Delivering a Light Rail System into Service – Considerations for
Effective Asset Management
Alan Knott BEng(Hons) CEng FIET MINCOSE*, Matthew Hack MSc CEng MIMechE†, Adrian
Cope MINCOSE#
* Technical Director, Parsons Brinckerhoff Ltd, UK, Email: knott@pbworld.com, † Asset Manager (Metrolink), Transport for
Greater Manchester, UK, matthew.hack@tfgm.com, Director Adrian Cope Project Management Ltd, acpmltd@gmail.com
Keywords: Manchester Metrolink, Tram Systems,
Operational Readiness, Configuration Management, BIM.
Abstract
Using experience gained from a number of rail and transit
projects the authors discuss how the engineering practices
used throughout the lifecycle of a large, modern infrastructure
programme affect the delivery and transfer into service of
infrastructure assets and describe one particular, pragmatic
approach which has enabled Transport for Greater
Manchester (TfGM) to successfully introduce a number of
new services on what is now the UK’s largest tram network.
1 Introduction City Centre Programme
Once the design is completed, infrastructure project teams
tend to focus on the delivery of a new or upgraded set of
assets and often not so much on the operational and
maintenance environment they are delivering into. However,
with forethought and through engagement with those that will
need to support the assets over their long operational lifetime,
processes and management systems can be put in place during
the project lifecycle which can facilitate the smooth transfer
into service and ease the integration into the Asset Managers’
management systems.
The paper introduces the engineering practices that have the
greatest impact on the ‘back end’ of the project lifecycle and
‘front end’ of the operational lifecycle and describes a
methodology specifically focussed on bringing an integrated
system through the operational readiness, or ‘Go-live’,
process and into passenger service. It describes the
configuration management process that follows the entire
asset lifecycle from the initial statement of requirements,
through design, build and transfer into operation, ensuring
control of the information defining the assets at all times.
2 Metrolink Extension Programme
Manchester’s modern tram system started operation in 1992
with the opening of Phase 1, serving Bury in the North and
Altrincham in the Southwest. The trams used the former
heavy rail lines then travelled onto the streets in the heart of
the city. Phase 2 extended the service to Eccles in the West,
opening in 2002. After a hiatus Phase 3 was initiated in 2007
to deliver new services to Oldham and Rochdale to the North,
1
Droylsden and Ashton to the East and, to Chorlton, Didsbury,
Wythenshawe and Manchester Airport to the Southeast of the
City Centre. Figure 1 lists some of the significant figures
which demonstrate the scale of this endeavour.
Rochdale
Bury
Oldham
Eccles
City
Centre
Ashton
Trafford
 £1.4 billion investment between 2009 and 2016. Park


10 extensions to the network.
93 new and improved tram stops.
Didsbury
 Fleet of 104 new trams.
 Conversion to Line of Sight operation throughout.


Trebles the size of the current network to 103km.
Doubles passengers per year to 50m.
Altrincham
Manchester Airport
Figure 1: Illustrating scale & complexity of the Metrolink
Extension Programme (MEP)
Major contracts were let for the infrastructure extensions, a
second depot, a new fleet of light rail vehicles, a new
network-wide tram management system and management
centre and also to operate and maintain the expanded
network; all to be delivered as part of the Metrolink Extension
Programme (MEP). Due the scale of the MEP, and in order to
start revenue service (return on investment) as soon as
practical, the extensions were delivered in migration phases
and the new trams in batches.
3 Delivering an Integrated Solution
Critical to the success of the MEP was the need to ensure the
various contracted packages together delivered an integrated
solution. This meant all parties needed to understand the
relations between their deliverables and those of the other
parties. It was crucial that all of the associated technical and
non-technical interfaces were managed throughout the project
lifecycle. The Integrated Delivery Team (IDT), comprising
both TfGM staff and their Delivery Partner, Parsons
Brinckerhoff, also needed to ensure that at significant stages
in the lifecycle the configuration of the integrated system
solution was defined and aligned with the schedule of works
and cost estimates, thus ensuring a balanced Project
Management Triangle [1] throughout (see Figure 2).
 complete required system build for the EMN was achieved as
shown in Figure 4 [2].

Large Infrastructure Project

Project
Scope
All New Assets and
Assets that have
changed

quality Assets that

Current System haven’t changed
Build Intermediate
Figure 2: The Project Management Triangle – balancing time Configuration System Build
Required System
Build Configuration
Configurations
cost and quality to ensure a consistent definition of the scope (RSBC)
at all times in the project lifecycle.
Figure 4: As a new Large Infrastructure System is delivered
3.1 System Breakdown Structure (SBS) in phases it creates a number of Interim System Build
Configurations comprising existing and new assets.
The product of the MEP was an integrated system, the
Expanded Metrolink Network (EMN), which now carries
4 Stages of the Asset Lifecycle
passengers across the Greater Manchester conurbation
(population circa 3 million). At each migration phase a new The project phase was only one part of the complete asset
system was delivered and integrated into the existing system. lifecycle and was relatively short compared with the expected
Figure 3 illustrates the system and its major elements, which life of most assets [3] (see Figure 5). However, defining the
are trams, infrastructure, control and operations, which align configuration of the new assets and the overall system at the
conveniently and directly with the contractual packaging of project phase was critical for effective operation of the system
the works. At the third level of this System Breakdown and for asset management.
Structure (SBS) are the main components of each element
such as the type of tram, control functions, structures,
utilities, the depot, operations resources, etc.

Highways Metrolink Expanded Network National Rail

Infrastructure Operations Metrolink Existing Network Phase 3 Project Systems Infrastructure Operations Figure 5: A typical Project ‘V’ Lifecycle is relatively short
compared to the lifetime of the asset.

Trams Control Infrastructure Operations

On the MEP the well-known ‘V’ Systems Engineering
M5000 M68 ATS TMS Interim NMC Depot Stops Civil & Utility PWay Comms Traction OLE Operators Rules & Infrastructure
lifecycle was applied during the project [4]; the left hand side
Structures Services Power & Drivers Procedures Managers
was where the system was defined and the right hand side
Shelters TVMs Validators

where the system was built, integrated, tested and

Figure 3: High level System Breakdown Structure for the commissioned into service. Once the high level system
expanding Metrolink network requirements and design had been defined and allocated in the
contract specifications, the middle part of the ‘V’ was
Continuing with this logical decomposition of the system developed and delivered by the contractors. It was thereafter
would end up with the detailed definition of the physical, important for the IDT to keep control of the scope of the
functional and human assets that together provide the required system, to ensure all parties developed their elements,
service. The SBS in Figure 3 indicates, even at the higher including the interfaces identified in the SBS, and that the
levels, how many interfaces need to be considered as the various parts were integrated and proven (verified and
system is specified, built and transferred into service. At all validated) to meet the requirements. This was achieved by
levels it is necessary to consider the other transportation defining the system configuration and baselining it in reviews
systems, roads and rail, with which the EMN interfaces. at key stage gates in the project lifecycle, as developed and
applied successfully on another project [5] and shown in
Figure 6.
3.2 System Configuration
The existing EMN was defined in various Asset Management
The configuration of the expanding network significantly Systems developed over the life of the network (more than 20
changed at each migration phase; as each new extension and years) by the organisations involved in delivering, operating,
the new service it provided entered operation. The built maintaining and managing the different parts. To obtain a
system’s configuration at each migration comprised the single, consistent definition of the existing system as shown
existing network assets and the new assets added until the in the SBS was therefore not feasible. However, by
understanding the requirements for the format and detail

2
required by each Operations and Maintenance (O&M) party
and controlling the definition of the System using
Configuration Baselines, the appropriate asset information
could be assembled for handover.
Figure 6: The MEP defined 4 Stage Gates where the System
Configuration was verified, validated and then baselined.
5 Transfer into Service
5.1 Transferring Responsibility for Assets
The formal mechanism for recording the transfer of the
system into operation and maintenance was the
Handover/Handback process, which was part of TfGM’s
Safety Management System (SMS). This controlled the
transfer of responsibility for the new or modified assets from
the Constructor to the Operator and the Infrastructure
Manager. The Handover/Handback process recorded the
acknowledgement of the relevant parties to the change in the
status of the system using a series of signed forms, known as
AMP forms. There were separate, interdependent AMP forms
for the transfer of operation (AMP03) and for the transfer of
maintenance responsibilities (AMP02 and AMP04), see
Figure 7. The parties involved were the Asset Owner and
Manager, TfGM, the System Operator, MRDL, and the
Infrastructure Maintainer, depending on the location, either
MPT (for the new extensions) or MRDL (for the changes to
the pre-existing network) and the constructor.
Handover Handback
Asset in Operate
Operate &
Maintain
Engineering Operate
& Maintain
AMP 01
AMP 02 AMP 03
Handback
New Asset
Construction Operate or Maintain
AMP 03/04
Construction Energisation Dynamic Testing
Whole New Line
Figure 7: TfGM’s AMP Process uses the exchange of forms
to record the status and transfer of responsibility for assets.
The AMP form recording the transfer into operation (AMP03)
included separate sections associated with each sub-systems
to be signed by the relevant constructor’s competent engineer
to confirm that testing and commissioning had been
completed satisfactorily.
For the infrastructure to be handed into maintenance its
configuration had to be known. The record of any
outstanding defects or incomplete work was appended to the
maintenance AMP form (AMP04), which when signed by the
Maintainer, Constructor and Asset Owner was the formal
acknowledgement of the state of the asset at handover.
5.2 Establishing an Operational Readiness (Go-live)
Process
Having established the System Configuration Baseline
defining what was to be delivered (the product of each
delivery project), how it was to be delivered (the engineering
process) and having a well-defined asset transfer mechanism,
the IDT’s focus turned to the final stages of the project
lifecycle and start of the operational service. Both the IDT
and the O&M organisations were finding the transfer into the
operation extremely demanding and somewhat inefficient. An
extensive checklist of activities that had been imposed served
to complicate and increase the burden on the various teams
during this critical period and it was clear that the transfer
into service needed to be streamlined. The IDT therefore went
back to basic principles, took notice of the way the System
Configuration was being managed and, in consultation with
the stakeholders, developed an Operational Readiness process
based on the progressive integration of the levels in the SBS
and the stage gates in the project lifecycle where key
decisions needed to be taken.
This led to a process which considered activities in two
“Environments” which:-
1. Delivered the Project scope
2. Prepared the O&M Environment for the delivery
5.3 Delivering the Project
The logic structure for the Project Environment of the
Operational Readiness, or “Go-live”, process was naturally
biased towards the back end of the ‘V’ lifecycle. As the point
for delivering the constructed system into operation
approached, the scale of the project integration increased.
Handback
The Go-live process was set out using a framework starting
Operate & Maintain with the stage gates where significant integration occurred
Defects Liability between the 4 SBS elements (e.g. testing of the dynamic
AMP 04 AMP 05 envelope provided by the infrastructure for the trams) and/or
Handback
an aspect of one of the elements started to affect the O&M
Operate & Maintain
Defects Liability
Environment (e.g. energisation of the infrastructure’s traction
AMP 04/03 AMP 05 power). Eventually the integration reached the System level
Handback Handback (& where there are also stage gates for Safety and System
IMSCC)
SAT A (Test
Running)
SAT B
(Trial Ops)
SAT C
(Operate & Maintain)
Assurance.
Driver
Training
Defects Liability The framework is shown in Figure 8 where the horizontal
AMP 03 AMP 04 AMP 05
bands represent the SBS and the vertical axis represents the
order in time when the stage gates (represented by diamond
shaped symbols) logically occur. Whilst the detail may not be
clear in the figure at this scale it clearly shows the progressive
integration of the sub-systems and elements (blue diamonds)
as the project reaches the main milestones (stage gates) at
which a decision to proceed needs to be taken.
3
 Stage Design Build Install Test & Commissioning Integration & Proving Putting in to Service
stakeholder communication, and discharge of legal, planning
Construction Site Operational Tramway when working on or near the line
and regulatory obligations.
S
R
C
Interim SRC submissions may be required dependent upon delivery staging S
R
C
Based on the experience from the initial migration phase it
KEY

System
S
B
R
T
R
R
was decided to start the Go-live process 16 weeks from the
Critical Path
P

R
O
S
R
R
S
R programmed dated for entry into Passenger Service.
Operational Readiness Stage Gate

R Technical Assurance Stage Gate

R

Safety Assurance Activity

Review
5.5 Tracking Operational Readiness
R Sufficient trams of correct variant/configuration
F
Trams CC Construction Completion

I
DRT
IA
OSRR
With the logic defined and the basic principles established,
Drivers Ready for Training
Infrastructure Acceptance
Operational Service Readiness Review
R OR Operational Review
R PSRR
IRR
RFO
the next step was to identify the key activities associated with
Passenger Service Readiness Review
Infrastructure Readiness Review
Ready For Operation

each environment and to identify each activity’s completion

C R I
Infrastructure RR Readiness Review
C T A RRR Route Readiness Review
RTE Ready To Energise
SBR System Baseline Review

Control
T
R
T
R
SRC
TRR date associated with the relevant stage gate. In deciding what
Safety Review Committee
Test Readiness Review

activities to include, it was important that the process did not

Operations
O
R
O
R
revert to being onerous or be perceived by participants as
micro-management. It had to encourage engagement and add
Figure 8: Illustrating the Project Environment in the value to existing processes. The activities were divided into
Operational Readiness Process those relating to the delivery of the project and those relating
to the operational preparedness and grouped under the
At the System level (grey) the decision to proceed at the relevant stage gate.. A management tool, the Go Live
Safety Assurance gates (orange diamonds) was made by the Readiness Tracker (GLRT), was used to monitor progress.
Safety Review Committee (SRC). The first Safety Assurance The GLRT used spreadsheets to display the status of the
stage gate was before the Ready to Energise (RTE) stage gate activities in the Project Environment and the O&M
within the Infrastructure element. The System Assurance Environment. Additional worksheets were used to record
process is represented by the green diamonds. Having critical issues and actions, and record the document status for
completed the System Baseline Review (SBR), at which the version control purposes.
Configuration Baseline content was confirmed as representing Prior to the start of the Go-live process at T-16 weeks (where
the System Build that has been planned and specified (i.e. the T is the date for the start of passenger services) a meeting was
scope of the system has been defined), the next System held with the team members responsible for project delivery,
Assurance stage gate was passed if the integrated elements for preparing the O&M environment and for managing the
are ready for the System Acceptance Tests. This was the Test system when in operation. At this meeting all the functional
Readiness Review (TRR) stage gate. The System Acceptance leads would identify the programme outputs within their
Tests lead to the Route Readiness Review (RRR) stage gate at domain appropriate for inclusion in the GLRT, which
which it was decided whether the infrastructure, trams and required a judgement to be made about the level of detail to
control elements are sufficiently integrated to permit driver be included and collectively agreed by relevant attendees.
training to start. The System Acceptance Testing continued This form of collaborative working, engaging all disciplines
during the Driver Training stage after which there is a stage as it did, ensured an early commitment to the process and a
gate to decide whether to hand the System to the Operator for sense of ownership from each of the responsible parties. The
final proving that it will deliver the service required during a agreed activities were added to the relevant environment
period of Shadow Running. This was the Operational Service worksheets and grouped under generic functional areas for
Readiness Review (OSRR) and was where the System each stage gate. This structure ensured that timely progress
Assurance and Operational Readiness processes met. The was easily monitored and that there was early identification of
successful completion of Shadow Running lead to the stage activities that were at risk of delay.
gate to decide to start to carry passengers, the Passenger As an assurance tool it was important for the MEP that the
Service Readiness Review (PSRR). This marked the point at GLRT provided a repository of evidence to support the Case
which the project was deemed to have delivered the scope for for Safety and aligned with the status of the items in the
the associated migration phase and that the system had been Configuration Baselines. It was therefore agreed that
successfully brought into the O&M Environment. completion could only be recorded using agreed validation
criteria, and the type of assurance evidence depended on the
5.4 Preparing the O&M Environment for Delivery nature of each separate activity. As the process matured a
further innovation was developed for the GLRT. The initial
The Go-live Process involved the O&M parties in the Red-Amber-Green (RAG) indication of status was found to
Transfer into Service Stage hence ensuring they understood be too coarse a measure of progress and was replaced with a
the System that they were getting and were ready to receive it. measure in ten percentile increments.
However, it also ensured that the Project Team understood the Go Live Working Group (GLWG) meetings were held
expectations for the System they needed to deliver to satisfy regularly (fortnightly from T-16 to T-8 and then weekly
sufficient O&M requirements to gain acceptance. thereafter) where the activities in each stage gate in each of
Activities considered in the O&M Environment included the the two environments were updated. The trajectory towards
operating and maintenance procedures, timetables, passenger the completion of each activity associated with the respective
information, revenue, fares, marketing, existing operations, stage gate was presented graphically and a combined

4
Executive Summary trajectory for each environment. This
gave a powerful visual representation of progress towards
operational readiness, enabling all involved to quickly see any
areas requiring attention. As more data became available it
became possible to plot an averaged ‘idealised’ trajectory, or
flight path, for each stage gate which in turn provided a more
accurate way of assessing progress.
Figure 9: The GLRT tool provides graphical indicators that
allow managers to quickly see where there may be problems.
There was no restriction on the continued development of the
GLRT for the associated migration phase; activities could be
removed or new activities included as agreed by the
responsible parties during the 16 week period.
The process and tool are now well established. The
developed Go Live format is embedded within the MEP and a
key component of each Project Manager’s toolbox. The proof
of its effectiveness is that it has been employed successfully
to track, monitor and report operational preparedness over
multiple migration phases.
5.6 The Handover
The preparations for operation made by the operator in
collaboration with the constructor were tracked by the GLR
process. In parallel with these activities, the pre-existing
system and new lines already brought into operation
continued to operate. Although MRDL had a separate team to
manage network expansion there were still key activities
which needed to be carried out by the team doing the “day
job”, for example, all tram drivers needed to be trained on the
new route(s), new timetables and driver rosters needed to be
developed and customer facing staff needed to become
familiar with the characteristics of the new route. The
network expansion team managed these preparations for
operation to meet the key stage gates so as to present a
coherent and consistent experience for customers.
A coordinated asset register was developed as part of the
preparations for maintenance and based on this the
maintenance schedule and related maintenance instructions
were produced. Training, spares, tools and other logistical
equipment were all required for maintenance to start. The
need for the maintenance staff to undertake training on new
equipment, the logistics of which were not at first well
planned, was managed as part of the GLR process. The need
to release front-line maintenance staff from the “day job”
without affecting their ability to deliver reactive and
preventative maintenance required careful planning.
5
In order for maintenance to be undertaken from the day of
handover a sub-set of certified marked-up as-built drawings
was required as a record of the infrastructure’s configuration
and to provide the necessary technical information needed to
deliver the routine maintenance. These included, for example,
electrical schematics, equipment connectivity and power
feeding diagrams, stop layouts and drainage layouts. The
constructor’s signature on the maintenance AMP form
(AMP04) provided the assurance that the equipment handed
over was compliant with the design, had been shown by
testing to be safe to operate and was capable of being
maintained in a safe condition.
The GLR process captured the system configuration at the
point of handover to operation and hence provided a record of
any incomplete activities. This list of activities was appended
to the relevant AMP form together with a statement of any
associated operational restrictions; hence the AMP form was
the record of acknowledgement by the operator of any
incomplete activity and any restriction to operation.
5.7 Post Handover
It was acknowledged that some activities did not need to be
complete at the point at which operation commenced and,
either needed to be completed as soon as practicable
thereafter, or could be completed at a later stage in the overall
project. For example, a junction may be inserted into an
existing line in preparation for the construction of a future
diverging route. The junction would become partly
operational to allow the continuing passage of trams along the
existing route but would only become fully operational once
the branch line was completed. In this example the
intermediate configuration results in an operational
restriction, in that the junction can only be traversed on the
through route. Once in operation there are still a number of
Performance, Reliability, Availability, and Maintainability
requirements which can only be proven after an extended
period of in-service operation and which the Project Team
needed to work with the O&M parties to conclude.
6 Tying up the ‘Loose Ends’
Whilst the System for a particular migration phase might have
been transferred into Service there will still be several items
needing to be completed before the Project has finished its
duties e.g. final issue of documentation, provision of all asset
details required by the various maintenance Management
Systems, clearance of caveats on AMP Forms, completion of
non-critical outstanding works and snagging and defect
clearance. At this time the delivery organisations are under
pressure to reassign their experienced resources and minimise
remaining costs so there is a potential risk to the timely
completion of the transfer of all the assets and their associated
information. Recognising this could present a significant
potential risk to the O&M parties and particularly to the Asset
Owner and Manager, a process to manage Project Close-out
was developed. The Close-out Process firstly defined the
grouping of projects and work packages that constituted a
logical complete achievement of an objective of the initial
business case e.g. provision of a 12 minute passenger service
from the City Centre to Rochdale via Oldham. It then
considered the Close-out in terms of completing the transfer
of all the assets into the O&M Environment and the
completion of all associated commercial aspects.
By analysing the work streams and functions responsible for
closing out either the Asset Transfer or Commercial aspects a
number of metrics were identified that could be quantified
and tracked to completion. A tracking tool was created with a
dashboard front end for monitoring close-out progress for
each Grouping in the following major categories:-
 Asset Transfer
 Safety Assurance
 Operational
 Financial / Contract Completion
Completion of Close-out for all categories was set for the
expected end of contractual liability (e.g. end of the defect
liability or the warranty period). Responsibilities for the
close-out of each sub-category were assigned and progress
monitored at monthly intervals. A RAG indication was used
to highlight deviations from the expected rate of clearance so
as to provide a simple but effective way to signal to senior
management the areas that required further investigation and
attention.
Figure 11: A dashboard showing the progress towards close-
out of relevant functional areas of the project.
7 Lessons for the Future Extensions
Metrolink continues to expand with a second city crossing,
which will significantly increase capacity across the network,
and a line through the rejuvenated Trafford Park area. This
continuing development, combined with the opportunities
presented by the need to enter a new arrangement for O&M
services when the current franchise expires in 2017,
encourages TfGM to continue to learn lessons from the past
and to keep abreast of the latest industry practices and
technologies.
The success of the Go-live Process depended on being able to
identify key activities for the transfer from project to O&M
and bring them further forward in the programme. During
successive iterations of the process it became apparent that an
area for improvement was the transfer of information about
the installed assets. Reviewing and assessing the information
for quality and content was an onerous task carried out
typically during and after the point of handover. In the future,
contractual arrangements should be structured so that delivery
of as-built information takes place continuously throughout
the project and is aligned with stage payments. To achieve
this definition of the Configuration of the System needs to be
readily translated into the Configuration Management
Systems of the O&M parties who would also need to provide
a clear set of requirements for asset information which would
need to be cascaded throughout the supply chain [6]. The
improvements in this area do not need to be developed from
scratch as the specifications for Building Information
Modelling (BIM) provide just the kind of structured
framework needed for the management of asset information
through a project lifecycle. It is proposed that future projects
adopt BIM principles which would make the transfer of
information much more efficient whilst also reducing
redundancy in the information provided and improve its
accuracy [7].
The increasing use of digital technology in design, project
control, communication and asset management is helping
make the delivery and maintenance of new infrastructure
systems more effective and efficient. BIM has matured into
an industry standard [8] and systems can be captured,
visualised, modelled, rendered, refined and recorded
throughout their life from concept to decommissioning.
Assets can now be said to have a digital life as well as a
physical one and it is a digital legacy the delivery project
provides for the Asset Managers of the future.
References
[1] INCOSE, “Guide for the Application of Systems
Engineering in Large Infrastructure Projects” INCOSE-
TP-2010-007-01 version 3.0 (2012).
[2] Knott, A., “Applying Configuration Management
Principles on a Large Scale Operational Railway
Infrastructure, Railway Engineering Conference (2004).
[3] INCOSE UK, “Applying Systems Engineering to In-
Service Systems – Supplementary Guidance to the
INCOSE SE Handbook”, ls-tr-005, Issue 1.0 (2010).
[4] INCOSE, “Systems Engineering Handbook – A Guide
for System Life Cycle Processes and Activities”,
INCOSE-TP-2003-002-03.2.2 (2011).
[5] Knott A. & Stubbs M. Q., “Innovative Systems
Engineering Practices that help manage the
Organisational and Technical Complexity of a Modern
Railway Project”, International Conference on Railway
Engineering (ICRE2008), Hong Kong, (2008).
[6] Ross Dentten, “Enabling Quality Asset Information to
support the Crossrail Smart Railway”, Asset
Information and Data Management for Smart Rail
(2014)
[7] HM Government, “Building Information Modelling”,
URN 12/1327 (2010)
[8] Institute of Asset Management, “An Anatomy of Asset
Management”, Issue 1.1 (2012).