 107
3.8.11 Railway Q ................................................................................................................................... 110
3.8.12 Railway U ................................................................................................................................... 115
3.8.13 Railway X ................................................................................................................................... 119
3.9 International Benchmarking – The Statistical Approach................................................... 124
4 Conclusions ..............................................................................................................126
Future Outlook .................................................................................................................133
Acronyms & Abbreviations...............................................................................................134
Glossary...........................................................................................................................135
Literature..........................................................................................................................140
APPENDIX.............................................................................................................................. 142
Maintenance and Renewal Optimisation (MRO) .................................................................................. 142
Innovative Track Systems (INNOTRACK) ............................................................................................ 149
Infrastructure Performance Analysis (IPA) ........................................................................................... 155
UIC Project – Lasting Infrastructure Cost Benchmarking (LICB)

- 7/160-
Index of Tables
Table 1: Total performance of LICB participants in 2005 compared to 1996 (LICB data
base 2006 (data 2005)) ..............................................................................................38
Table 2: Maintenance and Renewal costs LICB 14 (1996 - 2005).....................................47
Table 4: LICB Glossary - definition of terms ....................................................................139
Table 5: Comparison of various inspection strategies adopted by Infrastructure Managers
(MRO Final Report 2006) .........................................................................................143
Table 6: Frequency distribution of continuous main tracks as a function of speed and load
(MRO Final Report 2006) .........................................................................................144
Table 7: MRO information matrix on maintenance and renewal (MRO project report 2006)
.................................................................................................................................148

- 8/160-
Index of Figures
Figure 1: UIC LICB Working Group 2006.............................................................................5

Figure 2: The UIC Project InfraCost/LICB..........................................................................16
Figure 3: Harmonisation steps InfraCost/LICB...................................................................20
Figure 4: Harmonisation step: Density of switch units .......................................................22
Figure 5: Substance of railway infrastructures (Questionnaire LICB 2006, Part 1) ...........25
Figure 6: Awareness of infrastructure issues (Questionnaire LICB 2006, Part 1) .............26
Figure 7: Risk management in Europeans Infrastructure Managers (Questionnaire LICB
2006, Part 1)...............................................................................................................27
Figure 8: Delays due to infrastructure ................................................................................28
Figure 9: Unplanned speed restrictions (Questionnaire LICB 2006, Part 1) .....................29
Figure 10: Development of reliability (Questionnaire LICB 2006, Part 1)..........................30
Figure 11: Unplanned maintenance activities (Questionnaire LICB 2006, Part 1) ............31
Figure 12: Development of rail defects (Questionnaire LICB 2006, Part 1) ......................32
Figure 13: Development of train kilometres LICB 14 (1996-2005) in mio train km.............40
Figure 14: Development of total train kilometres (1996-2005) per LICB participant...........41
Figure 15: Development of total train km per main track km 1996-2005 of LICB 14..........42
Figure 16: Total M&R (LCC) LICB 14 (1996-2005) in billions of EUR................................44
Figure 17: Development of maintenance costs per LICB participant 1996-2005 ...............45
Figure 18: Development of renewal expenditures per LICB participant 1996-2005 ...........45
Figure 19: Development of average expenditures for maintenance and renewal per main
track km LICB 14 ........................................................................................................46
Figure 20: M&R (LCC) per main track km per LICB participant (1996-2005).....................48
Figure 21: M&R (LCC) per main track km 2006 (full harmonised) .....................................49
Figure 22: M&R (LCC) per train km per LICB participant (1996-2005) ..............................50
Figure 23: M&R (LCC) per trainkm per LICB participant in 2006 (harmonised only PPP) .51
Figure 24: Tamping rates LICB 14 (2004-2006) ................................................................52
Figure 25: Grinding rates LICB 14 (2004-2006).................................................................53
Figure 26: Ballast cleaning rates LICB 14 (2004-2006) .....................................................54
Figure 27: Renewal rates of rails LICB 14 (2004-2006).....................................................55
- 9/160-
Figure 28: Renewal rates of sleepers LICB 14 (2004-2006) ..............................................56
Figure 29: Renewal rates of ballast LICB 14 (2004-2006) .................................................57
Figure 30: Distribution of infrastructure costs LICB 14 in 2005 ..........................................58
Figure 31: Average age of assets in 2006 LICB 14 ...........................................................59
Figure 32: Share of delays due to infrastructure causes in 2005 .......................................60
Figure 33: Level crossings per route km ............................................................................61
Figure 35: Cost portfolio maintenance and renewal (LCC) ..............................................128
Figure 36: 360 ° Mapping for Five IMs .............. ...............................................................131
Figure 37: Bandwidth of frequencies as a function of a variety of parameters (MRO Final
Report 2006).............................................................................................................144
Figure 38: INNOTRACK Participants ...............................................................................149
Figure 39: INNOTRACK Management Structure .............................................................150
Figure 40: INNOTRACK Project Workflow.......................................................................151
Figure 41: Components of performance (Infrastructure Performance Analysis 2003) .....155
Figure 42: Causes for train delays (Infrastructure Performance Analysis 2003) .............157
Figure 43: Potential performance improvements for different assets (Infrastructure
Performance Analysis 2003).....................................................................................158
Figure 44: Train affecting infrastructure failures (Infrastructure Performance Analysis
2003) ........................................................................................................................160

- 10/160-
Foreword
The UIC has been engaged in benchmarking activities together with a number of its
Members for over ten years, particularly in the area of Infrastructure Maintenance and
Renewals. During this period these members have been able to review the costs and
trends in annual expenditure of over 12 billion euros in the different organisations and to
make their own independent assessment as to their standing, based on their specific
knowledge of their national railway environments.
The examination of costs of Infrastructure Maintenance and Renewal represent just one
part of a complex equation involving interaction between rail vehicles and infrastructure
and the decision-making processes that seek to define an optimum approach to
Reliability, Availability, Maintenance and Safety (RAMS). Such an approach should
lead to the best strategy in Asset Management, having regard to the whole life cycle
cost of the concerned assets.
Benchmarking is therefore best carried out within a continuous process of complete trust
and disclosure among the participants. Successful benchmarking can only take place if
there is such strong commitment to adhere to these principles. In addition to the raw data,
the factors giving rise to particular trends in expenditure need to be fully understood if
companies are to properly review their position relative to one another.
Since the question of adequacy of funding of the railways is a re-occurring theme and an
issue of serious debate, UIC has been aware of the interest that its work has generated
within its wider body of membership, than those engaged directly in the benchmarking
process, and in other circles, such as the European Commission, Railway Authorities and
academia.
In order to maintain confidentiality UIC has continued to safeguard the names of the
networks whenever it has published summary reports or presented its activities in this
field. While every effort has been made, within the benchmarking process, to harmonise
the data to enable observations to be made, UIC has been aware that such technical
harmonisation still lacks a qualitative and contextual commentary, without which it is
inappropriate to draw relevant conclusions. This is partly compensated for, within the
benchmarking group, through their ability to ask the appropriate questions of each other
but it has been lacking from the published information to date.
Accordingly, during the last couple of years UIC has sought to provide the qualitative and
contextual connection to its LICB work, firstly with its internal study on Maintenance-
Renewal Optimisation and now with this reflective report on 10 years of benchmarking.
The goal of this report is therefore to present a more comprehensive overview of the
factors and issues behind the cost figures of the last ten years and to strongly qualify that
a 360 degree view needs to be taken when comparing company performances. This

- 11/160-
should include an understanding of the state of improvement / deterioration of assets as a
result of a chosen strategy and the resultant operational and safety performance of the
railway. Such broader analysis seeks to understand the RAMS implications of decisions.
In terms of best Railway Asset Management policy, and resultant optimisation of Life Cycle
costs, other factors such as appraisal of whole life costs using discounted cash flow
together with organisational procurement policy ( such as use of own or out-sourced
services) can have a decided influence. UIC expects that its future work in such areas will
draw from the results of the ‘Sub-Project 6 work within the EU project ‘INNOTRACK”.
The publication of this report would not have been possible without the strong support of
the UIC LICB benchmarking group and their openness in responding to additional
questionnaires which were developed in order to present a more rounded assessment of
the ten years from 1996 -2005.
I hope that this report provide an opportunity for all readers to gain valuable and
appropriate insights into this important subject.
Gerard Dalton
Director
Infrastructure Department,
UIC

- 12/160-
1 Executive summary
Benchmarking is a practical tool for improving performance by learning from best practices
and understanding the procedures by which they are achieved. It should lead to a better
understanding of costs and is therefore a mean for a better planning and forecasting
process and helps to set enhancing but realistic objectives.
The infrastructure as the main production factor in the railway system’s value chain
accounts for a significant part of the full system costs. Therefore it is very important for
Infrastructure Managers to have a good control infrastructure management in general and
of costs in particular to improve competitiveness.
The figures from benchmarking may help as an explanation to stakeholders, for example,
to justify an appropriate level of government funding. A direct involvement of the
stakeholders as drivers of the benchmarking process is therefore very important. In order
to improve the individual situation, each national Infrastructure Manager has to understand
the processes behind the figures and draw conclusions from the benchmarking results.
The UIC project "Infrastructure Costs" has established an international cost comparison on
investment and maintenance of railway infrastructure as a pilot study with six European
railway companies in 1995. Maintenance and renewal data cover the total costs of
networks for all components of the infrastructure and have been collected for the last ten
years. A meaningful comparison of data was possible due to a sophisticated
harmonisation process (see chapter 2.5).
In 2006 the participating railway companies and UIC decided to publish a 10-year
benchmarking report that should evaluate the figures collected over the last 10 years and
show trends regarding the structure, substance and quality of the management of the
railway infrastructure throughout Europe.
This report is addressed to Infrastructure Managers at all levels and aims to give a holistic
insight in cost benchmarking in the railway sector. Chapter 2 presents an introduction into
the LICB project, the importance of benchmarking as a mean to higher efficiency, the
project methodology and the functionality and background of the 5-step harmonisation
process that helps to make the figures of 14 European Infrastructure Managers
comparable.
Chapter 3 represents the main section of the report and tries to follow a top-down
approach. This means that we start from a general overview including a brief evaluation of
the development of European railway infrastructures from 1996 to 2005 (chapter 3.1) and
a descriptive overview of several infrastructure subjects by the LICB members (chapter
3.2). We then strengthen the focus on a more quantitative level and compare certain
network benchmarks within the LICB Working Group (chapter 3.3). Having these key
performance indicators regarding the networks (asset utilisation, etc.) in mind, we then
continue our analysis in greater detail looking at the financial effectiveness parameters
- 13/160-
(maintenance and renewal expenditure benchmarks in chapter 3.4). Chapter 3.5 compares
the relationship between maintenance, renewal and investment activities of the LICB 14
networks and enables an insight in the main focus of the respective networks. To enlarge
our perspective of the railway infrastructures we present another comparison of some
performance and safety benchmarks in chapter 3.7. Our lasting infrastructure costing
benchmark analysis will be completed with a detailed explanation of the various trends
over the last 10 years provided by the respective Infrastructure Manager of the LICB
Working Group (chapter 3.8) and a statistical approach on the analysis of the LICB data
set (chapter 3.9).
Chapter 4 addresses some key conclusions drawn by the UIC and the LICB Working
Group.
An outlook to the future of cost benchmarking and possible developments and ideas
regarding the LICB project will be discussed in chapter 5, while some interesting projects
dealing with similar topics and a glossary of definitions used in this report are presented in
the end of this report.
In general it can be stated that the maintenance and renewal costs (total cost per main
track kilometre) harmonised for network complexity and utilisation as the major impact
show significant differences in unit cost. This may indicate opportunities for future cost
reduction through different levels of efficiency, different quality standards and maintenance
strategies. Looking at the 2006 figures in more detail (page 50) it can also be said that the
trend of the last years has continued in 2006. 4 Infrastructure Managers show LCC that
are up to 100 % over the average of the LICB 14 while LCC of 9 Infrastructure Managers
are below the average. This great spread of results indicates – as mentioned before –
some potential for improvement in both increased traffic volume as well as higher cost
efficiency.
While the total expenditures for maintenance (inflation adjusted to a price basis 2005)
were kept almost on the same level like in 1996 with some 6 billion Euros over the LICB
14, renewals increased considerably between 1996 and 2003 reaching a peak of almost
16.5 billion Euros in 2003 compared to less than 12 billion Euros in 1996. After 2003
renewal activities were reduced to a level of 14.5 billion Euros in 2005. It is also interesting
to see that between 1996 and 2000 the total maintenance and renewal expenditures were
stable at the level of some 12 billion EUR, while between 2001 and 2005 an average level
of around 15 billion EUR was spent.
Please note that comparisons over time are presented as inflation adjusted figures that are
calculated to a price basis of 2005.

- 14/160-
2 Introduction
The 14 Infrastructure Managers (IM) of the UIC LICB Working Group operate a railway
network with more than 113,000 kilometres of lines (lines are defined as total length of
permanent way in maintained working order; every kilometre of double or multiple track
counts as one line kilometre – definitions see glossary).
It is important to remark that within the UIC LICB project the maintenance and renewal
costs are defined as life cycle costs (LCC). Therefore, whenever it find the expression LCC
in this report, is refers to maintenance and renewal costs. It is evident that maintenance
and renewal expenditures do not represent all possible cost factors that appear in a
railway asset life cycle, but since maintenance and renewal costs represent a major part of
LCC for Infrastructure Managers this definition has been chosen in the frame of the
project.
This chapter aims to describe the general importance of benchmarking and its role in
modern infrastructure management. The objectives of benchmarking and the analysis of
the LICB data set are discussed and a brief summary of the history of cost benchmarking
within European railways will be presented. For a better understanding the project
methodology and especially the harmonisation steps will be presented in the end of this
chapter.
2.1 Importance of Benchmarking
Benchmarking is defined as a process by which something is measured in relation to best

practice. It is usually used in management and particularly in strategic management;
organisations evaluate various aspects of their processes in relation with competitors,
usually within their own sector. This allows organisations to develop plans on how to adopt
such best practice, usually with the aim of increasing some aspect of performance.
Although benchmarking may be a one-off event, it is best treated as a continuous process
in which organisations regularly seek to challenge their practices and follow up their
performances over time.
Benchmarking is a powerful management tool because it overcomes "paradigm

blindness”. Benchmarking opens organisations to new methods, ideas and tools to
improve their effectiveness. It helps crack through resistance to change by demonstrating
other methods of solving problems than the one currently employed, and demonstrating
that they work, because they are being used by others. The LICB activity belongs to the
competitive category of benchmarking. Different national Infrastructure Managers
delivering similar services compare their performance processes, organisation and results
against each other. As not directly competing companies they use this methodology to
improve practices, reduce costs and increase the size of the total market. If companies are
open to changes, competitive benchmarking is most likely to be the most valuable. Radical
improvements normally only occur by introducing good ideas from other industries or
countries.

- 15/160-
2.2 LICB Project History
“Lasting Infrastructure Cost Benchmarking (LICB)” is an international benchmarking

project established by the Infrastructure Commission of the International Union of Railways
(UIC) in 1996.
"The Cost of Railway Infrastructure" was an international benchmarking project carried out
between 1995 and 2002. It covered fourteen Western-European railways as well as six
North-American and four East-Asian railways.
The study addressed Infrastructure Managers and intended to provide all participants with
the opportunity of defining their own cost-position. Within the InfraCost project an
investment part was carried out investigating real projects of new lines, extensions/up
grading and major renewal.
Maintenance and renewal costs were investigated for entire railway networks. In addition,
quality and performance aspects were incorporated into the study in a later phase of the
InfraCost project in 2003. The Infrastructure Performance Analysis (IPA – see Appendix)
was a follow up of this approach carried out by 6 Infrastructure Managers.
Figure 2: The UIC Project InfraCost/LICB
This figure shows the evolution of the UIC InfraCost project into the Lasting Infrastructure
Costing Benchmark (LICB). The project has established an international cost comparison
of maintenance and renewal costs of railway infrastructure.
In a first step meaningful benchmarks were set up, a data base was generated and a
process of cost harmonisation was established. The aim was to provide an insight into the
cost structures of railway infrastructure and to raise issues on how to reduce costs over
the service lifetime of assets. Designed as a pilot study, the results were based on detailed
information from seven European railway companies.

- 16/160-
In the second phase of the UIC benchmarking project "The Cost of Railway Infrastructure"
the main objectives were to enlarge the data base through the participation of more
railways (participants from phase 1: JBV, NS, SBB, SNCB, CD, SNCF; new participants:
BS, BV, DB, FS, RENFE), to include more projects for the investment analysis, to track
cost histories from 1994 to 1997 for maintenance and renewal, to refine the methodology
and agree on more precise definitions in order to further improve the comparability and the
reliability of the conclusions. In addition, the studies in phase 2 were also directed towards
a more detailed analysis of cost drivers.
Phase 3 was meant to be the last working phase of the UIC InfraCost project before
disseminating the results through the UIC in phase 4 in 2000. Phase 3 was dedicated to
the extension of the benchmark database, in depth cost driver analysis, best practice
evaluation and the creation of a toolbox for cost reduction strategies.
Phase 5 Infra Cost Project provided considerable insights into cost levels and mechanisms
and gave useful advice to Infrastructure Managers in Europe and overseas. In order to
preserve this value, this phase summarises the results of the Infra Cost project, with an
emphasis on latest updates and the "cost-to-quality" interrelationship. In 2003 the UIC
established a Lasting Infrastructure Cost Benchmarking (LICB) as a follow up activity of
the Infra Cost Project that came to a conclusion. A "lasting benchmarking function" was
established to guarantee a platform for a continuous comparison of costs and the tracking
of trends.
2.3 Objectives of LICB
Currently 14 European Infrastructure Managers participate in the project and deliver

information each year. Data has been collected and analysed since 1996 so that it is
possible to identify trends over time.
The main benchmarking area of LICB is the analysis of maintenance and renewal
expenditures as an integrated life-cycle-cost approach for entire railway networks.
Data collection and analysis are carried out by the Infrastructure Department of UIC. Work
is monitored and assisted, discussed, evaluated and approved by the UIC LICB Working
Group consisting of representative experts of the 14 participating railways
The study is addressed to Infrastructure Managers and intends to provide all participants
with the opportunity to define their own cost position. It is left to them to draw their
individual conclusions, whereas this report intends to give an overview of the results and to
provide some general conclusions out of the data set.

- 17/160-
2.4 The main deliverables of LICB each year are :
• Annual updates of the existing database, production of defined benchmark

evaluations, including a brief management summary,
• Descriptions of trends as they evolve (improvements but also cost increases) and
communication with participants in the sense of ongoing "good practice" monitoring.

- 18/160-
2.5 Methodology
Key performance indicators (KPI) are derived from success dimensions of IM’s like
mobility, asset utilisation and financial effectiveness. A key benchmark of LICB compares
expenditures for maintenance and renewal. These expenditures include all costs to keep
the railway system in a desired operational state or bring it back into that state by
refurbishing or replacing the existing asset in the same or a similar way. The following key
performance indicators (KPI) are being evaluated each year by the UIC LICB Working
Group. Here is a short explanation of the calculated ratios and relations.
Mobility and Accessibility
Mobility and accessibility measures show the tendency of the population or economy of a
country to use railways as a mean of transport for goods and passengers. It also gives an
indication on the performance of rail in the whole transport competition.
• Passenger journeys
• Offer in passenger rail traffic
• Freight output
• Offer in freight rail traffic
• Commercial train utilisation
Asset Utilisation
The benchmarks for asset utilisation show how intensively the respective network is used
by trains running. These indicators influence the depreciation of the infrastructure assets
and have therefore great influence on necessary maintenance and renewal works.
• Train frequency [train km / main track km]

• Development for passenger and freight traffic since 1996
• Network utilisation [transport units / main track km], [gross ton km / main track km]
Financial Effectiveness
The expenditures for maintenance and renewal include all costs to keep the railway
system in a desired operational state or bring it back into that state by refurbishing or
replacing the existing asset in the same or a similar way. These costs are highly
dependent of the mobility and asset utilisation of the respective network on the one hand
and vary according to the efficiency of the Infrastructure Managers on the other hand.
• Maintenance and Renewal expenditures

o [1.000 € / main track km]
o [€ / train km]
o [€ / 1.000 TU]
o [€ / gross tonne km]
• Cost development over time since 1996

- 19/160-
2.6 Harmonisation steps
Harmonised costs reflect what the individual cost level of a specific railway would be if it
operated under the circumstances of a reference case. Given this unified reference case,
comparable data are available. The essential model parameters are:
Calculated results
Input data Harmonisation steps
for comparison
Maintenance expenditures
Maintenance
incl. organisation costs
1 Purchasing Power Parities expenditures incl.
organisation costs
Renewal expenditures +
incl. organisation costs
Renewal
2 Degree of electrification expenditures incl.
organisation costs
Infrastructure details
3 Single vs. multiple track
Main track
Electrified main track Cost per
Single track Main track km or

4 Switch densities
Multiple tracks Unit of transport
Switches in main track
Train kilometre
5 Track utilisation
Gross tonne kilometre
Figure 3: Harmonisation steps InfraCost/LICB
Purchasing Power Parities
The levels of purchasing power and cost of labour in the participating countries are
not reflected properly by the currency exchange rates. Labour costs were harmonised by
typical labour cost levels of the participants (reference case of 40.000 € as an average
value of the LICB per full time employee) through 2002 and only PPP later 2003. The
residual cost were harmonised by purchasing power parities. Based on this procedure,
original data for life cycle expenditures as supplied by the participants were translated into
a common "€ per main track kilometre" basis. Purchasing power parities and annual
inflation rates are from external sources:
• Inhabitants, annual inflation rates: World development indicators
http://devdata.worldbank.org/data-query/
• Purchasing power parities: OECD main economic indicators
http://www.oecd.org/std/ppp
The related data’s were adjusted to Euro deflation.

- 20/160-
Degree of electrification
As the degree of electrification varies between in the sample, the corresponding

maintenance/renewal cost varies accordingly. A regression analysis of the sample
identified the cost driving impact of electrification so that each participant's cost could be
harmonised on the basis of a reference case (70 % of network electrified).
Single vs. multiple track
Maintenance and renewal of single track lines require more work per kilometre of track
than for double or multiple track lines (e.g. for work site logistics, preparatory work, etc.).
As the percentage of multiple track ranges between 6 % and 87 % a harmonisation is
necessary. Based on a detailed analysis of SNCF data and surveys of other participants it
could be concluded that the cost of maintenance per track kilometre in single track is
typically 40 % higher than in double track. With this factor the harmonisation step was
calculated on a reference basis of 60 % of multiple tracks.
Switch densities
Switches in main track have a major share in the cost of roadbed and track maintenance
(with a high impact on signalling and power supply, too). With a switch density between
0.4 and 1.2 switches per kilometre of track the need for harmonisation is evident. The
calculation was conducted with a fixed reference parameter of 1 switch per main track
kilometre.
Maintenance and renewal experience of some railways has shown that one switch is equal
to about 330 m of main track. This relation defines the linear cost function used to
harmonise the annual expenditures for comparison at the average value of switch density.
Harmonisation for a railway with more switches than the average results in lower
maintenance and renewal expenditures after this step. In the opposite case expenditures
will go up in relation to the other railways.The following example of the harmonisation step
for “switch densities” displays the influence and the methodology used in the LICB
database.

- 21/160-
b 1 Linear cost function
Cost ⇒ = ≈ 3,03 (1 switch is equivalent to 330 m
index m 0,33
1,5
track)
0,5
Switch density
[switches/main
trackkm]
0
0 0,5 1 1,5
Reference value
(1 switch per main track
km)
About 25 % difference after harmonisation according to switch
density
Figure 4: Harmonisation step: Density of switch units
Track utilisation
Maintenance and renewal as well as lifetimes of track elements depend heavily on the
utilisation of networks (see above). Data analysis has proven that maintenance
expenditures can best be harmonised according to train frequencies, in particular because
of the strong correlation between track access times and maintenance cost. Renewal
expenditures are harmonised according to gross tonnage which has a great impact on
wear and tear of roadbed and track and therefore on the remaining lifetime. The reference
cases were set to 15.000 train km per main track km and 6 mio gross tonne km per main
track km respectively (annual figures).

- 22/160-
3 Main section
This section analyses and evaluates the results of the LICB project. The UIC has
published an international benchmark on infrastructure maintenance and renewal costs
since 1996. The database intends to provide all LICB participants (14) with the opportunity
to define their own position and it is left to them to draw their own conclusions. In 2006 the
participating railway companies and UIC decided to publish a 10-year of benchmarking
report that should evaluate the figures collected over the last 10 years and show trends
regarding the structure, substance and quality of the management of the railway
infrastructure throughout Europe. Besides the annual update of the database analysing the
common indicators UIC intends to collect some insights and qualitative statements of its
members in order to generate a picture drawn by the experts of the rail infrastructure in
their respective countries. Therefore, a questionnaire has been sent out to the LICB
Members.
The questionnaire consisted of 4 parts:
• Part 1 consisted of 11 questions with prepared answers/statements to cross on.

This should give a quick overview on the estimations concerning the railway
infrastructure.
• Part 2 dealt with a descriptive overview over some topics and the LICB Members
were asked to answer the questions in their own words.
• Part 3 intended to provide a quantitative summary by generating some key
performance indicators at defined milestones in the history of LICB (1996, 1999,
2002 and 2006). This part of the questionnaire was found to be the weak point and
most of the requested data was not available in the short timeframe, especially
since it was intended to collect some historical data that has not been collected
within the regular LICB project.
• In part 4 of the questionnaire the LICB Members could explain some of the most
important network utilisation and cost development charts verbally to gain a better
understanding of the circumstances and reasons for some developments.
In addition the results on the questionnaire analysis of trend chart for maintenance and
renewal costs and specific other data will be provided in this chapter.

- 23/160-
3.1 Brief Evaluation of the development of European railway infrastructures from
1996 to 2006 (Part 1 of the Questionnaire on 10 years of benchmarking LICB)
12 questionnaires have been received out of 14 sent out for this part which was intended
to get a quick overview of the trends in the European railway networks. This part consisted
of multiple choice types of questions with predefined answers. It is stressed that this kind
of overview cannot give sufficient answers to the state of the railway infrastructures and it
is not valid to evaluate the infrastructure by the results of this part. However, it was
supposed to receive some clear statements on the development of the infrastructure
through mentioning answers that could indicate trends. Almost all questions have been
answered by a high number of respondents.
The key trends could be figured as follows and they will be illustrated by some figures.
• Technological development and consequent maintenance, renewal and investment

activities have helped to maintain or increase in the overall standard of the railway
infrastructure throughout Europe
• In most countries a solid mix between maintenance, renewal and new investments
has provided this trend
• Technological investments and the reduction of level crossings have increased
safety of European railways
• The awareness of the management concerning the substance of the railway
infrastructure has risen over the last 10 years. The wide implementation of risk
management systems seems to be one management’s answers to deal with asset
management issues
• Rail defects and unplanned “emergency” maintenance works have not increased
significantly in Europe’s railways

- 24/160-
3.1.1 Development of the overall substance of the infrastructure in the last decade
The past decade was affected by a huge wave of technological developments in various
business sectors. Telecommunications, digital TV, modern satellite systems, internet and
lots of other fields show these developments extensively and have changed business
approaches and organisational processes fundamentally.
The railway sector has also faced a lot of technological changes and the railway system
seems to have benefited from these developments. Infrastructure Managers feel that a
substantial increase in the overall substance of their infrastructures have been supported
by adopting modern technologies and a certain consequence in maintenance, renewal and
investment activities in the networks.
However, some Infrastructure Managers have observed a dual quality approach in

managing their assets. They feel that parts of the networks are in good conditions while
other parts are facing a decrease in quality. This could result from market pressure and a
growing emphasis on commercial objectives within the railways.
Figure 5 shows the distribution of answers.
How has the overall substance of the infrastructure in your country

developed in the last 10 years
Substantial increase in standard through technological development and

7% consequent maintenance, renewal and investment activities
0%
Equal level than 10 years ago – good balance of maintenance, renewal

and investments
29%
Good conditions of parts of the network while decrease in quality in other
57% parts
Decrease in overall infrastructure quality as a result from the

7% investment/renewal/maintenance policy of the last 10 years
Other statements
Figure 5: Substance of railway infrastructures

(Questionnaire LICB 2006, Part 1)

- 25/160-
3.1.2 Awareness concerning the substance of the rail infrastructure
Although the quality of the railway infrastructure has always been in the focus of railway
organisations, there seems to be a growing concern of managers regarding the substance
of their infrastructures. This can partly be explained by the new roles Infrastructure
Managers have to play in today’s railway business strengthening their focus on
infrastructure issues as their new core business.
The following figure expresses this concern very clearly, especially as in the “other
statements” category it was mentioned that infrastructure subjects have always been high
on the agenda of Infrastructure Managers and that the awareness on renewals and new
investments has increased while maintenance has suffered in one specific country.
To which degree has the awareness of the management

concerning the substance of the rail infrastructure developed?
19% The quality of the infrastructure is on the agenda of

many Top Management Meetings in our company
0%
Top Managers are asking for information concerning the
infrastructure more regularly
56%
25% C ompared to subjects as cost cutting and downsizing the
quality of the infrastructure and related topics are
underrepresented
Other statements
Figure 6: Awareness of infrastructure issues


- 26/160-
Another interesting conclusion in this respect underlining the rising awareness of
infrastructure issues throughout Europe can be drawn from figure 7. It indicates that the
management field of risk management has become more and more important to European
Infrastructure Managers. 53 % stressed that they work intensively on the implementation
of risk analysis and risk management tools and another 31 % agreed with the assumption
that the awareness for risk management has grown even if they have not implemented any
risk management systems yet. Only 8 % see risk management as part of every
management function and therefore not worth specially mentioning.
Has your company developed risk management systems or introduced risk

analysis on the rail infrastructure during the last 10 years?
Risk management has become an important field of

8% management and we have intensively worked on the
8% implementation of risk analysis and risk management tools
The awareness of risk management has grown but we have not

implemented any risk management system yet
53% Risk management is part of every management function and

31% therefore not worth specially mentioning
Other statements
Figure 7: Risk management in Europeans Infrastructure Managers


- 27/160-
3.1.3 Performance and quality of the European railway infrastructures
Desk research of infrastructure performance management has shown that a number of key
performance indicators are used. Delay is the most important parameter and it is the first
that the end user recognises and upon which he will build his opinion concerning the
service quality of the railways.
Whereas 8 % say that the problems caused by the railway infrastructure could be made up
by an increase in efficiency of Railway Undertakings, 25 % answered that delays are
mainly caused by these and do not occur due to bad infrastructure, at least this is the
opinion of Infrastructure Managers. A very positive sight can be seen from about 67 % of
the answers that are subsumed in “other statements”. These statements were the
following:
1. The availability of the infrastructure has generally increased over the last 10 years,
although there are some specific parts of the network that need attention.
2. Delays have been reduced considerably over the last five years both infrastructure
and rolling stock related.
3. We have reduced the delays caused by infrastructure failures and plan further
reductions in delay in the future.
4. Improvement in Infrastructure delay performance.
5. The availability of the infrastructure has increased slightly over the last 10 years.
6. In the past decade we have had a significant reduction of infrastructure failures.
7. We have not significant increase in delays due to bad infrastructure.
8. The number of delays has increased because of a backlog in maintenance.
Is there a significant increase in delays due to bad infra-structure?
0% The availability of the infrastructure has decreased

8%
significantly over the last 10 years
The problems caused by the substance of our

25% infrastructure could be made up by the rise in
efficiency of our railway undertakings
Delays are mainly caused by railway undertakings
and not through bad infrastructure
67%
Other statements
Figure 8: Delays due to infrastructure

- 28/160-
The number of unplanned speed restrictions marks also a performance indicator that is
used by Infrastructure Managers and it can be seen as an indication of how many
maintenance works have to be carried out without proper planning as a result of failures in
the system.
In general, European Infrastructure Managers are very much aware of the need to control
speed restrictions on their networks. 47 % agree to the statement that speed restriction do
occur in their networks mainly in combination with renewal, planned maintenance or
investment projects and that they are therefore easy to plan. Another 27 % do not see a
big difference to former days as speed restrictions have always caused problems on their
tracks and the situation therefore has not changed, not to the better, but also not to the
worse. The other statements include explanations about the fact that these Infrastructure
Managers have decreased the number of unplanned speed restrictions over the last
couple of years.
How has the number of unplanned speed restrictions on your

network developed due to quality or safety issues?
Speed restrictions are a serious problem on our network and

cause regularly delays
13% 13%
Speed restrictions have always caused problems on our
tracks, the situation has not changed
27% Speed restrictions mainly arise in combination with renewals,

maintenance or investment projects and are therefore easy
to plan
47% Other statements
Figure 9: Unplanned speed restrictions

Another question dealt with the reliability of the railway infrastructures (figure 10).
40 % agreed to the statement that technological developments and innovations led to an
improved reliability of the infrastructure and its components. This shows that innovation
plays a crucial role in the development the railway infrastructure assets. A continuous
screening of the technical development and the participation in promising research
activities (e.g. INNOTRACK – see Appendix) are key success factors for Infrastructure
Managers to become first movers or early adapters of new life cycle cost and performance
optimised technologies.

- 29/160-
13 % of the Infrastructure Managers drew another picture of their current situation. They
agreed with the statement that track experts are more and more concerned of the
consequences of the current infrastructure policy of their country. While this statement is
very general and does not allow any detailed interpretation it shows the growing concern
of some railways regarding the development of their assets.
Another 47 % of the respondents provided various statements as follows:
• Innovations and technological developments have led to a better knowledge and

understanding of the facts influencing infrastructure reliability.
• Track experts are concerned of the growing age of some of the assets (ballast,
catenaries, interlocking and cables).
• Improved management approaches together with technological development have
led to improved reliability.
• In the period 1994-1998 the amount of failures went up because of huge
organisational changes and the separation of Train Operating Companies and
Infrastructure Managers. After that period significant improvements could be
achieved in decreasing the amount of technical failures and due to the reduction of
failures caused by third parties (in particular level crossing accidents, vandalism
and trespassers).
• Collected data show a slight decrease in failure rates.
How has the performance of the infrastructure in your country

developed in terms of reliability?
C ollected data shows a significant increase in

failure rates
0% 13%
Track experts are more and more concerned of the
consequences of the current infrastructure policy
47%
Innovations and technological development have
led to an improved reliability of infrastructure and
40% components
Other statements
Figure 10: Development of reliability


- 30/160-
3.1.4 Quality and safety of the rail infrastructure
Quantitative performance and life cycle cost assessments play an important role in today’s
infrastructure management. However, progress in implementation proves to be relatively
slow. The change to proactive and preventive maintenance management requires a
“cultural change” in an organisation where decisions have always been taken by task
oriented staff. The obstacles are poor asset data management, a budget driven culture,
inappropriate funding systems and a lack of fundamental knowledge on the impacts of
maintenance strategies on lifecycle performance and cost. The number or development of
unplanned maintenance activities can be used as an indicator of the quality of the
infrastructure and the organisational status of the respective Infrastructure Manager.
Studies show that treating maintenance issues in an unplanned way can lead to increased
costs up to a factor of 3-5 over the value that would arise when dealing with these issues
in a planned, preventative way. This shows the importance of this indicator for the cost
effectiveness.
About 56 % of the respondents say that they did not face an increase in unplanned or
“emergency” maintenance activities, while 16 % are indifferent about this question.
Another 28 % responded that there has been an increase within their respective
organisation. This result is not very surprising since it does not build on hard facts but
rather on a personal estimation of the situation. It is yet not evident in the responses that
any of the Infrastructure Managers has succeeded in decreasing their share of unplanned
maintenance works significantly.
There should be more emphasis put on the evaluation and improvement of modern asset
maintenance management within European railways since there lays a huge cost
efficiency potential beyond it.
Could you notice a significant increase in

unplanned or “emergency” maintenance
activities on your network?
0%
16%
28%
Indifferent
Yes
No
56%
Figure 11: Unplanned maintenance activities


- 31/160-
The development of the number of rail defects also serves as an indicator for the quality
and substance of the railway infrastructure. Again, this cannot be taken for detailed
analysis of the issue but should rather give a quick impression of the situation.
64 % agree with the statement that rail defects have not increased significantly. Together
with the 29 % other statements (see below) it can be concluded that the number of rail
defects has been controlled to the satisfaction of the respondents. Only 7 % stated that rail
defects are a serious problem on the respective networks.
The other statements section of 29 % comprises the following impressions:
• Through a mix of new technology and management effort we have significantly

reduced the number of rail defects that result in broken rails.
• Significant reduction over the last 10 years.
• Rail defects went up because of increased problems with rolling contact fatigue of
rails.a
• It is under control thanks to a successful grinding program and strategy. The price
was an increase in maintenance costs.
• Rail defects have significantly decreased due to rail renewal and use of UIC 60 rail
profile.
How has the number of rail defects developed?
7% Rail defects are a serious problem on our

network
29%
Rail defects have not increased
significantly
0%
Rail defects are usually caused by other
than causes of infrastructure assets
64%
Other statements
Figure 12: Development of rail defects


- 32/160-
3.2 Descriptive overview of infrastructure subjects in the participating railway
companies (Part 2 of the Questionnaire on 10 years of benchmarking LICB)
Part 2 of the questionnaire proposed some open questions about topics as the
organisational change that the Infrastructure Managers have been faced, the development
of the average age of the most important railway infrastructure assets, a general
description of the substance, the development of performance matters and safety issues.
The aim of this style of open questions was to tell the story behind the raw figures of the
LICB benchmark pool of the last 10 years. This gave the Infrastructure Managers the
opportunity to understand certain developments in the different countries and therefore
shall help to increase the quality of conclusions drawn by the members for their own
infrastructure and asset management strategies of the future.
3.2.1 Organisational change
To get a better understanding of the boundary conditions under which the Infrastructure
Managers had to operate in the last decade we asked them to give an overview of the
organisational changes they faced by responding to the following questions:
• How has the structure of the railway system in your country developed?
• How have these organisational changes influenced the quality of the infrastructure
management?
• How did maintenance and renewal financing regimes change?
• Please describe the past decade from an organisational point of view describing
changes in strategies, structures, personnel, processes and responsibilities.
It is not surprising that almost all of the Infrastructure Managers have faced more or less
extensive organisational changes due to the European legislation and following the
European Directive 440/91 to separate Railway Undertakings from Infrastructure
Managers. This has created a number of new companies with competences in the railway
infrastructure business (Jernbaneverket, ProRail, REFER, etc.) The role of these new
Infrastructure Managers has been strengthened as the provider & operator of railway
networks and more globally as manager of these infrastructure assets. This paradigm
change caused a phase of “self-finding” during which new objectives had to be set,
competences were built up and new management methodologies were developed.
Differences could be identified in the approaches regarding outsourcing of maintenance

and renewal activities and “do it yourself” practice. There are different tendencies in
Europe and some companies reframed their strategies by moving their way back to in
source maintenance and renewal activities again after having outsourced them for a while.
The answers also showed a trend to long term financing agreements for infrastructure
investments and renewals. There are some good examples for such contractual solutions
in order to gain more stability.

- 33/160-
3.2.2 Average age of assets
Following a life cycle model of assets in 4 main stages (development, creation, utilisation
and upgrade/replacement) it can be stated that the cost critical phase is the maturation
and wear out (utilisation) phase. Eventually, significant asset management costs will begin
to occur and these costs are typically characterised by a requirement to increase
manpower to maintain the assets, by the occurrence of some major repair expenditures
and by a general and noticeable degradation in the condition of individual asset
components. This stage of asset life cycle must be identified as soon as possible, because
if the deterioration is allowed to continue unchecked, degradation will continue and evolve
at an even higher rate.
The average age of assets is therefore an important indicator of the future costs of
maintenance and the necessary expenditures on renewal to keep the network at the
current state.
In a short overview the questionnaire tried to get insight by asking the following questions:
• Please give us some indications of the age structure of your infrastructure assets.
• How has this structure developed in the past decade?
• Do you have a database indicating the age of assets in certain categories?
• What are your asset categorizations?
The following general conclusions can be drawn:
• Between 1996 and 2006 emphasis has been laid on the renewal of the main
components of the networks (rails, electrification, sleepers).
• Some railways faced budget cuts and therefore have spent too little on the network.
• The intensity of asset utilisation has increased (axle loads, speeds, frequency of
trains operated, etc.). These aspects have to be taken into consideration while
dealing with asset management and when comparing costs over time.
• Asset data are stored in various databases and the harmonisation of these
databases to gain all integrated information at a glance takes time.
• Most railways have sophisticated tools for the analysis of their assets
(categorisation, evaluation of data meeting specific criteria, etc.).

- 34/160-
3.2.3 Substance of the rail infrastructure
This part consists of some very general indications on the railway infrastructures. It shall
help to understand if the Infrastructure Managers are satisfied with the status of their
infrastructures or if they do identify certain major inadequacies.
Infrastructure Managers were asked to comment on the following set of questions in their
own words and structure:
• How has the overall substance of the infrastructure in your country developed in the
last 10 years?
• Please write some striking statements and associations to the substance of your
railway infrastructure.
• How would you judge the overall development of the assets?
After analysing the responses the developments can be summarised as follows:
• There is a great variety of answers to this block

o Some are very satisfied with the development of their assets in terms of
technological update (signalling, electrification, command control systems,
telecommunication systems, etc.).
o Some are concerned about the renewal rate of the assets and the increasing
age of the infrastructure.
• A stronger focus was set on economic aspects over the last few years (dimension
of the assets, cost efficiency, economic decision making, segmentation of the
networks in line categories, etc.).
• The challenge is to develop, renew and maintain networks that meet the increasing
demands for passenger and freight services while improving the reliability of train
services and the cost efficiency of the rail system.

- 35/160-
3.2.4 Quality and Performance
In the questionnaire we asked Infrastructure Managers to comment on two categories,

namely performance and quality. After having reviewed the answers of these two
categories and discussing the similarities within the answers it was decided by the UIC
LICB Working Group to combine the content of both topics into one chapter and to
integrate the answers.
The following questions were raised by UIC:
• How has the performance of the infrastructure developed?

• What objectives did you achieve in terms of failure prevention?
• What were the key factors and critical moments from an organisational and
process point of view?
• How are you trying to measure and increase the quality of the railway
infrastructure?
• What management programs and strategies did your company develop to meet
the expectations of your customers?
• Please describe some approaches to quality management in your organisation
especially in the field of infrastructure.
The study of the answered questionnaires brought the following highlights throughout
Europe’s Infrastructure Managers:
• The main challenges were described as

o methods and quality of condition monitoring systems and
o a move from reactive maintenance towards preventive maintenance
based on condition values.
• Performance indicators have improved widely within the railways through
o organisational improvements,
o development of management tools and models,
o technological improvements in the field of automatic measurements and
o adoption of integrated performance strategies.
• Quality management systems seem to be widely implemented.
• Different views on quality.
• Measurement techniques are important to evaluate the quality parameters.
• RAMS parameters define the overall quality of the infrastructure.

- 36/160-
3.2.5 Safety
Since safety is high on the agenda of all Infrastructure Managers and Railway
Undertakings, this part of the questionnaire intended to get an insight into the
developments in the field of safety throughout Europe’s railway systems.
Infrastructure Managers were asked to comment on the following issues:
• Was the safety of your railway system influenced by the infrastructure policy of
your railway company? To what extent?
• Has your company developed risk management systems or introduced risk
analysis on the rail infrastructure during the last 10 years?
• How did these approaches serve your company in terms of increased safety?
The analysis of the responses given by the participating Infrastructure Managers brought
the following general conclusions on this subject:
• Safety is an important issue throughout all European railways and various

approaches to increased safety are made.
• Major accidents have raised the awareness of safety issues during the last
decade in various European railways.
• Safety management systems are widely implemented and build on quality
management certificates (ISO 9001, etc.).
• Reductions of level crossings are important to a number of railways.
• Risk management systems are being developed or have already been
implemented widely.

- 37/160-
3.3 Network benchmarks
This chapter provides some network benchmarks in terms of overall network

configurations and asset utilisation both for freight and passenger transport. This
benchmark presents results of the 14 LICB participants from 1996 to 2005.
3.3.1 Key performance indicators
Total value for Total value Difference

Parameter LICB 14 (in for LICB 14 in %
1996) (in 2005)
Inhabitants (mio inhabitants) 276 028 840 282 954 708 3
Length of lines, total [linekm] 115 219 113 482 -2
Length of lines, passenger [linekm] 110 256 103 745 -6
Length of lines in single track [linekm] 66 351 59 035 -11
Length of main track [main trackkm] 170 031 172 651 2
Length of electrified main track [main 21
88 107 106 560
trackkm]
Number of passenger stations
[passenger stations] 15 426 16 031 4
Number of switches in main track [switches] 143 622 136 179 -5
Passenger transport output [mio passkm] 217 777 237 115 9
Passenger transport volume [mio journeys] 4 267 5 028 18
Passenger trainkilometers [mio trainkm] 1 878 2 267 21
Passenger gross tonkilometers [mio gtkm] 417 201 531 196 27
Freight transport output [mio net tonkm] 172 738 219 213 27
Freight transport volume [mio net tons] 784 886 13
Freight trainkilometers [mio trainkm] 483 535 11
Freight gross tonkilometers [mio gtkm] 384 423 513 465 34
Table 1: Total performance of LICB participants in 2005 compared to 1996

(LICB data base 2006 (data 2005))
Table 1 shows some key performance indicators of the LICB 14 in 1996 and 2005. While
numerous new lines were built and several lines were closed throughout Europe, the total
length of lines has decreased by 2 % compared to 1996 and the length of passenger lines
by almost 6 %. The length of lines in single track has also decreased by 11 % which
indicates that a lot of work has been done to equip existing lines with double track. In
addition, great effort has been made to electrify European main tracks over the last 10
years. The percentage of electrified main track has grown by more than 20 % since 1996.

- 38/160-
The length of main track has slightly increased by 1.5 %. Main track is defined as main
running tracks providing end-to-end line continuity and used for working regular trains
between stations or places indicated in the tariffs as independent points of departure or
arrival for the conveyance of passengers or freight (see glossary at the end of the report).
Interestingly, compared to a reduction in lines and main track the number of passenger
stations has grown by almost 4 % between 1996 and 2005. This development can be
explained by the huge efforts made by the LICB 14 railways to improve customer service
and provide services to as many people and communes as possible. The influence of
regional politics on the decision making process to create more passenger stations in the
region could also have played an important role in this development. At the same time the
number of switches decreased in Europe’s rail networks due to some huge switch
reduction programs in order to fight its high maintenance costs. Switches in main track
went down by over 5 %.
While the network indicators slightly decreased as described above, the output indicators
in both passenger and freight traffic all increased, some of them considerably. On the
passenger side the transport output measured in mio passenger kilometres increased by
almost 9 %, while the passenger transport volume measured in mio journeys (a journey is
a single ride of one person on one train without specification about the length of the trip)
went up by some 18 %. This indicates that particularly the attractiveness of short journeys
has increased as this indicator has grown more compared to the passenger transport
output mentioned before. Passenger trainkm have risen by some 21 % while the
passenger gross tonkm showed the highest growth rate of over 27 % between 1996 and
2005.
On the freight side the transport output (mio net ton km) has considerably increased by
some 25 % while the freight transport volume (mio net tons) rose by 13 %. This indicates
the attractiveness of freight transport especially for longer distances. Since freight gross
ton km increased by some 33 % this indicates that there is still potential for the railways to
level their efficiency in train capacity utilisation. Freight train km in general increased by
some 11 % between 1996 and 2005.

- 39/160-
3.3.2 Asset utilisation
The utilisation of the railway infrastructure assets is a key factor for part of the necessary
maintenance and renewal expenditures of Infrastructure Managers. Some indicators of the
utilisation of the European railway Infrastructure Managers are addressed below.
The development of the train kilometres run on the LICB member networks between 1996
and 2005 is indicated in the following graph (figure 13). Both types of traffic increased in
terms of train kilometres slightly. It shows a total increase of about 15 %, while the
passenger train kilometres increased by some 16 % and the freight train kilometres by
around 11 %. This shows a constant, though low growth rate of the rail transportation
market judged on a global LICB participant’s basis.
Development of total train kilometres in mio train km

3 000 Total Passenger
trainkilometers
2 800 [mio trainkm]
LIC B 14
2 600
Total Freight
2 400 trainkilometers
2 200 [mio trainkm]
LIC B 14
1 883 2 008 2 030 2 084 2 152
2 000
1 949 2 035 2 106 2 192
1 800 2 067
1 600
1 400
1 200
1 000
800
600
400 484 529 520 496 524
200 516 506 523 512 536
0
1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
Figure 13: Development of train kilometres LICB 14 (1996-2005) in mio train km
It is also evident that passenger traffic still represents more than three quarter of the total
traffic. At the same time this fact indicates also a high potential for development in the
freight sector. Market expectations show a strong growth of the freight traffic in the
upcoming years. Railway initiatives at a European level have been taken especially to
reinforce the single wagon transport through optimisation of processes and improvement
of hub access for international traffic. The development and definition of a European
standard product in this field is also an objective.

- 40/160-
The development of the total train kilometres when comparing the individual LICB
participants shows an interesting picture (figure 14). The majority of railways produce less
than 170 million train kilometres while only 3 of them show a considerably high
performance in terms of produced train kilometres.
Development of total train kilometres

(in millions)
1 200
1 000
Millions of train kilometres
800
600
400
200
0
1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 year
Figure 14: Development of total train kilometres (1996-2005) per LICB participant
This picture shows the development of the total train kilometres of the various LICB
participants. The total train kilometres were in this case not set into any relation like main
track kilometres etc. to show the diversity of the networks participating in the benchmark
pool. When looking at the various charts in this report comparing different aspects it has
always to be kept in mind that the network sizes and the produced train kilometres on the
networks vary widely. Looking at figure 14 it can be seen that 3 networks produce
considerably more train kilometres than the rest. Possible reasons for this fact are of
course the sizes of the networks (and the respective countries), the attitudes of society
and economy towards railway transport, the state of the art of the networks (high speed,
quality, etc.) in order to compete against other means of transport.

- 41/160-
Taking the total train kilometres in relation to the main track kilometres (and so harmonise
the factor of the main network size) it can be seen that two other railways are ahead of the
others producing more total train kilometres on their main tracks (figure 15).
Development of total train km per main track km

(1000 train km)
35 C D
30
1 0 0 0 t r a in k ilo m e t r e s p e r m a in t r a c k k m
E F
25
G H
20
J K
15
M Q
10
N U
5
X Y
0
1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
year
Figure 15: Development of total train km per main track km 1996-2005 of LICB 14

- 42/160-
3.4 Maintenance and renewal benchmarks – financial effectiveness
The maintenance costs and renewal expenditures of European railways, which are the
major component for Infrastructure Managers, have not significantly decreased in the last
10 years. Although railways faced growing traffic levels over the last years as well and
therefore a reduction in infrastructure costs was very difficult to achieve, rail LCC must be
reduced continuously if rail is to remain competitive.
The expenditures for maintenance and renewal include all costs to keep the railway
system in a desired operation state or bring it back into that state by refurbishing or
replacing the existing asset in the same or a similar way.
The following definitions for maintenance and renewals were used by the LICB Working
Group:
• Maintenance: The process to keep a system in a desired operation state or bring it

back into that state. The existing asset is refurbished, but not replaced. The works
consist of e.g. inspection, measurement, servicing or repair. It forms part of annual
operating costs.
• Renewal: All activities involved in replacing a rail infrastructure part or object by a
same or similar type of rail infrastructure part or object. It is capitalised at the time it
is carried out, and then depreciated.
At this point it is important to remark that within the UIC LICB project the maintenance and
renewal costs are defined as life cycle costs. Therefore, whenever LCC is found in this
report, it refers to maintenance and renewal costs. It is evident that maintenance and
renewal expenditures do not at all represent all possible cost factors that appear in a
railway asset life cycle, but since maintenance and renewal costs represent a major part of
LCC for Infrastructure Managers; this definition has been chosen in the frame of the
project.
Figure 16 on the next page shows the development of the total LCC expenditures of all
LICB participants together and the following figures 17 and 18 demonstrate the individual
performances in terms of maintenance and renewal expenditures from 1996 to 2005.

- 43/160-
Total M&R expenditures LICB 14 (in billions of EUR)
20
18
Maintenance total LICB 14
16
Renew al total LICB 14
14 LCC total LICB 14
billions of EUR
12
10
0
1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
Year
Figure 16: Total M&R (LCC) LICB 14 (1996-2005) in billions of EUR
While the total expenditures for maintenance were kept almost on the same level as in
1996 with some 6 billion Euros over the LICB 14, renewals increased considerably
between 1996 and 2003 reaching a peak of almost 16.5 billion Euros in 2003 compared to
less than 12 billion Euros in 1996. After 2003 renewal activities were reduced to a level of
14.5 billion Euros in 2005. It is also interesting to see that between 1996 and 2000 the total
maintenance and renewal expenditures were stable at the level of some 12 billion EUR,
while between 2001 and 2005 an average level of around 15 billion EUR was spent.
The development of renewal expenditures can be explained with some intensive

replacement programmes in certain European countries in order to cover a backlog
created during the years before.
It is also evident that railway Infrastructure Managers could not reach significant reductions
in maintenance costs through levelling their efficiencies. However, seen that the total traffic
has grown (see precedent chapter) by 15 % in terms of total train kilometres on an LICB
participants basis, it can be stated that – assuming a stable infrastructure quality – the rise
in expenditures of around 25 % (comparing the two time periods 1996 to 2000 and 2001 to
2005) could partly be explained by the 15 % increase in traffic.

- 44/160-
Development of maintenance costs C
D
E
250 F
G
H
200 J
K
M
N
150 Q
U
X
Min
100 Max
Average
Line 100
50
0
1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
Figure 17: Development of maintenance costs per LICB participant 1996-2005
C
Development of renewal expenditures D
E
F
350 G
H
300 J
K
250 M
N
200 Q
U
150 X
Min
Max
100
Average
Line 100
50
0
1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
Figure 18: Development of renewal expenditures per LICB participant 1996-2005

- 45/160-
Looking at the individual performances in terms of maintenance and renewal expenditures
of the LICB 14 it can be seen that the graphs show a slightly different picture. While some
Infrastructure Managers had to face an increase in maintenance and renewal
expenditures, only a small number of them decreased in both segments over the years. It
can be stated that the maintenance costs developed slightly more consistently than the
renewals. This might be explained with the above mentioned replacement programs and
the character of replacement work in general.
The 14 Infrastructure Managers participating in LICB have together spent in 2005 about
6.1 billion € for maintaining their networks and 8.2 billion € for renewing them. The picture
below shows the average expenditures per main track km on an inflation adjusted price
basis 2005). It shows a peak in 2003 where especially the renewals went up in some
major European countries.
14 LICB Members Average Expenditures

Maintenance and Renewal Development
(1000 EUR/main trackkm)
120 Maintenance (EUR

103 per maintrackkm
94 90 inflation adjusted -
100 price basis 2005)
84 86
71 70 77 Renewal (EUR per
1 000 EUR
80 maintrackkm inflation
66 69
adjusted - price basis
60 2005)
LCC (EUR per

40 maintrackkm inflation
adjusted - price basis
2005)
20
0
1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
year
Figure 19: Development of average expenditures for

maintenance and renewal per main track km LICB 14

- 46/160-
Indicator 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
Passenger trainkilometers (mio ptkm) 1 883 1 949 2 008 2 035 2 030 2 067 2 084 2 106 2 152 2 192
Freight trainkilometers (mio ftkm) 484 516 529 506 520 523 496 512 524 536
Total Trainkm (mio tkm) 2 366 2 465 2 537 2 541 2 550 2 590 2 580 2 618 2 676 2 728
Total Main trackkm 172 847 169 189 164 130 167 292 167 297 168 704 168 650 168 570 171 307 172 700
Maintenance total LICB 14 (billions of EUR) 7 6 6 6 6 6 7 6 6 6
Renewal total LICB 14 (billions of EUR) 5 5 6 6 7 8 9 11 9 9
LCC total LICB 14 (billions of EUR) 11 12 12 12 13 14 16 17 16 15
Maintenance (EUR per maintrackkm inflation
adjusted - price basis 2005; no
harmonisation) 37 636 37 780 37 359 35 428 34 976 37 751 39 353 37 668 37 513 36 632
Renewal (EUR per maintrackkm inflation
harmonisation) 28 546 31 854 34 484 35 297 42 423 47 004 55 251 65 748 53 124 49 372
LCC (EUR per maintrackkm inflation
harmonisation) 66 181 69 634 71 842 70 726 77 399 84 754 94 604 103 415 90 637 86 004
Maintenance (EUR per trainkm inflation
adjusted - price basis 2005); no
harmonisation 2,75 2,59 2,42 2,33 2,29 2,46 2,57 2,43 2,40 2,32
Renewal (EUR per trainkm inflation adjusted
- price basis 2005; no harmonisation) 2,08 2,19 2,23 2,32 2,78 3,06 3,61 4,23 3,40 3,13
LCC (EUR per trainkm inflation adjusted -
price basis 2005; no harmonisation) 4,83 4,78 4,65 4,66 5,08 5,52 6,18 6,66 5,80 5,44
Table 2: Maintenance and Renewal costs LICB 14 (1996 - 2005)
Table 2 gives an overview of the maintenance and renewal cost development of the LICB 14.

- 47/160-
M&R (LCC) per main track km C
250 000 D
200 000 F
H
EUR
150 000
J
K
100 000 M
50 000 N
X
0
Average LCC per
1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 main trackkm
year
Figure 20: M&R (LCC) per main track km per LICB participant (1996-2005)
Looking at figure 20 the individual LCC developments of the LICB 14 show a more diverse
picture. Certain railways have drastically increased their expenditures to move from a
position slightly over the average to more than double average from 2002 on. Some others
have managed to stay under the average line and keep their LCC quite stable. Others
have changed their position following broadly the trend of the average line.
Please note that the raw figures of figure 20 and 22 (table 2) do not include any
harmonisation steps since they try to provide comparisons over time for each single
railway. For comparisons between the railways please look at figure 21 and 23 which
include harmonisation.

- 48/160-
M&R (LCC) per main track km in 2006
(full harmonisation)
Maintenance
[1.000 Euro/main trackkm]
250
[1.000 Euro/m ain trackkm]
Renewal
[1.000 Euro/main trackkm]
Average LCC
200 [1.000 Euro/main trackkm]
166,83
155,20
150 124,15
54,45
70,84
25,35 99,48
87,12 85,91
100 76,71
62,27 64,07 43,35
49,89 52,30 55,73
38,78 55,97 48,80 112,38 46,25
50 98,80 32,20 35,78 84,36
22,45 36,76 35,07
28,77 23,30
28,15 56,14
37,11 31,87 26,83
21,12 10,63 29,85 25,51 20,66 31,16 22,95
8,95
0
C D E F G H J K M N Q U X Y
Figure 21: M&R (LCC) per main track km 2006 (full harmonised)
In order to make the different national cost information comparable, a harmonisation

methodology considers the network configurations and circumstances under which they
are operated. Including all harmonisation steps (aspects of infrastructure complexity and
track utilisation, together with purchasing power parities are taken into account) discussed
in chapter 2.5 the LCC per main track km in 2006 decreased compared to 2005 to some
76 000 EUR per main track km on average. The spread of the values is large seen that
some produce LCC of less than half of the average while some others more than double
them.
Looking at figure 22 comparing LCC per train km (instead of the LCC per main track km)
we can see a different picture. This relation reflects the aspect of train network utilisation in
a better way. However, both indicators are very important to compare and it will be very
useful to find a way to identify LCC that arise due to the number of track kilometres and
the configuration of the respective network and those that are highly depending on the
traffic volume on the network. This cost segmentation should give Infrastructure Managers
a clear indication on the “fixed costs” for the main network and those “flexible costs”
depending on the traffic volume run on the main network. These cost elements are difficult
to compare, but within an organisation they help to identify potentials for efficiency
increases.
It can be seen from figure 22 that some railways that produce high LCC per main track
kilometres show a much better performance in this indicator. On the other hand, some
railways have high LCC per train km and lower LCC per main track km. However, being
- 49/160-
among the higher numbers regarding LCC per train km this indicates that there is a high
potential to increase the traffic on the network where as low LCC per train km can be
explained by a high traffic with more potential to decrease costs than to increase traffic.
While for some railways a lack of train kilometres is responsible for high LCC per
trainkilometres, others suffer from high costs compared to the traffic run on the network.
Either case needs specific strategies and measures to be followed to improve the position
in this field of comparison. In the end of this report you will find a strategic cost grid
comparing the LCC per main track kilometre and those per train kilometre (chapter 4).
M&R (LCC) per train km C
18 D
16 E
14 F
12
G
EUR
10
H
8
J
6
K
4
M
2
Q
0
1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
year
Figure 22: M&R (LCC) per train km per LICB participant (1996-2005)
One railway has started research activities in order to develop a flexible track access
charging regime regarding with respect to vehicle characteristics and specific degradation
models. In the current charging regimes there are no dependences on vehicle
characteristics for track access charges. The subject of the project is to create and
propose a model for differentiation of railway vehicles according to their effect on track
deterioration. The proposed model determines the marginal cost of deterioration
depending on vehicle characteristics such as axle load, unsprung mass and stiffness in
wheelset guidance. The differentiated track access charges could later be set on the basis
of the marginal (i.e. traffic dependent) cost of deterioration.

- 50/160-
4,34
M&R (LCC) per trainkm per LICB participant in 2006
(original, harmonised only PPP)
Maintenance
[Euro/trainkm]
9 (original costs, 8,53
harmonised for
PPP)
[Euro/trainkm]
Renewal
[Euro/trainkm
](original costs,
harmonised for
6,99
PPP)
6,68
Average LCC
[Euro/trackkm] 4,4
(original cost,
6 harmonised for
5,59
2,4 3,2
4,80
4,38 4,34
3,94
3,70 3,0
3,13 3,15 2,3
3 2,9 2,65 1,8 2,54

2,36 2,27 2,2
1,3
2,1 1,0 4,23 4,16
3,83
1,5 1,6 2,0
2,56 2,51
1,82 2,09
1,55 1,46 1,68
0,86 1,08
0,64 0,55
0
Figure 23: M&R (LCC) per trainkm per LICB participant in 2006 (harmonised only PPP)
Looking at the 2006 figures in more detail it can be stated that the trend of the last years
has continued in this year. 4 Infrastructure Managers show LCC that are up to 100 % over
the average of the LICB 14 while LCC of 9 Infrastructure Managers are below the average.
This great spread of results indicates – as mentioned before – some potential for
improvement in both increased traffic volume as well as higher cost efficiency.

- 51/160-
3.5 Maintenance and renewal rates
In 2003 the LICB Working Group decided to collect some data concerning the quantities of
some specific maintenance and renewal works. These indicators should help to figure out
some specific maintenance and renewal strategies and their impact on the total costs.
The following rates were collected by providing the total distance (in kilometres) of the
respective maintenance and renewal work and putting them in relation to the total main
network (total main track kilometres):
• tamping rate
• grinding rate
• ballast cleaning rate
• rails renewal rate
• sleepers renewal rate
• ballast renewal rate
The following figures show the distribution of these rates comparing the LICB members
that provided the respective date.
Annual tamping rates as % of the main netw ork
60
C
D
50 E
F
G
40 H
J
K
30
%
M
N
Q
20 U
X
Y
10 A verage
0
2004 2005 2006
Ye ar
Figure 24: Tamping rates LICB 14 (2004-2006)
Many improvements have been made in railway maintenance over the last 30 years. As an
example for this progress the relationship between working speed and intervals of required
intervention over the years of tamping machines can be provided.
- 52/160-
It shows that speeds increased and intervals extended as a result of the improved quality
of tamping machines. Where the output of the first machines, in the 1950s, was 120
metres per hour, the latest machines realise more than 2 kilometres per hour.
The tamping rate of the LICB group has remained almost on the same level since 2004
showing a high spread of rates among the LICB 14 with an average value of about 0.2
(20 % of main track that has been tamped in that respective year). However, some
railways showed a significantly higher or lower tamping rate than the average.
Annual grinding rate s as % of the main ne twork
80
C
70 D
E
60 F
G
H
50
J
K
40
%
M
N
30 Q
U
20 X
Y
10 A verage
0
2004 2005 2006
Year
Figure 25: Grinding rates LICB 14 (2004-2006)
Nowadays, high-output machines are available for any type of major M&R work related to
tracks, switches and catenary. Examples are machines, or entire train units, for rail
grinding and re-profiling, straightening welds, catenary renewal, track relaying, stone
blowing, ballast cleaning and dynamic stabilisation. Like tamping machines, they have
improved productivity levels over time, yet the larger M&R works still have important scale
effects.
The grinding rates among the LICB 14 (respectively those who provided the maintenance
and renewal rates) differ more than the tamping rates. Grinding increased in 2005 and
2006 compared to 2004 and the average peak in 2006 shows a grinding rate of 15 %.
However, one railway shows grinding rates that are 3 times higher than the average in
2004, 2005 and 2006. Since there are still huge differences in the use of grinding, further
investigation of the frame conditions should be made and best practices evaluated and
adopted.

- 53/160-
Annual ballast cleaning rates as % of the main netw ork
C
6 D
E
F
5
G
H
4 J
K
M
3
%
N
Q
U
2
X
Y
1 A verage
0
2004 2005 2006
Year
Figure 26: Ballast cleaning rates LICB 14 (2004-2006)
The dataset of the ballast cleaning actions taken by the LICB 14 consists of 7 answers out
of 14. The variation of the figures is quite high and so the average line shows a peak in
2005 mainly due to the intensive ballast cleaning activities of 2 railways. Other railways
reduced their ballast cleaning rates or held them on the same level as in 2004. 2006
figures are not representative as only 2 railways provided this information.
Figures 27 to 29 show similarly to the maintenance rates above the rates of some renewal
works between 2004 and 2006. To be able to separate maintenance and renewal works,
the following statement can help to better understand:
Where rail is life expired, rail, sleepers and ballast (but not necessarily all components)
may be replaced in a renewal process ideally by a high output machine. This should be
planned well in advance, whereas rail changing as a maintenance operation is all too often
at fairly short notice when rail defects are discovered.

- 54/160-
Annual re ne wal rate s of rails as % of main ne twork
14
C
D
12 E
F
10 G
H
J
8 K
%
M
6 N
Q
U
4
X
Y
2 A verage
0
2004 2005 2006
Year
Figure 27: Renewal rates of rails LICB 14 (2004-2006)
The renewal rates of rails show – apart from some exceptions – a very homogenous
picture. Rates lie between 0.02 and 0.04 and do not change significantly over the years
between 2004 and 2006. 2006 figures are not yet complete and show therefore not a
whole picture.

- 55/160-
Annual renew al rates of sleepers as % of main netw ork
25 C
D
E
F
20
G
H
J
15 K
M
%
N
10 Q
U
X
Y
5 A verage
0
2004 2005 2006
Ye ar
Figure 28: Renewal rates of sleepers LICB 14 (2004-2006)
Renewal rates of sleepers are also quite homogenous. In both 2004 and 2005 one railway
shows a significantly higher rate than the others, but for the rest the rates are between
0.02 and 0.04 as it was for the renewal rates of rails.

- 56/160-
Annual re ne wal rate s of ballast as % of main ne twork
9
C
8 D
E
7 F
G
6 H
J
5 K
%
M
4 N
Q
3 U
X
2 Y
A verage
1
0
2004 2005 2006
Year
Figure 29: Renewal rates of ballast LICB 14 (2004-2006)
Renewal rates of ballast are between 0.01 and 0.02 in 2004 and increase slightly up to
over 0.02 in 2006. Again, one railway shows a significantly higher rate in 2005.

- 57/160-
3.6 Distribution of Infrastructure Costs
As infrastructure ages, it requires capital for renewal to maintain a satisfactory level of

service. The long-term consequences of under-funding renewal projects, or funding
projects that do not enhance the integrity of the existing assets, include high maintenance
expenditures and increased life cycle costs. In order for organisations to avoid further
deterioration and excessive asset maintenance costs, they must develop a methodology
for distributing limited capital funds to the appropriate projects and actions.
Distribution of infrastructure costs

100%
80%
Percentage
Share of renewals
60%
Share of maintenance
40%
Share of new
20%
infrastructure
investments
0%
C D E F G H J K M N U X Y
Infrastructure Managers
Figure 30: Distribution of infrastructure costs LICB 14 in 2005
Figure 30 presents the distribution of maintenance, renewal and new investment of the
LICB 14. The basis for the distribution of percentage is the sum of maintenance costs,
renewal costs and expenditures for new investments. Operating costs are not included.
Four Infrastructure Managers show a very high share of new investments of around 60 %.
Intensive new investment programs are responsible for this distribution. Three railways
show high shares of maintenance (40 to 50 %) indicating a more reactive position
regarding replacement investments and renewals. The rest of the railways show a more
balanced distribution between maintenance, renewals and new investments. Each railway
can look for explanations of their distribution and draw their own conclusions whether it is
satisfactory or they have to change their focus over the upcoming years. It is yet
interesting that a majority has stated in the survey that was conducted as a base of
chapter 3.1 of this report that in their networks a solid mix between maintenance, renewal
and new investments existed.

- 58/160-
3.7 Various asset performance benchmarks
Age of assets
Allowing the network assets to age has three consequences, clearly demonstrated by an
EIM report in 2007 on “Cost efficiency in building and maintaining the European Rail
Transport Network” by three cases:1
• The maintenance expenditure grows and the older the network, the higher the
expenditure. At the same time, performance is affected (speed restrictions,
punctuality through lack of reliability, closing lines suddenly, derailments etc.).
• The renewals will have to be made in any case (except if the Public Authorities
accept to close the rail services).
• If at one point a lot of renewals have to be done, then their costs grow due to
possession issues and lack of resources.
It is therefore necessary to find the optimal balance between reducing maintenance and
renewal costs and avoiding breakdowns which may harm performance and safety.
Average age of assets in 2006 Rails in years
Sleepers in years
40
35 Ballast in years
30
25
Y e ars
Switchings and
Crossings in years
20
Catenary in years
15
10
Signalling in years
5
0
Figure 31: Average age of assets in 2006 LICB 14
Figure 31 shows the average age structure of the main infrastructure assets provided by
some of the LICB participants.
1
EIM Report: “Cost Efficiency in Building & Maintaining the European Rail Transport Network, p. 12
- 59/160-
Delays due to infrastructure causes
Another interesting performance indicator is the share of infrastructure causes for delays.
These data were taken from the annual reports or special information provided by
members of the LICB Working Group. Since in many studies delays were mentioned as
one of the most critical success factors for transport companies and particularly railway
companies, key performance indicators regarding the causes for delays are getting more
and more popular for managers. These indicators are often used as a basis for
performance contracts between state organisations and Railway Undertakings and
Infrastructure managers and measure the development of the performances of these
companies. Fine payment or price systems are often connected to these indicators.
Share of delays due to infrastructure causes in 2005
60,00
50,00
40,00
%
30,00
20,00
10,00
0,00
Figure 32: Share of delays due to infrastructure causes in 2005

- 60/160-
Number of level crossings per route km
Level crossings are the weak part of railway infrastructure in terms of safety and cause a
huge number of accidents. In 2005 nearly 1 000 level crossing accidents occurred. A level
crossing is defined in the UIC safety database definitions as any level intersection between
a road and a railway, where road means any highway or other road open to public
vehicular traffic.2
The UIC safety database annual report 2004 published that 37 % of all railway accidents
occurred at level crossings (in terms of locations) and this share represents the biggest
part of all railway accidents.3 It is therefore evident that the number of level crossings
within a railway network can be taken as a pre-indicator for safety. Figure 35 shows the
number of level crossings per route kilometre in the LICB 14 networks. Some railways
have already started intensive level crossing reduction programmes to make their
networks even safer than they already are.
Level crossings per route km
1,00
0,80
Number
0,60
0,40
0,20
0,00
C D E F G H J K M N U X Y
Figure 33: Level crossings per route km
2
“Safety Data Base”, UIC – SDB definitions, 2004, p. 11
3
„Safety Data Base“, UIC SDB annual report 2004, p. 6
- 61/160-
Development of infrastructure staff
The aim of this chapter is to get a rough overview of developments over the last years.
The first graph shows the development of infrastructure staffing of the LICB 14 comparing
the staff levels of 1996 and 2005. Staffs in this case is defined as the staff responsible for
movements and safety, track maintenance, manning of level crossings, civil engineering
structures, fixed electric traction installations, safety and telecommunications installations,
infrastructure staff in central and regional offices, staff assigned to renewal work on fixed
installations. The values are taken either from the annual UIC statistics or extracted from
the annual reports.
Development of staff between 1996 and 2005
200,00
150,00
Development of staff
100,00 between 1996 and
2005
Percent
50,00
0,00
-50,00
-100,00
7 out of 10 Infrastructure Managers where data was available have reduced their
infrastructure staffing over the last 10 years. The remaining 3 IMs, however, have
increased them significantly, which was due to strategic decisions to take back some
procedures back into the own organisation and due to the separation of infrastructure and
the development of this one over the years, on two cases. It is now interesting to follow the
trends of LCC expenditures along the development of staffing and to look for answers
regarding the optimal relationship of staff in order to reach the lowest possible life cycle
costs. Some results will probably take some time to be visible for the management as such
strategic decisions take some time to achieve the expected results. Since the personnel
costs are not the single one factor influencing LCC, this graph is to be seen as an
additional piece of information to a lot of other factors as average age of assets,
technological state of the network, maintenance and renewal techniques, network access
for maintenance and renewal, remaining capacity and political decision making.

- 62/160-
3.8 Explanation of trends from 1996 to 2005
(Part 4 of the Questionnaire on 10 years of benchmarking LICB)
This chapter aims to generate an internal benchmark over time for each LICB participants.
Therefore the development charts of the LICB data set (passenger train frequency, freight
train frequency, maintenance and renewal) are presented for each LICB member showing
their respective developments and positions. In order to get a better understanding of the
reasons for certain developments, participants were asked to comment on these charts
concerning the following items:
• Asset utilisation and Maintenance and Renewal cost development: Please give us
some background information explaining the development of your position. This aims to
provide some additional value to the raw figures. It is important and interesting to find
out more about critical incidents in this 10-year period causing decisions to increase or
cut certain figures or circumstances that lead to these developments.
Since there are numerous explanations and reasons for certain developments,
conclusions on a general level are difficult to draw. In general, it can be stated that
macroeconomic developments, political decision making, historically grown attitudes
towards railway transport, geographical circumstances, financing systems, reorganisation
processes and technological changes have most importantly influenced the respective
developments.

- 63/160-
3.8.1 Railway C
Development of passengers train frequency 1
Min
135 Max
Averag
110 e
Line
100
85
60
199 199 199 199 200 200 200 200 200 200
6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5
Frequency has been rather constant over the whole period, but slightly increasing the
last couple of years. This is due to increased demand because of intensified commuting.
Development of freight train frequency 1
200
Min
175
150
Max
125
100
Average
75
50
Line
199 199 199 199 200 200 200 200 200 200 100
6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5
.
Freight train frequency has decreased substantially over the last decade. This is primarily
because of a lack of economical competitiveness compared to other transport modes.

- 64/160-
Maintenance total 1000 €/maintrack km :
Maintenance 1
Min
100
Max
Averag
e
50
0
1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
Development of maintenance cost (1996=100):
Development of maintenance cost 1
200 Min
150 Max
100 Average
50 Line 100
0
199 199 199 199 200 200 200 200 200 200
6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5
Slight decrease in total maintenance cost because of higher level of renewals and minor
improvements in effectiveness has been achieved.
Our funding is decided politically and not necessarily according to needs. At the same
time productivity improvements have been achieved over most of the period concerned.

- 65/160-
Renewal total 1000 €/maintrack km :
Renwal 1
Min
Max
150
Averag
e
100
50
0
1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
Development of renewal cost (1996=100):
Development of renwal expenditure

1
400
Min
350
300
Max
250
200
Average
150
100
Line 100
50
0
1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
Renewal pr main trackkm has been more or less constant with one low year and a peak
year.
As a trend Renewals has increased approximately 75%. This trend has been due to major
investigations of the condition of tracks which were carried out in 1998 and 2002-2004.
1999 was an atypically low funded year.

- 66/160-
Relation of Maintenance to Renewal:
Maintenance/Renwal
1
10,0
Min
9,0
8,0
7,0 Max
6,0
5,0
Average
4,0
3,0
2,0
1,0
0,0
1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
A tendency towards more major renewal work and less/more effective maintenance is due
to the poor, worn out condition of the railway infrastructure, which has necessitated major
re-investments. That’s why the relation M/R has been reduced with approximately 50%.

- 67/160-
3.8.2 Railway D

[1.000 trainkm/main trackkm]
Min
Max
160
Average
135 Line 100
110
85
60
1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
The increase in the frequency depends of several factors:
- increased disposable income,

- increased purchasing power
- better service on interregional trains (“high speed” trains)
- new lines,
- upgrading of lines, upgrading intercity traffic, new travel centres, renewal of
passenger stations and rebuilding them so they become more handicapped
friendly. Station availability has also been increased by new roads for
walking/bicycle/bus connections.
The decreased train frequency in 2003 was due to technical problems with the new
trains leading to lower amount of available trains in traffic, in the same time the air
flights gained market shares from rail transport.
Train frequency then went up again in 2004 due to increased train capacity, lower
ticket prices in combinations with growing petrol prices, “crowding” taxes in the cities
and economic upswing i.e. more people travelling to work.

- 68/160-
Min
155 Max
Average
130
Line 100
105
80
55
30
1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
.
Freight traffic has been rather stable until 2004 when it started to increase because of
the economic upswing, the increased demand for iron ore from e.g. China but also
natural catastrophes that caused many trees to fall – and these were then transported
by train. The decrease in 2001 can also be explained by less demand for iron ore
transports.

- 69/160-
Maintenance total 1000 €/main track km :
2
Maintenance
Min
Max
100
Average
50
0
1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
Since the amount of new lines/tracks is rather small on an annual basis and no lines
are put out of service, the costs per main track km are quite stable. Explanations about
the development of maintenance costs will be given on the next page.

- 70/160-

Min
Max
200
Average
Line 100
150
100
50
0
1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
In 1998 expenditures for maintenance increased, one reason was the new
organisation (client /contractor), leading to focusing on the fact that the share of
corrective maintenance was to high. More funds were then spent on preventive
maintenance in order to decrease the level of corrective maintenance. Unfortunately, it
was discovered in 2001 that concrete sleepers that were being put into track during the
investment period in the middle of 1995, started to crack because of a fault in the
manufacturing process, leading to most of the extra money for preventative work being
used for changing these sleepers. This exchange of sleepers has been carried out
during the period 2001 to 2006 and is now slowly decreasing. Amongst the enhanced
preventive maintenance actions that have been executed, tamping and maintenance
on S&C, better planning processes for instruments and for work in track and new
inspections models can particularly be mentioned. The level of corrective maintenance
is still on a high level, but a new maintenance strategy has been adopted and is now
under implementation.

- 71/160-
Renewal total 1000 €/main track km :
Renewal 2
Min
Max
150 Average
100
50
0
1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
The small variations are caused by exchanges of signal boxes (cabins).

- 72/160-
Development of renewal expenditure 2

Min
Max
400
Average
350 Line 100
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
199 199 199 199 200 200 200 200 200 200
6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5
The renewal expenditures decreased between1996 and1999 because of minor

funding. One reason was that the big investments during the middle of the 90’s
decreased the need for renewal. The renewal costs started to increase in 2000. The
renewal actions have mostly been track renewals or track upgrading, changes of
signal boxes, a new traffic control system and renewals of catenaries.

- 73/160-
Maintenance/Renewal 2
Min
10,0
Max
9,0
8,0 Average
7,0
6,0
5,0
4,0
3,0
2,0
1,0
0,0
1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
The objectives of renewals are in line with the objectives of maintenance and can be
seen as renewals or modifications in order to keep up the requested function and
capacity of the railway system.

- 74/160-
3.8.3 Railway E

Min
Max
160 Average
Line 100
135
110
85
60
199 199 199 199 200 200 200 200 200 200
6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5
The remarkable increase 10 years ago was caused by the changing of the responsibility
for regional passenger services.
Development of freight train frecvency 3
Min
155 Max
Average
130
Line 100
105
80
55
30
1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
.
The strong increase of rail freight traffic in the mid-90s was mainly caused by the entering
of new players into the market. In recent years the number of trains was reduced due to
higher train loads and longer distances.

- 75/160-
Maintenance 3
Min
100
Max
Average
50
0
1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

Min
Max
200
Average
Line 100
150
100
50
0
199 199 199 199 200 200 200 200 200 200
6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5
On the one hand we managed to cut maintenance costs by introducing new procedures,
technologies, etc; On the other hand, the renewal expenditures were raised.

- 76/160-
Renwal 3
Min
Max
150 Average
100
50
0
1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

Min
Max
400
Average
350
Line 100
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
Following our strategy renewal expenditures rose very strongly over the last decade; in
recent years, budget problems of the government forced us to cut renewal expenditures.

- 77/160-
Maintenance/Renwal 3
Min
10,0
Max
9,0
8,0 Average
7,0
6,0
5,0
4,0
3,0
2,0
1,0
0,0
1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

- 78/160-
3.8.4 Railway F

Min
Max
160
Average
135 Line 100
110
85
60
1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
Min
155 Max
130 Average
105 Line 100
80
55
30
1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
.
Summary/explanations:
Passenger train*km till 1996 to 2005 have had an average bit increase, and freight
train*km have had an average bit decrease (see annexed graph of train*km). But LICB
graphics of train frequency shows for both a consistent decrease it is amplified by the fact
that, network F in 1998 had included in the data of main track km the km of centralized
circulation side tracks of the stations. See (annexed graph km main track). Those train
frequency performances also have been affected by the Nation F market mode of
transportation and by the State financing achieved by different vectors of transportation..
But from 2000, European Community Laws and Directives for environmental pollution,
had oriented the chose of Government of Network F to give any support in developing
railway transport. So in the 5 or six years network F is making efforts to improve offer and
efficiency in passenger and Freight transportation.

- 79/160-
4
Maintenance
Min
100
Max
Average
50
0
1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

Min
Max
200
Average
Line 100
150
100
50
0
1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

- 80/160-
Renwal 4
Min
Max
150 Average
100
50
0
1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

Min
Max
400
Average
350
Line 100
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

- 81/160-
Min
10,0
9,0 Max
8,0
Average
7,0
6,0
5,0
4,0
3,0
2,0
1,0
0,0
199 199 199 199 200 200 200 200 200 200
6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5
Summary (explanations/incidents/decisions/trends):
• Maintenance total 1000 €/maintrack km

• Development of maintenance cost (1996=100)
• Renewal total 1000 €/maintrack km
• Development of renewal cost (1996=100)
• Relation of Maintenance to Renewal
The necessary economic resources to assure the renewals of the railway infrastructures
have always been to load of the State through the Contract of Program.
Up to 2001, every year the financing was tied up to long iteration for approval the various
financial laws; this has prevented from building plain multi years of extraordinary
maintenance of the net, causing a deceleration in the execution of Renewal interventions
, with impoverishment of the essential specialized know-how to a typical sector as that
railway, and enormous problems in to assure a constant trend in the acquisition of the
materials and in the realization of works.
Instead, with the definition of the Contract of Program 2001-2005, the awareness of a
regular and homogeneous disbursement of the funds has constituted the presupposition
for a multi years planning of the investments. In fact, the overcoming of the connected
critical situations to the uncertainty of the financings has allowed to elaborate a punctual
planning of the necessary resources to the renovation of the railway infrastructure.
It is today insofar indeed possible to build a planning contemplated to the real demands of
- 82/160-
the production (circulation trains), that strongly direct the choices of maintenance policy
toward railway lines and highly solicited and therefore mostly subject to the degrade, and
the maintenance needs of the infrastructure are related to the following factors:
• The adoption of an efficient informative system that allows a constant and capillary
monitoring of the objects allocated on the Net.
• The definition of specific indicators of performance that furnish the parameters of
reference to guarantee the reliability of the different typologies of installations.
• A sophisticated and careful activity of diagnostic that allows to verify the different
degree of usury of railways lines.
In the trial of the maintenance there have been meaningful changes in the organization to
make it more efficient and supported by an informative system that allows the works
programming and the planning, the management of the maintenance beginning from the
notices of maintenance, to the opening of the orders of job, to their closing after the
operations of maintenance and to their counting.
Such changes have brought to a rationalization of the resources and efficient of the
maintenance system with reductions multi years of total maintenance cost. The
informative system of the maintenance allows having a temporal sight of the state of the
infrastructure that is measured through indicators of performance.
Strategy persecutes it is that to privilege the maintenance on condition reducing the
maintenance on breakdown and optimizing the cyclical preventive maintenance.

- 83/160-
3.8.5 Railway G

Min
Max
Average
160
Line 100
135
110
85
60
1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
The increase in passenger train frequency is mainly due to the establishment of some
new lines and connections.

- 84/160-
Min
Max
155
Average
130 Line 100
105
80
55
30
1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
.
There was a decrease in freight train frequency from 1996 to 2001 and a further sharp
decrease in 2002 caused by termination of the wagon loads. From 2003 the freight
train frequency is exclusively based on container transport.

- 85/160-
Maintenance 5
Min
100
Max
Average
50
0
1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

Min
Max
200
Average
Line 100
150
100
50
0
199 199 199 199 200 200 200 200 200 200
6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5
There have been relatively small changes in line length in the period from 1996 to
2005. A new line, some new short double track sections and the termination of traffic
on some low priority connections have caused the development. This means that the
changes in maintenance costs are due to changes in the volume of maintenance and
in productivity.

- 86/160-
Renewal 5
Min
Max
150 Average
100
50
0
1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

Min
Max
400
Average
350
Line 100
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
Over the past 10 years there has been a long term reduction in renewals of the
infrastructure mainly because of other needs connected to new infrastructure. Some
organisational trends have therefore been financed from the renewal budget. The rate
of renewal is on average below 1 percent per year, and there are discussions going on
with the ministry to increase the renewals from 2010 on.

- 87/160-
Relation of Maintenance and Renewal:
Min
Max
10,0 Average
9,0
8,0
7,0
6,0
5,0
4,0
3,0
2,0
1,0
0,0
1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
The main reason of the increase is the reduction in the renewals due to the reasons
stated on the previous page.

- 88/160-
3.8.6 Railway H

Min
Max
160 Average
Line 100
135
110
85
60
199 199 199 199 200 200 200 200 200 200
6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5
passengerskm H
30,00 Passenger km
H
20,00 Min
Max
Average
10,00
0,00
1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
The passengerkm/1000 km main track are the highest in Europe. After a small
decrease in 2000-2003 the numbers are now growing again with approximately 5%
per year.
.

- 89/160-
M in
155 M ax
Average
130
Line 100
105
80
55
30
1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
Trainkm freight H
8,00 Train km freight

H
Min
6,00
Max
Average
4,00
2,00
0,00
1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
The freight trainkm in 1996 were close to the lowest in Europe. Today they are near
the European average. A huge achievement was achieved due to a business merger
in 2000 with a better performance as a result.

- 90/160-
6
Maintenance
Min
Max
100 Average
50
0
1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

Min
200 Max
Average
150 Line 100
100
50
0
199 199 199 199 200 200 200 200 200 200
6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5
The maintenance costs per trackkm are about 15 % above the European average and
belong to the highest in Europe. The mayor influences are the high utilisation and
unfavourable conditions. Per trainkm the maintenance costs are around the European
average with. In the past 10 years the maintenance cost went up. There are three
mayor causes:
• Outsourcing of maintenance in 1997-1998

• Increasing problems with rail contact fatigue after 2000
• New safety rules 2004-2005

- 91/160-
Renewal 6
Min
Max
Average
150
100
50
0
199 199 199 199 200 200 200 200 200 200
6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5

Min
Max
400
Average
350
Line 100
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
199 199 199 199 200 200 200 200 200 200
6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5
The renewal costs in the past 10 years when up and down partly because of normal
fluctuations as a result of differences in utilisation, constructions and construction
year. In 2000-2002 the renewal cost went up significantly because of a growing
problem with rail contact fatigue and to get rid of a back log in renewals.

- 92/160-
Min
10,0
Max
9,0
8,0 Average
7,0
6,0
5,0
4,0
3,0
2,0
1,0
0,0
1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
The rate M/R is around 2 mainly because of the relative high maintenance costs.

- 93/160-
3.8.7 Railway J
The putting into service of phase 1 of a big change project caused 14 % more train
kilometres from 2004 on.
frequency
Freight traffic is highly dependent on the economic cycle. Since the open access
competition has drastically increased. This situation is the reason that the level of
freight train kilometres is today the same as in the end of the 1990s.

- 94/160-
Maintenance total 1000 €/Main track km
The changes in the development of the main network (increase and decrease) have been on a
constant level for the last decade. Since 2002 the actions that have been taken in the frame of
a project reviewing infrastructure composition showed first effects and from 2004 on an
increase in volume caused by the first phase a big change project can be noticed. Therefore
the specific costs (€/main trackkm) develop in parallel to the developments of the total costs.
After the privatisation process in 1999 the maintenance costs arise due to strictly defined
economic criteria. Maintenance costs could be stabilised (apart from wage increases and
inflation adjustments) thanks to efficiency programs and quality adjustments. In the upcoming
years an increase in maintenance costs can be expected due to high infrastructure
investments.

- 95/160-
Renewal
Since 2001 various investment projects (e.g. face-lifting of stations, automation of

signalling boxes, ETCS investments, GSM-R investments, etc.) have caused a
significant increase of renewals. This trend will continue in the upcoming years.
High investments in the network from 2001 on. See above.

- 96/160-
Maintenance/Renewal
The relation between maintenance and renewal decreases slightly. Due to the
restructuring of the company in 1999 and with the implementation of SAP in 2001 the
costs can be allocated more precisely to the fields of capital expenditure budgeting
(renewal) and profit and loss account (maintenance). Since then both maintenance
and renewal costs have developed quite constantly on a 1:1 relation. The budget
policy and the allocation of financial resources for maintenance and renewal have
shown a high stability over the last years.

- 97/160-
3.8.8 Railway K

Min
Max
160 Average
Line 100
135
110
85
60
1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
The passenger train frequency has increased with 10% over the 1996-2005 period. At the same
time, the network length has grown with 4%, essentially due implementation of high speed
network.
Globally, the growth of asset utilisation for passenger traffic is 6% over the period.
The growth of passenger traffic (36% between 1996 and 2005) has principally been reached
through enlarging the mean train set composition (+11%) and improving train occupation (+12%)
Development of freight train frecvency 8
Min
155 Max
Average
130
Line 100
105
80
55
30
1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
Freight train frequency has remained quite stable between 1996 and 2004 and has shown a
serious drop in 2005, but the total freight transportation shows a slight increase over the period.
The average gross tonnage per train has increased with 24% during the same period.

- 98/160-
8
Maintenance Min
Max
100 Average
50
0
199 199 199 199 200 200 200 200 200 200
6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5
Possibly the figures for the 1996-1998 period have been based on different data sources and
they might not be consistent with those of the following years.
During the period 1999-2003, the maintenance cost is higher than the European average, due to
complexity of the network, but is of comparable level with other dense networks. Since 2004, the
cost is decreasing and is tending towards the average

Min
Max
200
Average
150 Line 100
100
50
0
199 199 199 199 200 200 200 200 200 200
6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5
Possibly the figures for the 1996-1998 period have been based on different data
sources and they might not be consistent with those of the following years.
During the period 1999-2003, maintenance costs remain constant.
For 2004 and later, the costs are decreasing thanks to increase of productivity, evolution
from systematic to expertise maintenance and improvement of the asset condition.

- 99/160-
Renwal 8
Min
Max
Average
150
100
50
0
199 199 199 199 200 200 200 200 200 200
6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5
The level of renewal costs is close to the European average and is rather constant since 1998.

Min
Max
400
Average
350
Line 100
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
199 199 199 199 200 200 200 200 200 200
6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5
There is a big increase of renewal cost during the period 1996-1998, because 1996 and 1997
are the end of a period of under funding of renewal expenditures.

- 100/160-
Min
10,0 Max
9,0 Average
8,0
7,0
6,0
5,0
4,0
3,0
2,0
1,0
0,0
1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
Renewal and maintenance expenditures are of the same order of magnitude and appear to be a
good balance leading to an optimised total cost.

- 101/160-
3.8.9 Railway M
Development of passengers train frequency M

M in
M ax
A verage
160
Line 100
135
110
85
60
1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
• Passenger train frequency

The graph represents the changed structure of demand. Especially the long-distance traffic with
Switzerland was heavily affected after 1996. Increased marketing activities concerning the local traffic
could reduce the overall decrease of passengers. Since 2003 the lost market shares could be regained
due to increased long-distance traffic with the CEE-Countries. Because of further reductions of journey
time between Vienna and Salzburg and Vienna and Bratislava from 2012 a significant increase of
passengers is expected. The construction of a new central station in Vienna will also positively
contribute to the development of demand.

- 102/160-
Development of freight train frecvency M
M in
M ax
155
A verage
130 Line 100
105
80
55
30
1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
• Freight train frequency

The freight traffic benefits from steadily increasing number of wagon loads. The development of feeder
lines is far above average. Fluctuations are the result of momentarily increased wood transports with
Switzerland and temporarily decreased combined transport through Tirol. Future prospects are
affected from constantly increasing freight traffic with the CEE-Countries.

- 103/160-
Maintenance M
Min
100
Max
Average
50
0
1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
Development of maintenance cost M

Min
Max
200
Average
Line 100
150
100
50
0
1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

- 104/160-
Renwal M
Min
Max
150 Average
100
50
0
1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
Development of renewal expenditure M

Min
Max
400
Average
350
Line 100
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

- 105/160-
Maintenance/Renwal M
Min
10,0
Max
9,0
Average
8,0
7,0
6,0
5,0
4,0
3,0
2,0
1,0
0,0
1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
Summary (explanations/incidents/decisions/trends):
• Maintenance total 1000 €/maintrack km

• Development of maintenance cost (1996=100)
• Renewal total 1000 €/maintrack km
• Development of renewal cost (1996=100)
• Relation of Maintenance to Renewal
As the above mentioned procedures are connected a coherent explanation of the trends will be given.
The improvement of maintenance costs is due to reorganisation of personnel. The staff for
maintenance and the staff for renewal were split up into two separate organisational units in different
corporations. From 2003 the public authorities capped the funds what immediately led to better key
figures.
The relation between maintenance and renewal is also a consequence of accounting principles.
Therefore the analysis of maintenance and renewal should be accomplished fort the sum of renewal
and maintenance over the whole lifecycle. Construction and upgrading of mainlines improves the
availability what should positively affect the above mentioned key figures in the long run.

- 106/160-
3.8.10 Railway N

M in
M ax
160 A verage
Line 100
135
110
85
60
1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
.
Min
155 Max
130 Average
105 Line 100
80
55
30
1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
Changes to the structure of the rail industry and a generally healthy national economy have led to
increasing demand for rail travel. The industry has responded by increasing the frequency of
services to meet this extra demand.

- 107/160-
9
Maintenance
Min
Max
100 Average
50
0
1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
Development of maintenance cost N

Min
Max
200
Average
Line 100
150
100
50
0
1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
For the early part of this period railway N had contracted out the majority of day to day
maintenance of track and signalling, communications and electrification systems. About one third
of these contracts, which started in 1994, expired in 1999, one third in 2000 and one third in 2001.
As these contracts were renewed and as an increasing number of trains were run over the
network to cater for increasing demand, maintenance costs increased.
In 2004 railway N decided to bring most maintenance activity in-house and the result of this can be
seen in the reducing cost seen in 2005.

- 108/160-
Renwal 9
Renewal Min
Max
Average
150
100
50
0
1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

Min
Max
400 Average
350 Line 100
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
199 199 199 199 200 200 200 200 200 200
6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5
In the initial years of this period actual renewal expenditure was lower than planned leading to an
increase in work in 1999-2000 and 2000-2001 aimed at bring total renewal expenditure over the
5 year period to 2001 up to the total originally planned for that period. An incident in 2000 then led
to a complete re-appraisal of the volumes of renewal needed, leading to the further increase in
renewal expenditure peaking in 2003.

- 109/160-
3.8.11 Railway Q

Min
Max
160
Average
135
Line 100
110
85
60
199 199 199 199 200 200 200 200 200 200
6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5
An EU funded service was launched in 1997 which one route benefiting from new rolling
stock, infrastructure, signalling and increased frequencies. After decades of under
investment record funding from the government under a national development plan 2000
– 2006 and the European Union led to renewal of infrastructure and rolling stock
increasing passenger train frequencies.
The slight drop in passenger train services in 2000 was due to extensive track and
structures renewals works necessitating bus transfers in some areas.
Record demand for rail services in some areas has led to record investment in the rolling
stock fleet.
In 2000 a new local service operated with the same 80 carriages which it began with in
1984, despite passenger numbers having more than doubled. The number of these
carriages has since been doubled allowing greater frequencies of service.
Growth has also been strong on commuter routes. A modern fleet of railcars have
delivered increased capacity growth for other services. Another commuter service was
transformed with an investment completed in 2001 which doubled the track and increased
train frequencies. Commuter services have also been expanded for other customers and
regions.

- 110/160-
Min
155 Max
Average
130
Line 100
105
80
55
30
1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
Freight train frequencies fell sharply in mid 2001 with industrial relations disputes among
locomotive drivers mainly affecting freight services on various routes. The company
withdrew from loss making unit load container business in 2004 and the closure of the
country’s largest sugar beet factory led to the loss of the beet transport business. The
freight business is currently confined to movement of cement, timber, shale and minerals.
The loss of a business sector will lead to further decreases in freight train frequencies in
coming years.

- 111/160-
10
Maintenance Min
Max
Average
100
50
0
1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
Following decades of under investment EU funding was obtained in 1996 and 1997 to launch a
special service. One route benefited from new trains, new track, signalling, improved stations and
extra frequency. This new work led to an increase in maintenance regimes and maintenance
expenditure. A national development plan 2000 – 2006 along with the railway safety programme
1999 – 2003 saw record funding in rail investment. This in turn led to an increase in maintenance
of existing and new infrastructure.
10
Development of maintenance cost
Min
Max
200
Average
Line 100
150
100
50
0
1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
Maintenance costs increased considerably in the period from 1997 to 2001 due to the extensive
investment in safety and renewals works leading to the increase in maintenance and renewal staff
and resources to carry out these works.
The national rate of inflation also increased during this period with the construction industry boom.

- 112/160-
10
Renewal
Min
Max
Average
150
100
50
0
1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
Following a derailment in 1998 government analysed the safety of the rail network and concluded
that extensive investment and renewal works were required. Funding was provided under a
national development plan 2000 – 2006 and from the European Union under the 15 year railway
safety programme commencing in 1999. Renewals expenditure rose as a result in the period
1996 – 2003.
10
Development of renewal expenditure
Min
Max
400 Average
350 Line 100
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
Renewals expenditure trends are driven by the national development plan 2000 - 2006 and the
railway safety programme 1999 – 2003 and the following investment programme in renewals for
2004-2008. Renewals expenditure peaked in 2002 as works funded by the five year railway safety
programme were extensively undertaken. These works included new rolling stock and re-signalling
and track renewal schemes on some lines.

- 113/160-
Min
Max
10,0
Average
9,0
8,0
7,0
6,0
5,0
4,0
3,0
2,0
1,0
0,0
1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
Maintenance and renewals are in line as the extensive infrastructure renewals and improvements
led to requirements for increased passenger train frequencies. The rail infrastructure must be at its
optimum condition to ensure passenger services can be run efficiently.

- 114/160-
3.8.12 Railway U
General remark! There was a change in statistics in 1998/99 and as can be remembered the
new statistics showed 3 years (1997 included) in the new way of calculating values.
Development of passengers train frequency U

M in
M ax
160
A verage
135
110 Line 100
85
60
1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
.
The main reason for the growth in passenger train frequency has been the construction of an
urban line where 2 tracks were for short distance commuter trains and 2 tracks for long distance
trains. It was put into operation August 2001 and made it possible to increase the number of
commuter trains (train density).
The first urban line (2+2) was put into operation 1996. The line was extended from the extension
was put into operation August 2004.
Urban lines have made it possible to also increase the number of long distance trains. In the 10
year period we have seen the tilting train Pendolino put into operation and the introduction of
double-decker coaches.
frequency
Development of freight train frecvency U
M in
155 M ax
130
Average
105
80 Line 100
55
30
1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
There was a drop in 2005 caused by a long strike in paper industry which had a significant
impact on freight transportation on our railways.

- 115/160-
11
Maintenance Min
Max
Average
100
50
0
199 199 199 199 200 200 200 200 200 200
6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5

Min
Max
200
Average
150 Line 100
100
50
0
1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
A maintenance contract was agreed with a contractor in 1997 based on annual fixed price with
incentives (track quality, delays caused by signalling and catenary) where the price was 8%
lower than 1996. Price for 1998 was 6 % lower than 1997 and price for 1999 was 6% lower than
1998. After that the rationalisation factor for 2000 and 2001 was 3%.
Thus maintenance cost per unit of track was decreased during 1997-2001 about 30%.
Cost for maintenance has begun to increase due to increasing number of signalling and other
safety equipment (e.g. hot box detection).
At the end of 1996 about 700 km of track was equipped with automatic train protection and at
the end of 2005 4280 km of track had automatic train protection.
At the end of 1996: 1496 km of main lines were remotely (centrally) controlled and 1806 km with
block protection. At the end of 2005: 2509 km were remotely (centrally) controlled and 2652 km
with block protection.

- 116/160-
Renewal 11
Min
Max
150 Average
100
50
0
1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
Development of renewal 11
expenditure Min
Max
400 Average
350
Line 100
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
At the end of 1996 25% (1576 km) of main lines had concrete sleepers. The average age of
sleepers was 24 years (29 years for wooden sleepers and 10 years for concrete sleepers). At
the end of 2005 61% (3941 km) had concrete sleepers. The average age of sleepers was 17
years (32 years for wooden sleepers and 9 years for concrete sleepers).
At the end of 1996 10% (634 km) of main lines had 60 kg/m rails. At the end of 2005 33% (2115
km) had 60E1 rails. At the end of 1996 60% (3746 km) of main lines had continuous welded
rails. At the end of 2005 70% (4488 km) had continuous welded rails.
Background information: Rail core network is 2960 km whereof 1600 km is intended to be high
speed passenger transport lines (goals; 200km/h and removal of level crossings) and 2770 km
is intended to be heavy goods transport lines (goals; 25t axle loads and renewal of railway
yards).

- 117/160-
U
Maintenance/Renewal
Min
Max
10,0
Average
9,0
Y
8,0
7,0
6,0
5,0
4,0
3,0
2,0
1,0
0,0
1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
Maintenance and renewals are in line as the extensive infrastructure renewals and
improvements led to requirements for increased passenger train frequencies. The rail
infrastructure must be at its optimum condition to ensure passenger services can be run
efficiently.

- 118/160-
3.8.13 Railway X
12
Development of passengers train frequency
M in
M ax
A verage
Line 100
160
135
110
85
60
1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
We are a periphery country with a medium density population (about 120 inhabitants
per km²). The utilization of public transportation in big scale only happens in the more
important cities and between them.
In 1997/2000 reorganization in the Public Transportation Operator took place with big
changes in offers of services.
These changes were for example
- Implementation from the Fast Trains with higher quality operated with new tilt
trains;
- Suspension of the majority of commuter trains in the interior because the
services weren’t rentable;
- Suspension of the suburban services in narrow gauge;
- In 1997/2004 we did big investments increasing the capacity, but there were
long interruptions during the construction works and some times the lines had to
be closed, reducing the offer of services;
- After this phase the lines capacity was increased from 2005 on (connections
more fast a possibility to have a higher train frequency).

- 119/160-
12
Development of freight train frequency
Min
Max
155 Average
Line 100
130
105
80
55
30
1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
The freight movement is considerable (containers, coal, cars, car’s parties and wood).
The big variations are the mirror from the industrial internal production with factories
closing and others opening, but with a gradual tendency to decrease due to a light but
continuous internal economic crises.
However, in the last years (2004 and 2005) there was a slow increase in freight traffic
due to:
- New connections to strategic ports and hubs;

- New connections with steel industry;
- New freight operators and more competitive in the international transportation;
including the “rail road system” and truck transportation by wagon;
- Increased capacity on various lines.

- 120/160-
12
Maintenance
Min
Max
100
Average
50
0
1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

Min
Max
200
Average
Line 100
150
100
50
0
1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
With the large investments in the period 1997/2004, the new infrastructure needs less
attention in first years.

- 121/160-
12
Renewal
Min
Max
Average
150
100
50
0
1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
12
Development of renewal expenditure
Min
Max
400 Average
350 Line 100
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
The investments were high in the period from 1997 to 2004 resulting in upgrading
capacity (some new lines, duplication tracks, new outline).
In the period from 1997 to 2004 the track renewals were also significant in the main
network with the priority to upgrading, though many track kilometres were renewed
showing high expenditures.

- 122/160-
Min
10,0
Max
9,0
Average
8,0
7,0
6,0
5,0
4,0
3,0
2,0
1,0
0,0
1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
Comparing the maintenance with the renewal expenditures, maintenance was higher
due to what was referred to on the previous page. Priority was on investments
(upgrading lines capacity and the security), so renewals appear as a second priority.
Until a lot of investments were concluded, the maintenance works still were very
important and primordial. Now, the investments produce better conditions that finally
allow being competitive with the road, to have a higher capacity as well as faster
connections.

- 123/160-
3.9 International Benchmarking – The Statistical Approach
In addition to the current LICB data analysis we were also looking out for interesting
models and approaches to contribute a new perspective to the existing LICB dataset. A
first step towards the enlargement of methods was the work on a statistical approach
carried out by the University of Leeds – Institute for Transport Studies by Dr. Andrew
Smith.
The proposed approach is to apply statistical methods to relate maintenance and renewal
costs to the relevant cost drivers included in the LICB database. In general, these methods
allow testing the extent to which costs can be explained by the relevant cost drivers and,
once those relationships have been estimated, to use that information to estimate the
relative efficiency of a company either compared to other companies in the dataset, or
over time.
A first paper sets out preliminary results from applying statistical methods to the UIC LICB
database resulting in the following initial conclusions:
• It can be considered that the dataset is of a generally good quality/coverage and

that the University of Leeds has managed to produce reasonably robust models that
perform well statistically; given the range of variables available within the dataset.
However, further work is required to demonstrate that the statistical relationships
are consistent with expected engineering relationships. It was also recognised that
there are other structural factors impacting on costs that have not been included in
the model (due to lack of data) which would need to be analysed further before
conclusions could be drawn on the relative efficiency of the companies.
• The approach produces a different rank ordering to that of the LICB work. This
finding may be interpreted as evidence that the statistical approach is adding
something as compared with the approach adopted in the LICB study, although it is
then debatable which approach is more appropriate.
• The study has produced some evidence on the magnitude and direction of the
impact of various cost drivers on cost for comparison with the harmonisation factors
used by the UIC study.
The general benefits from econometric analysis using the LICB Dataset are:
• Can provide a check on the harmonisation factors that LICB already uses – both in
terms of the factors used to make adjustments, and the magnitude of those
adjustments.
• Can be used to examine the relative efficiency of member organisations in a single
measure – avoids having to make “judgement calls” about how to weigh up
separate unit cost results (e.g. costs per track km vs. costs per train km).
• Results can be presented in a way that does not reveal the identity of all the
organisations, unless UIC members wished to see this (e.g. for internal purposes).
• Enables assessments to be made of the impact of technological progress on the rail
industry’s cost base.

- 124/160-
Decisions regarding possible future cooperation within this field will be taken after
extensive presentations and discussions of and about the statistical approach provided by
the University of Leeds within the upcoming months.

- 125/160-
4 Conclusions
Generally the benchmarking of infrastructure cost has proven to be a valuable tool for
mutual learning and for tracking progress over time. It is up to the LICB participants to use
the findings of the study and develop their individual strategies.
In a more generalised perspective the most important conclusions are the following:
• Different levels of cost efficiency obviously exist. Cost reductions seem possible on
some networks, but one must also have regard to other factors, such as the current
quality of assets, safety and performance. Therefore, cost reduction strategies need
to be developed on an individual basis for each infrastructure organisation.
• Maintenance cost improvements in recent years have been moderate on a
European average. This underpins the need to have a deeper understanding of the
elements making up these costs in order to develop coherent strategies for both
maintenance and renewals, which will lead to optimised whole life management.
• Asset conditions, like quality and age, have a strong correlation with cost.
Enhanced renewal activities should pay back in quality improvements and can lead
to lower maintenance costs.
• High infrastructure utilisation can be expected to result in higher absolute
maintenance and renewal costs but can produce reduced costs per train kilometre.
At the same time, unfavourable conditions like short track possession periods and a
high share of night work have a huge impact on maintenance and renewal costs so
an effective balance must be struck.
• By applying an integrated approach to cost, quality, safety and performance, railway
infrastructure managers can exploit further improvements.
As a development of the UIC Infracost Project, six Infrastructure Managers carried out an
Infrastructure Performance Analysis (see Chapter 3.8.4) in order to get a clear view on a
wider picture of asset management issues. The relationship between various quality
aspects, the physical condition of infrastructure and the resulting costs was explored.
Arising from this specific analysis, it may be stated that a cost optimised quality of
infrastructure is an appealing, yet still uncharted terrain:
• Infrastructure quality parameters are hardly standardised in Europe. Aggregated

indices are monitored over time in several railways. At present, due to a lack of
harmonised definitions, a fully-fledged benchmark has not been established.
• There is no evidence that low life cycle costs coincide with poor quality parameters.
Higher costs cannot simply be justified by higher quality.
• RAMS aspects of railway infrastructure are more amenable to benchmarking.
Again, there is no clear evidence that railway companies with high cost figures turn
out superior reliability and availability.
• Quality and safety go hand in hand. Investing in modern, high-quality infrastructure
improves safety. For Europe, additional safety gains may depend on a careful

- 126/160-
value-for-money analysis in order to deploy available financial resources more
efficiently.
Figure 35 shows a two-dimensional mapping of costs for M&R expenditures. It shows the
specific position of each of the LICB 14 members in terms of LCC per train-km and LCC
per main track-km. Both indicators (LCC per main track-km and LCC per train-km) are very
important to compare and it would be very useful to identify and separate LCC that arise
due to the number of track kilometres and those that are highly dependant on the traffic
volume on the network. This cost segmentation can give Infrastructure Managers a clear
indication on the “fixed costs” for the main network and those “flexible costs” which are
related, more specifically, to the traffic volume on the main network.
Figure 35 thus positions a LICB member in one of four possible positions.
It can be seen that railways positioned in the upper right zone display costs that are higher
than the average of the LICB group in both indicators. The particular IMs need to assess
whether their position represents an enduring feature or results from an exceptional
programme of work on their network at this particular period. In the latter situation, their
position could be expected to improve if the work load reduced in future.
Railways positioned in the upper left zone show higher LCC per main track-km but lower
LCC per train-km than the average of the LICB group. The aim of these IMs will be to
examine further efficiencies in the maintenance and renewal processes to move towards
the lower left corner of the portfolio.
The lower right zone shows railways with lower LCC per main track-km but higher LCC per
train-km than the average of the LICB group. The energy of these IMs can be directed
towards further improving their maintenance and renewal processes and availing of
opportunities to increase network utilisation, which should move their position towards the
lower left zone.
IMs positioned in the lower left corner show lower LCC than the average in both indicators
and, in terms of cost control, appear in the best position of the mapping. A deeper analysis
can establish whether such a position is being achieved without adverse impact on other
factors such as safety, age of assets and operational performance.

- 127/160-
Costs per main track km compared to costs per train km C
D
Average LCC/train km: 5,5 €
200 E
costs per main track km (1000 €)
180 N F
160 Y G
140 H
120 Average LCC/main J
100 H Q track km: 76,7 €
K K
80 J
F
M M
60 C E G
U N
40 X
D
20 Q
0 U
X
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
Y
costs per train km (€)
Figure 34: Cost portfolio maintenance and renewal (LCC)
Therefore to carryout a more rounded assessment of benchmarking performance it is

necessary to introduce other factors into the analysis. This can be done if reliable data is
available to compare the same companies under a number of different performance
categories in a 360 degree analysis. An example of such an approach follows in order to
highlight important relationships. This analysis is based on a limited data set in four
categories (other categories can be selected to complete the full 360 degree analysis).
Limited harmonisation of data has been carried out and so the analysis should be
considered more as an example of an approach, which can be developed in the future,
than an accurate reflection of a current position.
Available data relating to the members of the LICB group has been utilised to define a
ranking of their performance under the four selected categories. In order to avoid
misleading cross –comparison, with the data in the earlier sections the railways are only
identified by number in order to display a range of possible configurations and potential
issues to be addressed.
The following range of scoring has been applied to the data set of the four selected
parameters. The subsequent mapping has to be viewed as a relative comparison rather
than an absolute statement of company performance in each category:
LCC/ track-km (harmonised only for PPP)

Low relative costs (Score 5),
High relative costs (Score 1)

- 128/160-
Safety
Good relative performance indicators in UIC Safety Database and other available reports
(Score 5)
Poorer relative performance indicators In UIC Safety Database and other available reports
(Score 1)
Performance/Quality
Infrastructure caused delays - small % of overall company delays (Score 5)
Infrastructure caused delays - high % of overall company delays (Score 1)
Age of Assets
Relatively young infrastructure assets age (Score 5)
Relatively old infrastructure assets age (Score 1)
The corresponding mapping is shown for five sample IMs. The maps should be interpreted
in a manner that a total coverage of the ‘diamond’ background, covering the four axes of
performance, would represent the achievement of best in class in all four categories.
Infrastructure Manager Example 1

LCC
5
4
3
2
1
Age of assets 0 Safety
Performance/Quality
IM 1 shows very good performance in LCC expenditure but the Safety and Performance
indicators are in the middle range. The age of Assets does not indicate any immediate
concern.

- 129/160-
LCC
5
4
3
2
1
Performance/Quality
IM 2 is in the middle range of LCC expenditure. This may explain the good asset condition
and safety performance. However the performance /quality indicator is low. This situation,
therefore, may not be totally explained by the infrastructure condition and it may be
necessary to look elsewhere in the organisation for the solution.
LCC
5
4
3
2
1
Performance/Quality
IM 3 appears to have a balanced set of indicators. Mid range LCC expenditure may be
helping to keep Asset age in order. Performance /Quality issues need to be concentrated
upon.
- 130/160-
LCC
5
4
3
2
1
Performance/Quality
IM 4 is maintaining a very good safety record and asset condition with medium range LCC
expenditure. Performance /Quality issues need to be concentrated upon.
LCC
5
4
3
2
1
Performance/Quality
IM5 is in a good position in three indicators. There may be a need to review whether the
low LCC expenditure is starting to have an effect on asset age.
Figure 35: 360 ° Mapping for Five IMs

- 131/160-
Figure 36, therefore, show a possible approach towards an integrated measurement of the
performance of an Infrastructure Manager. Developing some coherent indicators that will
be collected in a stable frame over time will strengthen the quality of this 360 ° picture and
provide managers with a multidimensional tool that helps to analyse the strengths and
weaknesses of their system and support the decision making process. In the above
representations, the four dimensions are based on data from several sources, but it has to
be stated that the creation of commonly accepted key performance indicators in each
dimension is strongly recommended.
These 360 degree pictures symbolise a possible future approach to look at the railway
infrastructures. It shows how railway infrastructure assets could be analysed in future by
generating commonly agreed and standardised performance indicators in these four
(performance/quality, safety, age of assets and maintenance and renewals) and, possibly,
other selected dimensions.
Since life cycle costing only highlights one field of asset management, the focus has also
to be set on performance issues to obtain a holistic picture of the respective railway
infrastructures.
The objectives of a modern railway Asset Manager may be summarised as follows:
• Sustainable steering of infrastructure assets

• Modern and economic asset management including life-cycle-management (not
only life cycle costing)
• Focus on management functions and development of performance measurement
and performance management tools for infrastructure assets
• Find the right balance for the 3 dimensions of sustainability (economic,
environmental, social)
This report therefore represents an interim review of the benchmarking process at UIC
which will be further enriched, in the coming years, through a deeper reflection on the
entire Asset Management responsibilities of Infrastructure Managers and the available
tools to assist them in their task.

- 132/160-
Future Outlook
As it has been stated in the conclusions of this report, some first approaches to the
assessment and benchmarking of quality and performance parameters have been carried
out in phase 5 of the InfraCost project and in the frame of the Infrastructure Performance
Analysis (Appendix).
Since the comparison of infrastructure costs has proven to be a valuable tool for mutual
learning and for tracking progress over time, we suggest reviewing the field of this annual
benchmarking pool. To do so, the work of the Infrastructure Performance Analysis should
be taken as a basis to set up a project within the UIC infrastructure department that aims
to define certain performance and quality parameters to complement the LICB database
and get a better view on the railway infrastructure in a wider sense of asset management.
In a next phase the following objectives could be defined in the frame of such a project:
• Compare and discuss performance management approaches throughout European

railways.
• Agree on a set of performance and quality parameters, provide exact definitions for
the measurement of these parameters to be collected and benchmarked.
• Define a harmonisation process for these parameters to be able to compare the
collected data properly.
• Enlarge the LICB database with the defined and agreed parameters.
• Identify best practice in maintenance and renewal expenditures compared to the
achieved performance.
• Identify RAMS-killers and adopt strategies to increase performance and decrease
costs.

- 133/160-
Acronyms & Abbreviations
INNOTRACK Innovative Track Systems: European research project

LCC Life Cycle Costing
RAMS Reliability, Availability, Maintainability, Safety
UIC Union Internationale des chemins de fer
IM Infrastructure Manager
LICB Lasting Infrastructure Costing Benchmark
TU Transport Unit
KPI Key Performance Indicator
IPA Infrastructure Performance Analysis
TOC Train Operating Company
ISO International Standardisation Organisation
etc. et cetera
km kilometre
i.e. that is
e.g. for example
PPP Purchasing Power Parities
EUR Euro
M&R Maintenance & Renewal
S&C Switches & Crossings
ETCS European Train Control System
GSM-R Global System for Mobile communications – Railway
MRO Maintenance and Renewal Optimisation
D Deliverable
WP Work Package
LCCA Life Cycle Cost Assessment
EU European Union
CER Community of European Railways
EIM European Rail Infrastructure Managers
UNIFE Association of the European Railway Industries
EFRTC European Federation of Railway Track Work Contractors

- 134/160-
Glossary
Technical term Description Abbreviation Source
[unit]
Harmonisation To make cost information comparable on the basis of
of cost data different basic conditions the following steps of
harmonisation are performed:
- purchasing power parities

- individual labour cost levels
- degree of electrification
- single vs. multiple track
- switch density
- track utilisation
Infrastructure Railway infrastructure consists of the following items,
provided they form part of the permanent way, including
sidings, but excluding lines situated within railway repair
workshops, depots or locomotive sheds, and private
branch lines or sidings:
- Ground area
- Track and track bed etc.
- Engineering structures: bridges, culverts and
other overpasses, tunnels etc.
- Level crossings, including appliances to ensure
the safety of road traffic;
- Superstructure, in particular: rails, grooved rails;
sleepers, small fittings for the permanent way,
ballast; points, crossings, etc.
- Access way for passengers and goods, including
access by road;
- Safety, signalling and telecommunications
installations on the open track, in stations and in
marshalling yards etc.
- Lighting installations for traffic and safety
purposes
- Plant for transforming and carrying electric power
for train haulage: sub-stations, supply cables
between sub-stations and contact wires,
catenaries etc.
- Buildings used by the infrastructure department
Infrastructure Any public body or undertaking responsible in particular [1]
Manager (IM) for establishing and maintaining railway infrastructure, as
well as for operating the control and safety systems. The
functions of the infrastructure manager on a network or a
part of a network may be allocated to different bodies or
undertakings.

- 135/160-
[unit]
Maintenance The process to keep a system in a desired operation
state or bring it back into that state. The existing asset is
refurbished, but not replaced. The works consist of e.g.
inspection, measurement, servicing or repair. It forms
part of annual operating costs.
Renewal All activities involved in replacing a rail infrastructure part
or object by a same or similar type of rail infrastructure
part or object. It is capitalised at the time it is carried out,
and then depreciated.
lines Total length of permanent way in (by the respective IM) line km [km]
maintained working order. Every kilometer of double or
multiple track counts as one line kilometer.
lines in double Total length of lines in double or multiple track. line km [km]
or multiple
track
lines in single Total length of lines in single track. line km [km]
track
electrified lines Lines equipped with an overhead trolley wire or with a line km [km] [4], p
third rail. Their length only includes entire line sections 37
which allow the passage of electric tractive units between
two stations, or between a station and a tractive unit
depot. Line section segments which are electrified at
station approaches exclusively for shunting purposes,
and where electrification is not extended as far as the
next station, count as non-electrified lines.
track Main track kilometre in maintained working order and track km
side track kilometre. [km]
Main track Main running tracks providing end-to-end line continuity track km [4], p
and used for working regular trains between stations or [km] 38
places indicated in the tariffs as independent points of [3], p
departure or arrival for the conveyance of passengers or 111
freight. All track kilometre branching off from main
running tracks in stations (second track at stations on
single track lines, passing tracks, etc.) used for working
regular trains.
The length is measured in the middle of the track, from
centre to centre of the station buildings; if there is a
junction in open track, the length is counted up to the end
of the junction point (switch). Double track is counted
twice; triple tracks are counted three times as much etc.
Main track kilometre are only counted when in a (by the
respective IM) maintained working order.
side track Other types of track include e.g. track kilometre at track km
marshalling yards and at places which are not shown in [km]
the tariffs as independent points of departure or arrival for
the carriage of passengers or freight,

- 136/160-
[unit]
electrified main Main running tracks provided with an overhead catenary track km [3], p
track or with conductor rail (3rd rail) to permit electric traction. [km] 112
tunnels Total length of railway tunnels in maintained working [km]
order.
bridges Total length of railway bridges in maintained working [km]
order. The min. length of a bridge is 2 m.
switches in Points in main tracks in maintained working order number [3], p
main track managed, owned, maintained by the Infrastructure switch-units 114
Manager. For a better comparability switch-units are [5]
calculated as follows:
ordinary point = 1 switch-unit
single diamond crossing = 2 switch-units
double diamond crossing = 4 switch-units
switches in side Points in side tracks following the definition of switches in number
track main track. switch-units
passenger Stations in maintained working order where passenger number
station trains stop. All are counted even if they are not
maintained or owned by the Infrastructure Manager.
technically Railway line and road crossing each other on the same number
secured level level arranged for the passage of road vehicles,
crossing pedestrians, cyclists or animals. It is technically secured
when using lights or barriers to warn road participants.
passenger Total number of passengers multiplied with the journey Mio
transport output distance in kilometre. passenger
km [km]
passenger Total number of passenger journeys. mio journeys
transport
volume
passenger train Unit of measure representing the movement of all mio train km
kilometres passenger trains taking into account their journey length. [km]
Form an IM’s point of view it is important to include all
passenger train movements as they all influence the
deterioration of the rail infrastructure assets. Empty
passenger train movements are therefore included in the
number of passenger train movements.
passenger Unit of measure representing the movement of all mio. gross [3], p
gross ton passenger trains and its passengers including the weight ton kilometre 113
kilometres of the tractive vehicle. From an IM’s point of view it is [tkm]
important to determine all weight on the track, therefore
the weight of the tractive vehicle is added to the standard
definition of gross hauled passenger ton kilometre.
freight transport Total number of tons of freight load multiplied with the mio. net ton
output transportation distance in kilometre. kilometer
[tkm]
freight transport Total number of tons of freight carried. mio net ton
volume [t]

- 137/160-
[unit]
freight train Unit of measure representing the movement of all freight mio train km [3], p
kilometres trains taking into account their journey length. Form an [km] 113
IM’s point of view it is important to include all freight train
movements as they all influence the deterioration of the
rail infrastructure assets. Empty freight train movements
are therefore included in the number of freight train
movements.
freight gross Unit of measure representing the movement of all freight mio. gross [3], p
ton kilometres trains and its load including the weight of the tractive ton kilometre 113
vehicle. From an IM’s point of view it is important to [tkm]
determine all weight on the track, therefore the weight of
the tractive vehicle is added to the standard definition of
gross hauled freight ton kilometre.
maintenance Total costs for the IM on maintenance of assets mio [local [3], p
costs described in “infrastructure”. Includes costs of outsourced currency] 119
maintenance activities. Maintenance forms part of annual
operating costs.
renewal Mean annual capital investment for renewal and mio [local [3], p
expenditure investment in the existing network, paid by the IM, currency] 119
government or other source. Includes investment
subsidies. Must include costs of any outsourced
activities.
overhead Total cost of corporate and engineering management and mio [local [3], p
overhead departments, including project costs for existing currency] 117
network charged to current year profit and loss account. (admini
Must include cost of any outsourced activity. strative
costs)
labour costs Total railway staff costs for maintenance and renewal per mio [local [3], p
year. currency] 119
average annual Costs per full time employee and year for internal or [local [5]
labour costs subcontracted staff. It can be calculated by dividing total currency]
labour costs per year of operating staff by the number of
full time employees. They should include the gross
wages, extraordinary wages (e.g. Christmas bonus) and
social costs (e.g. unemployment insurance).
mobility The indicator shows how frequently the railways are used [journeys per
by passengers in the different countries. inhabitant]
freight output Freight tons carried by railways related to the population [net ton km
of a country. per
inhabitant]
train utilisation The output of passenger and freight transport per train [TU per train
kilometre indicates the commercial train utilisation of an km]
infrastructure manager.

- 138/160-
[unit]
network Tons of freight weight and passengers together with the [mio TU per
utilisation transport distance on the main track network gives a main track
commercial indicator for network utilisation. km]
traffic Describes how intensively the IM’s principal asset, its [1.000 train [3], p
development track, is used by passenger or freight trains. This KPI is km per main 67/68
important from a capacity (new investment) point of view. track km]
The development over time is shown based on the year
1996.
life cycle costs Expresses how much money has been spent for [1.000 € per
per main track maintenance and renewal per kilometre of main track and main track
kilometre year. km]
harmonised life Life cycle costs per main track kilometre using the [1.000 € per
cycle costs per harmonisation methodology. main track
main track km]
kilometre
life cycle costs Expenditure for maintenance and renewal per kilometre [€ per train
per train of passenger and freight trains and per year. km]
kilometre
life cycle costs Expenditure for maintenance and renewal per output of [€ per 1.000
per transport passenger and freight transport and per year. TU]
unit
Table 3: LICB Glossary - definition of terms
Glossary Sources:
[1] European Commission Directive 91/440
[2] European Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2598/70 of 18 December 1970
[3] European Commission 5th Framework Programme, IMPROVERAIL, Deliverable D3

“Benchmarking exercise in railway infrastructure management”
[4] UIC, International railway statistics 2001
[5] UIC, LICB-Questionnaire, November 2002

- 139/160-
Literature
Arjen Zoeteman: „Railway Design and Maintenance from a Life-Cycle Cost Perspective“
Maintenance and Renewal Optimisation (MRO), UIC Project 2005, Infrastructure

Department, “Final Report MRO Working Group 2006”
Innovative Track Systems (INNOTRACK), Sixth Framework Programme, Priority 6 –

Sustainable Development, Global Change and Ecosystems, FP6-2005-Transport – 4,
Integrated European Project, Annex 1 – “Description of Work”
EIM Report: “Cost Efficiency in Building & Maintaining the European Rail Transport
Network”
UIC Safety Database, “Safety Data Base”, UIC – SDB definitions, 2004
UIC Safety Database, “UIC SDB annual report 2004”
Infrastructure Performance Analysis (IPA), UIC study 2003

- 140/160-
APPENDIX

- 141/160-
APPENDIX
Maintenance and Renewal Optimisation (MRO)4
This project was set out to deliver an immediate win for members in terms of optimum
investment decision making in the area of infrastructure maintenance and renewal. While
the InfraCost and LICB projects have covered aspects of this topic previously, there was a
strong business imperative to realise more concrete benefits from the acquired experience
of the members and have this knowledge translated into key fundamentals for the future
business. MRO was carried out in 2005-2006 under the following objectives:
• Draft uniform recommendations for an optimised maintenance & renewal strategy

for the permanent way.
• Comparison of the development of maintenance and track renewal costs.
• Establish the factors and variables crucial to an optimal correlation between
maintenance and renewal input.
In a first phase an analysis of the current inspection regimes of the working group
members was carried out to increase the transparency within the group. To facilitate the
comparison of the various maintenance and renewal strategies in track and turnout system
domains, inspection related measuring variables were defined, all the principal
maintenance and renewal measures were collected and their frequency compared. It was
found that for certain line segments (in terms of load levels and speed ranges)
infrastructure managers adopted almost the same inspection strategy following similar
inspection frequencies, while for other line segments the strategies in terms of frequency
varied widely (table 5).
Almost identical strategies of all 8 railway infra- Different strategies of all 8 railway infrastructure
structure companie
e.g. turnout inspection v ? 160 km/h with e.g. inspection on foot 120 < v ? 160 km/h with
specification of inspection specification of inspection
IM A B C D E F G H IM A B C D E F G H
s s
Months 6 6 6 6 6 1 6 1 Months 1 4 1,5 0,3 12 3 0,5 2-5
* Needed inspection interval determined by the inspector responsible
4
MRO Final Report 2006, summary
- 142/160-
Table 4: Comparison of various inspection strategies adopted by Infrastructure Managers
(MRO Final Report 2006)
In the second phase inspection regimes were consequently compared. However, a
comparison of maintenance and renewal strategies based on the entire network was not
presented due to the fact that the networks differ in a wide range. Given how differently the
various railway networks are structured, the definitive mean values for infrastructure
managers’ overall networks are only comparable within the framework of standardised,
defined track categories or standard kilometres.
In order to be able to draft a uniform maintenance & renewal strategy for the permanent
way it has been agreed to select a reference track category representative for all
participating Infrastructure Managers.
Finding a representative track category covering all continuous main tracks for all
infrastructure managers necessitated establishing a correlation between the range of the
permissible line speed and tonnage loadings per day (and per continuous main track). The
participating Infrastructure Managers analysed their route networks with regard to these
parameters as the following table 6 shows:

- 143/160-
Table 5: Frequency distribution of continuous main tracks as a function of speed and load
Due to the collected data a representative track category with a speed range from
120<v<160 km/h and a load of 30.000 – 50.000 tonnes was selected for initial detailed
study. However, serviceable figures for the envisaged track categories shown above and
also for the track category selected were not available in the brief time frame for the report.
Nevertheless it was fundamentally established that increasing rail grinding and capital
repairs reduces the need for rail and track renewal.
In a subsequent work stage, all participants’ maintenance and renewal measures and a
representative bandwidth of frequencies were pooled as a function of a variety of
parameters (figure 38). Influencing parameters such as subgrade, track geometry, age of
assets, technical fitments and traffic type were assigned by the individual Infrastructure
Managers to the maintenance and renewal measures selected in accordance with their
importance. The nature of the influencing parameters determines whether the
maintenance and renewal strategy being selected tends towards the top or bottom of the
bandwidth.
Figure 36: Bandwidth of frequencies as a function of a variety of parameters

Participants of the MRO Working Group have universally agreed that the drafting of
designated maintenance and renewal regimes requires a holistic consideration of LCC for
the respective assets and components. Therefore, maintenance and 1:1 renewal
measures have to be considered together. The long life cycle and different condition
based measures require a coherent maintenance and renewal strategy to avoid cost
intensive and quality questionable ad hoc measures.
- 144/160-
As a conclusion the MRO Working Group stressed that it is absolutely essential for a
realistic, target focused consideration of any comparison and for determining future
strategies to either cluster the networks into track categories or defined standard
kilometres for the various categories as proposed in the report in terms of route speed,
subgrade, service load and track radii. It is recommended to continue the network or line-
specific application of LCC assessments. This recommendation has already been picked
up by SP6 of INNOTRACK that is following a similar approach.
Here is an overview of the results achieved by the MRO Working Group:
• Presentations, discussions and exchange of Infrastructure Managers’ maintenance

and renewal strategies.
• Comparison of inspection regimes (frequencies of inspections) for track and
turnouts.
• Presentations, discussions and exchange of quality aspirations of the individual
Infrastructure Managers. A lack of a solid basis for comparison of the entire
networks was stated as the track categories and corresponding route standards
differ widely.
• Definition of track categories has been worked out (correlation between the range of
the permissible line speed and tonnage loadings per day).
• Presentations, discussions and exchange of future visions and measurement
techniques of the infrastructure managers.
In table 7, an information matrix concerning maintenance and renewal strategies, for

current projects in this field, management tools and a short future outlook is provided for
the participants in the MRO project.

- 145/160-
Infrastructure
Maintenance/Renewal strategy (Running) projects Tools/Performance indicators Future outlook and challenges
Company
Inspection: Track Geometry Measurement Car,

Main lines and all CWR secondary lines have an on- Dynamic Measurement Car (Accelerations),
condition maintenance strategy applied, which is driven to a Ultrasonic Measurement Car, Foot Inspection; Automated video inspection system on-board,
prioritisation of maintenance works necessary to be applied Diagnosis and Planning: Asset Management Co-ordination between competent
ADIF according to this cyclical process: inspection, analysis and System (GEOMIF), Maintenance and administration on investments and renewals,
diagnosis, definition and planning of activities, final investments diagnosis tool, Maintenance and New quality maintenance procedures, New
execution of maintenance works; secondary lines with investments prioritising tool, Renewal advisor LCC criteria introduced in maintenance and
jointed track are limited by their very nature to a corrective tool; Activities: various maintenance and renewals decisions, Oriented planning for
maintenance strategy. investments/renewal tools contractors on main lines
Condition-driven inspection allows
maintenance measures to be planned in a
To establish the key elements of a comprehensive 1. Standardisation and synchronisation of time-optimised, more efficient manner as well
maintenance strategy, four major work packages were workflows: harmonisation of inspection as playing a decisive role in cutting
processed as part of the maintenance strategy project: schedules compilation of a quality and cost maintenance input. This condition-driven
Maintenance and renewal strategy, Make or buy strategy, report increased data transparency, preventive maintenance lastingly optimises
Rendering of service (efficiency of in-house services and maintenance planning tool "SAP R/3 Netz" the renewal strategy adopted. The following
DB Netz AG contracting of external services), Maintenance organisation established an IT-based inspection planning cycle is one of the future visions of DB Netz
--> The goal is to define and reach the optimum between system. 2. Optimised use of working hours: 80 % AG in order to perform condition-driven
quality and cost effectiveness/investment! Quality is Sustainability programmes, Repair of "troubleshooting" fault elimination assignments inspection: Mobile & fixed track system
measured by parameters such as rail defects (ultrasonic rail programmes for interlockings, bridges, is now performed within normal working hours, measurement and diagnostics --> Editing &
defects, surface defects, and track geometry defects), culverts, Own capital expenditure for rail reduction of journey times by restructuring local transfer of data --> Analysis & evaluation of
speed restrictions on affected sections of track or the replacement schemes (> 1000 m) to support units. 3. Realignment of capacity data --> Control & Planning of centralized
number of operationally relevant failures/disruptions/delay avoid having to use expensive temporary management: a detailed planning post was set programmes --> Planning & Optimising of
minutes. rails up and integrated into the system circulation.
The BRIO strategic plan includes: logistics

centres for track gangs (concentration in 22 An important effort is being made to update
Track renewal is based on technical criteria such as age of logistics centres in order to improve organisation, internal regulations and the training of
materials, quality of rails, sleepers, ballast and subgrade, vehicles adapted, means of communications, maintenance gangs in order to develop a
level crossings and turnouts (mainly quality of bearers); etc.) and the introduction of SAP software for systematic knowledge management approach
INFRABEL Maintenance strategy: main objective is to adapt stock management. Furthermore the following as in the next ten years an important
maintenance to real needs mainly based on criteria such as computer tools are to be introduced for better percentage of key personnel will to into
tonnage, speed, quality of track materials, etc. management: PDA tools for maintenance gangs retirement. The challenge is to keep the
Maintenance is mainly performed by Infrabel personnel. linked up to the existing track database, information and knowledge gathered over the
Internal benchmarking is conducted between the 5 Infrabel Development of the described tools and automatic devices for the control of turnouts and last decades within the organisation and to
regions in order to optimise and balance maintenance important effort in knowledge crossings, GIS (Geographical Information transfer it to the next generation of
needs. management is currently made. System) to be linked up to database. employees.

- 146/160-
Infrastructure
Company Maintenance/Renewal strategy (Running) projects Tools/Performance indicators Future outlook and challenges
Maintenance strategy: Embedded usage of technology and

mechanisation, further improve of track quality, moving
towards predictive maintenance and improve the efficiency
of front line working processes
Track renewals strategy: increase standardisation, The following potential indicators have been The following objectives are to be followed in
Network Rail
maximise productivity through adoption of standard job summarised by Network Rail: Rails (Number of the future by Network Rail: Increase
lengths, standard installation methodologies and access broken rails, number of rail defects found and unmanned geometry recording, reduce foot
patterns, maximise utilisation and productivity from high repaired, quantity of rail affected by rolling inspection, allocate workforce using hand held
output plant, drive up delivered quality in order to minimise contact fatigue, quantity of jointed track), computers, increase rail grinding, mechanise
whole life costs, implement modular turnout systems, Geometry (number of exceeding beyond manual tasks (i.e. pre-assembly of points,
explore alternative access strategies in order to optimise maintenance limits), Ballast (number of slurry fishplate oiling, lifting and packing track),
the trade off between costs and operator revenue and spots), Sleepers & fastenings (number of defects reduce hand arm vibration exposure, increase
explore potential to increase re-use of serviceable materials beyond maintenance limits in work bank) workforce productivity,
Integrated maintenance on main tracks:

parameters such as stretching tamping cycles
were corroborated by testing. Tests also
revealed a capacity for further enhancing quality
by performing operations jointly during track
ÖBB possessions. Co-ordinating of MDZ and, in the
same possession, the rail grinding train
The entire ÖBB network has been divided into 3 "network minimises actual track possessions.
categories". The track's ranking indicates is operational Complementing this new, high-quality
significance (track ranking a = through track and continuous maintenance process, a system of standardised
main track, b = other main tracks, c = sidings). Special spot maintenance was prepared and launched. A
strategies and components are chosen for the various track 3-tier model for track repairs involving
categories. Wide-ranging documentation on the mechanised maintenance was introduced: spot
Integrated maintenance - spot maintenance: Building upon cycles and costs of maintenance maintenance, tamping exercises with the MDZ
the "tamping and grinding" strategy, a start was made in processes for key track assets was and integrated maintenance
early 2002 on introducing integrated maintenance on main drawn up in the "Optimising Track
tracks. Maintenance Strategies" project.

- 147/160-
Infrastructure
Company Maintenance/Renewal strategy (Running) projects Tools/Performance indicators Future outlook and challenges
ProRail still plans major maintenance and renewal itself in a Development programme to improve the The permanent way strategy needs to guide the
production planning cycle (PPC). This production plan is in quality of maintenance processes and development of products and updating of ProRail sees the following key challenges for
fact the central "piece of paper" in the planning and assets through: systematically analysing technical regulations in order to meet the permanent way in the coming years: Initial
implementation of periodic maintenance & renewal. The performance and cost developments, following business objectives in this demanding quality and condition-based maintenance and
ProRail production planning cycle follows the following objectives: working towards explicit and condition- environment: safety, availability, reliability, renewal planning, monitoring quality of
uniformity and transparency among the regions, timely data based maintenance and renewal durability (LCC), riding comfort, noise, geometry through automated inspections,
collection on works performed and infrastructure quality, standards, developing standards for environmental friendliness, interoperability, managing vehicle-infrastructure interaction,
timely information for negotiations on track possessions and enforcing high quality after maintenance stimulating free market processes, robustness to design failure prevention and rationalisation of
funding, timely acceptance of plans in order to organise and renewal, realising change in the factors such as vandalism, overloading and turnouts, product management in relation to
competitive, efficient tenders organisation (training, auditing) extreme weather maintenance and contract management
"The best track is the most economical, if the higher quality

SBB is converted by appropriate maintenance into an extension
of service life and if it will be used with vehicles with good Detection systems, rail machining Tools: diagnostic car incl. automatic rail Some challenges for track maintenance and
operating attitude." Preventive measures therefore were strategy and measurement concept, new inspection & rail defect detection, ecotrack renewal in the coming years as seen by SBB:
attributed up to now a high importance in order to IT tool for renovation of substance, (suggestion for tamping and grinding track, condition-based inspection & renewal,
guarantee a sustainable, long-term preservation of real product management, quality control, database fixed assets, prognosis tool, prioritising managing friction/loads on track, reducing
assets. In maintenance it is differentiated between the three LCC engineering, benchmarking, tool (object and condition-based with risk- further turnout failures, life-based geometry
quality levels safety limit, intervention limit and alert limit. optimisation between maintenance and management criteria), renewal and new standards, LCC & product management,
Each level is defined by limit values. renewal construction program optimum between maintenance & renewal
Future strategy is based on: increase in
financial funds for track renewal, increase in
Maintenance policy is based on the one hand on renewal track possessions in order to improve track
SNCF and on the other hand on inspection and maintenance, maintenance efficiency, optimization of fixed
depending on the type of line (traffic, speed). Maintenance Studies are running in order to increase Prognosis and prioritising tools (TIMON for track assets at stations, using safety warning
is generally done on condition, according to outputs of track monitoring and to improve geometry, PROBARAIL for rail, etc.), database automatic devices, implementation of ERP
inspection and thresholds. maintenance organisation and planning for fixed assets, outputs of recording software
Table 6: MRO information matrix on maintenance and renewal

(MRO project report 2006)

- 148/160-
Innovative Track Systems (INNOTRACK)5
INNOTRACK is a European integrated Research and Development project under the 6th
Framework Programme of the European Commission. It follows priority 6 of this program –
Sustainable Development, Global Change and Ecosystems.
INNOTRACK aims to develop a cost-effective high performance track infrastructure for

heavy rail systems. INNOTRACK addresses mainly the objective of reducing LCC (life
cycle costs) while improving the RAMS (reliability, availability, maintainability, safety)
characteristics of a conventional line with a mixed traffic duty.
The INNOTRACK project brings Infrastructure Managers and railway supply industry
together to investigate and evaluate leading edge track system technologies, adopting a
controlled methodology to assess life cycle cost benefits of “track-technology solutions”
and of a set of emerging railway hardware solutions. It will also support the overall
sustainability of the railway sector, meeting needs such as the increase of track availability
and network capacity. The results of this project will build on a standardised LCC
formulation developed within the project, based on best practices in LCC at EU level and
independently assessed.
The INNOTRACK cooperation: 35 participants, 11 countries
Industry: Infrastructure Managers:

ALSTOM (FR), BBRP (UK), UIC (FR), Rail Safety and Standards
Carillion (UK), Corus (UK), EFRTC Board (UK), ADIF (ES), BV (SE), DB
(LU), Goldschmidt Thermit GmbH Netz (GE), Network Rail (UK), ÖBB
(DE), Speno International (CH), (AT), ProRail (NL), RFF (FR), SNCF
UNIFE (BE), VAE (AT), VAS (FR), Ceske drahy (CZ)
(AT), VCSA (FR)
Academia:
Chalmers (SE), Czech Technical SMEs:
University in Prague (CZ), ARTTIC (FR), Con Traffic (DE), Damill
Laboratoire Central des Ponts et (SE), G-Impuls (CZ)
Chaussées (LCPC – FR), University
of Birmingham (UK, TU Delft (NL),
University of Karlsruhe (GE),
University of Newcastle (UK),
University of Southamton (UK),
Manchester Metropolitan University
(UIK)
Figure 37: INNOTRACK Participants
5
INNOTRACK, description of work and preliminary results, summary

- 149/160-
Optimisation of track constructions or track components regarding technical and economic
requirements is essential for railway companies to fit the market and to compete against
other means of transport. Due to the long lifetime of the track and track components –
ranging between 20 to 60 years – pre installation technical and economic assessments are
necessary to optimise the track construction and get the return on investment (ROI) in a
manageable timeframe. LCC and RAMS technology are two acknowledged methods for
assisting this optimisation process.
LCC is an appropriate method to identify cost drivers and to gather the costs of a system,
module or component over its whole lifetime including development, investment
maintenance and recycling costs. Different views and evaluations allow the comparison of
different systems and deliver necessary information for technical and economic decision.
In the field of railways, LCC methods are starting to be implemented and will provide a
definite advantage to the Infrastructure Managers in helping calculate costs for the
implementation of innovative technologies. In the frame of INNOTRACK these methods
will be defined at a European level and used to identify cost drivers and assess the track
components. The project is divided in 7 Sub-projects (figure 40):
Figure 38: INNOTRACK Management Structure

- 150/160-
INNOTRACK is coordinated by UIC. For efficiency, INNOTRACK management is
structured in two levels: Strategic management (Decision making) and Technical
management (Technical workflows):
• The technical management responsibility is with the Technical Coordination Group,

which is composed of the leaders of the sup projects.
• The strategic management responsibility is with the INNOTRACK Steering
Committee, which is the highest decision and strategy making body of
INNOTRACK.
Since the wide spread of dissemination of project results and knowledge is in the prime
interest of all project partners with a view of achieving the overall acceptance and
implementation of the project results, this chapter shall give an overview of the project
structure and the state of the project.
Particularly the results of Sup Project 6 (SP6) will be of interest also for the LICB project of
UIC since it aims to provide a European framework for the implementation of life cycle
costing (LCC) and reliability, availability, maintainability and safety technology (RAMS) for
the railway infrastructure. Benchmarking of existing models and tools fulfilled as a basis for
the development of new and innovative models and tools that fit current requirements.
The following chart (figure 41) of the workflow of the project shall provide a better
understanding of the expected output:
Figure 39: INNOTRACK Project Workflow

- 151/160-
As shown in this figure, SP1 identifies the technical problems that the infrastructure
operators are currently experiencing. It is important that the root causes of the problems
are understood, therefore, within SP1 a limited amount of modelling and simulation was
conducted using low resolution (LRM) and medium resolution modelling (MRM) tools to
identify the actual European-wide issues. SP6 takes these issues and aligns cost drivers
to them which require additional input from the infrastructure operators. All information
collected within SP1 and SP6 is stored in a relational database developed for the project
around a systems framework.
Since the start of INNOTRACK the following results and deliverables have been developed
within SP6 – life cycle assessment and SP7 - dissemination:
D 6.1.1 – Incorporated Rules and Standards
A survey on the various rules and standards used by the participating Infrastructure
Managers was conducted investigating the general understanding about RAMS and LCC,
the used standards, tools and databases and the status of implementation. It was
concluded in this report that no common standard is implemented and used by the
Infrastructure Managers and that RAMS and LCC is still being in its infancy stage among
most of the participants. INNOTRACK can therefore support the use of LCC thinking and
RAMS technology within the railway sector.
D 6.1.2 – Models and Tools
Part 2 of the survey conducted in D 6.1.1 was dealing with the various models and tools
used by different Infrastructure Managers and related industries. The tools were compared
and explained in detail. After that, areas of improvement were identified and discussed.
The definition of RAMS targets, the integration of environmental costs and the conduction
of risk analysis will be of special interest in the further evolution of the subject in future.
The results of D 6.1.1 and D 6.1.2 provide a good basis for the following work packages
WP 6.2 (LCC – methodology) and 6.3 (RAMS – Technology).
D 6.2.1 – Unique boundary conditions (for LCC analysis)
This deliverable addresses the need to agree on unique economical boundary conditions
for LCC analysis. Specifically the capital budgeting techniques, the choice of proper
discount rates and the choice of a unique time horizon are discussed. A detailed theoretic
analysis was performed towards the definition of a unique criterion for these parameters. A
variation of 3 % to 5 % for the discount rate is considered, with a reference value of 4 %
with a time range of 30 to 40 years as a time horizon with 40 years recommended as
upper bound for large investments on ballasted tracks assessed through Life Cycle Cost
Assessment (LCCA). The results are in accordance with most recent research and
guidelines in project appraisals and life cycle costing practices. LCC analysis can only
deliver a fair decision support process following coherent rules.

- 152/160-
D 6.2.2 – Benchmark of LCC Tool
The use of a LCC application software as a support tool in the decision making process
would facilitate estimation and comparison of costs during a product’s life cycle as well as
the identification of the cost drivers. With the purpose of benchmarking LCC commercial
tools relevant information as software manuals and demo versions were requested of LCC
software suppliers and additionally a questionnaire was sent to them. A wide variety of
tools ranging from simple to use ones to high sophisticated applications were analysed
and summarised in this report.
D 6.3.1 – Boundary conditions for RAMS analysis of railway infrastructure
As deliverable 6.2.1 discussed the unique boundary conditions of LCC assessment

analysis this report deals with the theoretic framework for RAMS analysis in the field of
railway infrastructure. It gives a broad overview of the basic parameters and provides
approaches for railway infrastructure managers.
D 7.1.1 – Set up of public and private project websites
The set up of a public and private project website is described in detail in this deliverable.
A web portal was created, parts of which are accessible to project stakeholders and parts
to the public. It contains a knowledge management system which is provided as an online
tool to support the collaborative work of the consortium members. The definition of
coherent project image, graphical profile and logo is also described in this report. The web
portal contains a database of railway experts participating in INNOTRACK, a modern
document management system, an internal communication platform and an electronic
newsletter dissemination system and it is hosted on the UIC servers under a secure
environment. A user’s guide is provided to give useful support.
D 7.1.2 – Set up of dissemination platform
Since the wide spread dissemination of project results and knowledge is in the prime
interest of all project partners with a view of achieving the overall acceptance and
implementation of the project results, INNOTRACK this deliverable deals with the matters,
audiences, medias and times of dissemination actions to be taken. The major intermediate
results are discussed in this report and the various responsibilities clarified. A general
dissemination timeline has been worked out to increase the transparency of all
INNOTRACK actions. An overview of the most important conferences and events with
INNOTRACK participation and dissemination actions is also listed in this deliverable.

- 153/160-
D 7.1.3 – Planning report: Set up of network of industries and IMs
INNOTRACK produces innovations in the state of products, processes and methodologies

of which many will be very close to market. It is therefore expected that the project results
will be exploited rather quickly by the partners. Also the time for implementation must be
reasonably quick within the infrastructures. This report presents the most important
networks to disseminate the results of INNOTRACK. Two main sorts of networks are
described in this deliverable presenting its proponents. Industry networks led by UNIFE
and EFRTC to assure a wide spread of results outside the consortium and Infrastructure
Managers Networks led by UIC which will be formed by Infrastructure Managers and
Railway Undertakings from UIC, CER and EIM.

- 154/160-
Infrastructure Performance Analysis (IPA)6
This study was carried out in 2003 as a follow up of the UIC InfraCost project in order to
investigate the performance side of railway infrastructure to a deeper extend. 6 European
Infrastructure Managers participated in this small scale project to learn more about
performance measurement of railway infrastructure.
The Infrastructure Performance Analysis (IPA) benchmarked six European railway

systems with regard to
• infrastructure reliability,
• the consequences for train operations (i.e. delays) and
• an economic assessment (i.e. system costs of failures versus the value of
performance) for the railway system.
Figure 42 shows the components of service level and performance graphically.
Figure 40: Components of performance (Infrastructure Performance Analysis 2003)
6
Infrastructure Performance Analysis (IPA), UIC study 2003, summary
- 155/160-
The IPA was carried out with particular emphasis on four specific issues:
• Global performance benchmarks

o Comparison of punctualities, delays, temporary speed restrictions
• Basic reliability
o Comparison of infrastructure failures
o Concentration and criticality of failure occurrence
o Critical components, failure causes
o Maintenance organisations
• System economies
o Total system costs of failures and delays
o Commercial value of reliability
• Traffic and operational complexity

o Combination of traffic frequency and perturbations
As part of the analysis attention was also given to the criticality of railway systems as a
function of network complexity and traffic intensity. Similar to the cost of networks, the
reliability of infrastructure has a high impact on the overall competitiveness of the whole
railway system. Although degrees vary, infrastructure often accounts for about one third of
all railway performance problems.

- 156/160-
Gathering the information of the 6 participating Infrastructure Mangers, figure 43 shows the
causes for train delays.
Figure 41: Causes for train delays

(Infrastructure Performance Analysis 2003)
Since dependable comparisons of delay statistics are still hardly possible due to definition
inconsistency, IPA went down to the basic performance drivers like failure occurrence and
duration. It analysed the chain from incidents to traffic perturbations and provided insight
about the relative position of participating railways. A "toolbox" showed good practice
examples on the way toward performance improvement.

- 157/160-
The following picture (figure 44) shows the potential performance improvements for
different railway infrastructure assets.
Figure 42: Potential performance improvements for different assets

Regarding failure occurrence significant differences show up among the countries. The
overall performance levels vary substantially although criticality patterns tend to be the
same, e.g.
• highest failure rates in train control and signalling equipment,

• longest durations and problem impact from power supply installations,
• often more than 80% of delays from 30% of failures.

- 158/160-
The underlying reasons are a combination of
• different levels of basic component reliability ("mean times between failures"),

• "leaner" versus complex infrastructure, i.e. higher risk of failures,
• varying maintenance and repair strategies resulting in substantial ranges of reaction
and failure repair times,
• different traffic conditions with a clear correlation between traffic load and delay
consequences.
A criticality-driven approach of inspection, maintenance and sometimes "investment into

good quality" will have major benefits, since critical items cause the bulk of problems. Also
modern monitoring and remote sensing technology increasingly provides cost-efficient
means to raise performance, sometimes even at significantly lower maintenance costs.
Commercially this also shows in reduced "traffic hindrance costs" (i.e. the value of
performance).
There is increasing consensus among railways, that both higher train operation costs and
lost revenues from customers due to failures and delays are "real cash" items.
The report gives a cross-section of monetarisation of these effects. However it appears

that still some more time is needed to find this assessment to be applied in railways' day-
to-day decision making.
All railways employ means of failure and service quality monitoring. However, the
information that can be derived from such systems is only as good as the data that is
gathered. The objectives and procedures of quality and failure monitoring, as well as the
way the information is used and applied for improvement, must be very clear. In order to
really pinpoint critical failure causes and to find remedies, monitoring systems as well as
failure and delay databases should allow for a sufficiently detailed failure categorisation.

- 159/160-
Figure 45 shows the distribution of train affecting infrastructure failures among the
participating Infrastructure Managers.
Figure 43: Train affecting infrastructure failures

The following conclusions could be drawn from the IPA study:
• On average, nearly one third of all train delays are caused by infrastructure failures
• Highest failure rates can be found in the signalling systems, switches and
permanent way
• About 25 % to 50 % of train affecting failures are causing 80 % of the total train
delays

- 160/160-

10-Years Report LICB PDF

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

10-Years Report LICB PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Lasting Infrastructure

Paris, September 2007

UIC Project – Lasting Infrastructure Costing Benchmark (LICB)

Paris, September 2007

Document Data Sheet

UIC Project – Lasting Infrastructure Costing Benchmark (LICB)

Figure 1: UIC LICB Working Group 2006

LICB Working Group 2006:

Project Chairperson: Antonio Lozano (Chairperson of Asset Management and

BS, Denmark (since 1997) Kim Turso-Finnich

UIC Project – Lasting Infrastructure Costing Benchmark (LICB)

UIC LICB Working Group.....................................................................................................5

UIC Project – Lasting Infrastructure Costing Benchmark (LICB)

UIC Project – Lasting Infrastructure Cost Benchmarking (LICB)

UIC Project – Lasting Infrastructure Cost Benchmarking (LICB)

Figure 1: UIC LICB Working Group 2006.............................................................................5

UIC Project – Lasting Infrastructure Cost Benchmarking (LICB)

UIC Project – Lasting Infrastructure Costing Benchmark (LICB)

UIC Project – Lasting Infrastructure Cost Benchmarking (LICB)

UIC Project – Lasting Infrastructure Cost Benchmarking (LICB)

2.1 Importance of Benchmarking

Benchmarking is defined as a process by which something is measured in relation to best

Benchmarking is a powerful management tool because it overcomes "paradigm

UIC Project – Lasting Infrastructure Cost Benchmarking (LICB)

“Lasting Infrastructure Cost Benchmarking (LICB)” is an international benchmarking

Figure 2: The UIC Project InfraCost/LICB

UIC Project – Lasting Infrastructure Cost Benchmarking (LICB)

2.3 Objectives of LICB

Currently 14 European Infrastructure Managers participate in the project and deliver

UIC Project – Lasting Infrastructure Cost Benchmarking (LICB)

• Annual updates of the existing database, production of defined benchmark

UIC Project – Lasting Infrastructure Cost Benchmarking (LICB)

Mobility and Accessibility

• Train frequency [train km / main track km]

• Maintenance and Renewal expenditures

UIC Project – Lasting Infrastructure Cost Benchmarking (LICB)

Single track Main track km or

Figure 3: Harmonisation steps InfraCost/LICB

Purchasing Power Parities

UIC Project – Lasting Infrastructure Cost Benchmarking (LICB)

As the degree of electrification varies between in the sample, the corresponding

Single vs. multiple track

UIC Project – Lasting Infrastructure Cost Benchmarking (LICB)

UIC Project – Lasting Infrastructure Cost Benchmarking (LICB)

The questionnaire consisted of 4 parts:

• Part 1 consisted of 11 questions with prepared answers/statements to cross on.

UIC Project – Lasting Infrastructure Cost Benchmarking (LICB)

• Technological development and consequent maintenance, renewal and investment

UIC Project – Lasting Infrastructure Cost Benchmarking (LICB)

However, some Infrastructure Managers have observed a dual quality approach in

Figure 5 shows the distribution of answers.

How has the overall substance of the infrastructure in your country

Substantial increase in standard through technological development and

Equal level than 10 years ago – good balance of maintenance, renewal

Decrease in overall infrastructure quality as a result from the

Figure 5: Substance of railway infrastructures

UIC Project – Lasting Infrastructure Cost Benchmarking (LICB)

To which degree has the awareness of the management

19% The quality of the infrastructure is on the agenda of

Figure 6: Awareness of infrastructure issues

UIC Project – Lasting Infrastructure Cost Benchmarking (LICB)

Has your company developed risk management systems or introduced risk

Risk management has become an important field of