Can We Measure Our Way Out Of Trouble?

The Truth Behind Condition Monitoring

S L Groom, CEng MIMechE* †

*Alstom Transport, Wolverhampton, UK, simon.groom@alstom.com
†University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK, slg014@bham.ac.uk

Keywords: Condition Monitoring; Railway; Alstom

Outside of the railway, research has shown that a very broad
Abstract range of industries have adopted condition monitoring within
their operating context (as shown in Figure 2) [3], and they
Condition monitoring is widely accepted across the rail have encompassed a wide variety of the tools and techniques
industry in many different guises and varying degrees of which condition monitoring entails. Surveys have shown a
success. So do we really make the best of Condition largely positive impact; but have not always been good value
Monitoring, from basic rudimentary measurements through to for money. Indeed the return of investment has not always
more advanced state of the art? This paper aims to break been met.
down the barriers of condition monitoring, delving into
research both inside and outside the rail industry and proposes
concepts on how we can adopt a best practice approach going ŽŶĚŝƚŝŽŶDŽŶŝƚŽƌŝŶŐŝŶ/ŶĚƵƐƚƌLJ
forward.
DĂŶƵĨĐƚƌͲWĞƚƌŽĐŚĞŵŝĐĂůZĞĨŝŶŝŶŐ
KƚŚĞƌ
1 Introduction KŝůĂŶĚ'ĂƐ
hƚŝůŝƚŝĞƐͲůĞĐƚƌŝĐ
DĂŶƵĨĐƚƌͲKƚŚĞƌ
DĂŶƵĨĐƚƌͲDĞƚĂůƉƌŽĚƵĐƚƐ
tŽŽĚĂŶĚƉĂƉĞƌƉƌŽĚƵĐƚƐ
“If you can't explain it to a six year old, you don't DŝŶŝŶŐͲDĞƚĂůŽƌĞ
understand it yourself.” ^ĞƌǀŝĐĞƐͲDĂŝŶƚĞŶĂŶĐĞͬZĞƉĂŝƌƐ
ʊ Albert Einstein ^ĞƌǀŝĐĞƐͲKƚŚĞƌ
^ĞƌǀŝĐĞƐͲƵƐŝŶĞƐƐͬŽŶƐƵůƚ
DĂŶƵĨĐƚƌͲ&ŽŽĚ͕ĚƌŝŶŬ͕ƚŽďĂĐĐŽ
DĂŶƵĨĐƚƌͲDĂĐŚŝŶĞƌLJĂŶĚĞƋƵŝƉŵĞŶƚ
^ĞƌǀŝĐĞƐͲĚƵĐĂƚŝŽŶͬĐĂĚĞŵŝĂ
Maybe Einstein’s quote sets the tone for this paper, in the way ^ĞƌǀŝĐĞƐͲdƌĂŶƐƉŽƌƚ
hƚŝůŝƚŝĞƐͲtĂƚĞƌ͕ƐĞǁĞƌĂŐĞ͕ĚƌĂŝŶĂŐĞ
we should think about the application of this subject.
Ϭй ϱй ϭϬй ϭϱй ϮϬй Ϯϱй ϯϬй
Condition monitoring is perhaps a more recent terminology,
but the principle is nothing new. In the UK railway, as far
Figure 2: Industries using condition monitoring.
back as 1939, Sir Nigel Gresley's three cylinder designs were
known to be prone to over-heating problems on the middle
How can we have the paradox of condition monitoring being
big-end bearing; so D49’s were fitted with a 'stink bomb'
a positive way forward without paying for itself? Likewise
warning device on the inside of the crank axle to warn of any
there are (albeit a small minority it appears) of instances
overheating [1,2]. Smelly it may have been (later replaced
where the use of this methodology has not been positive.
with aniseed), but it proved a point of how simple and
effective condition monitoring can be.
How do we get to this situation? Are we implementing these
methods in the wrong way?

Like most deployments, you face the normal challenges such

as cost, organisational issues, resistance to change, and fear
[4]; so what may seem like a good idea turns into an
expensive lesson. An exercise which senior management
wouldn’t want to repeat!

For example K. Rajaram, R.Jaikumar [5], commented that

productivity can diminish if newly acquired technologies are
deployed without a thorough understanding of their potential
benefits.
Figure 1: Sir Nigel Gresley’s D49 Locomotive.

1
This is something of vital importance when considering the
roll out of any new condition monitoring process. How can
we expect it to be successful if we cannot convince our own
organisation?
If you type in the phrase “condition monitoring” into a search
engine, you will find many references; in fact you will find
many thousands ( as shown in Figure 3) [6]; which shows the
number of papers published in roughly each decade since
1966, and has basically doubled in each of these periods,
totalling now nearly 22,000 references.
ŽŶĚŝƚŝŽŶDŽŶŝƚŽƌŝŶŐZĞĨĞƌĞŶĐĞƐ
ϭϲϬϬϬ
ϭϰϬϬϬ
ϭϮϬϬϬ
ϭϬϬϬϬ
ϴϬϬϬ
ϲϬϬϬ
ϰϬϬϬ
ϮϬϬϬ
Ϭ Clearly lessons have been learnt from these instances, indeed
Figure 3: Nearly 50 years of condition monitoring literature.
So we are not short of literature in order to establish how
different companies (blue chip or otherwise), academic
institutions and other bodies have developed this scope of
work into a working process both from a financial and
organisational perspective.
In fact we are not short of literature full stop. There are
millions of examples of the different facets that link into
condition monitoring such as people management, asset
management, human factors, technology deployment, just to
name a few. From tried and tested techniques to the latest
ways of thinking.
For example Amazon [7], store their goods ready for dispatch
in a completely random order called “chaotic storage”, in
order to reduce the risk of human error. This has an added
benefit that there is no need to plan for extra areas for new
ranges of products.
In emergency rooms in the United States [8], they have
developed ways of working, in order to prioritise patients’
needs more effectively. We can learn much from these simple
examples.
If we now turn to a railway perspective, we face a number of
more recent challenges, which heavily influence the use of
2
condition monitoring, such as running costs, complexity and
safety.
For example “Realising the Potential of GB Rail” [9],
suggests that the total system costs are higher than our
continental partners, so asks the question, can we reduce the
running costs of the railway by 30%?
We also have a fragmented railway system, with barriers
between different entities, such as infrastructure, operators,
rolling stock leasing companies and contractors; information
on asset condition plays a key part in keeping the railway
operating safely.
The Hatfield train crash in 2000 [10] and the derailment at
Chancery Lane station on the London Underground in 2003
[11], underlines the importance of reliable measurement
techniques and demonstrates examples where they have failed
to give us the assurances we need in order to run a safer
railway.
How can this happen, when we have discussed already the
huge mountain of research available?
reliability in the railway has increased significantly since
Hatfield in 2000, and is now comparable to the airline
industry [9]. So again, we can incorporate these lessons into a
final model.
From the author’s own experience, deployment of high
precision tools such as brake disc profilers, require a
perceived degree of care and consideration, and traditionally
have been left to the more “capable” engineers, with minimal
roll out into the wider maintenance community.
In addition there has been poor integration into bespoke
company IT systems. Have we missed an opportunity to trust
our own people more and perhaps put more effort into data
integration at the beginning of a deployment, mindful that
longer term this will reap rewards?
Already we have seen a significant rise in the use of smart
devices; today 51% of adults now own a smart phone, double
what it was two years before [12] and 91% of the population
are now connected to broadband; so why can’t we have faith
in their ability to use smart tools? And how can this be
exploited within the railway environment?
So we have an opportunity. Given the challenges discussed,
the innovations and research available, the changing demands
of the railway system and the operational opportunities of the
author to test and put into practice any hypothesis developed:
• What are the key factors that make a successful condition
monitoring regime?
• Is it possible to improve the implementation of condition
monitoring?
2 What is Condition Monitoring?
2.1 Defining Condition Monitoring
It is difficult to answer this question, because it is currently
used as a catch all phrase for a number of practices, including
data capture, preventive maintenance, predictive maintenance,
reliability management, to name a few.
It is understandable then, given the lack of clear definition
that suppliers choose to interpret this term in a way which is
most appealing to consumers. So given a variety of
components on the market, we end up with a huge range of
possible definitions.
For example S. Dunn [13] considers condition monitoring to
be “the use of advance technologies in order to determine
equipment condition” such as vibration, oil analysis and
ultrasonic, but discounts other techniques such as human
senses, even if only for the paper that was produced.
However P.A. Higgs et al [3], identifies a wide array of
differing techniques, including the human senses and other
more simplistic techniques.
So perhaps this is an opportunity to go back to first principles.
Oxford English Dictionary [14]:
• Condition: A particular mode of being of a person or
thing; state of being
• Monitor: To observe, supervise, or keep under review; to
keep under observation; to measure or test at intervals,
esp. for the purpose of regulation or control.
So in effect condition monitoring is the systematic collection
of data over a period of time, in order to determine the most
appropriate action.
2.2 How Can We Use Condition Monitoring?
Once we have the data, we need to think about how it is used,
and one might argue that there are an almost exhaustive range
of options, some of which are covered over the next few
pages.
It is helpful to consider the more typical methodologies, such
as diagnostics and prognostics. K.S. Jardine [15] and S.A.
Tesdal et al [16] provide a helpful explanation of these terms.
Diagnostics addresses fault detection, isolation and
identification when it occurs.
So fault detection indicates if something is worsening in the
monitored system; fault isolation is a process used to locate
the component that is faulty, and fault identification is a task
used to determine the nature of the fault when it is detected.
3
A typical example could be line side acoustic monitoring of
axle bearings; which determines if the noise characteristics
exceed normal levels; then locates the position using for
example an axle counter; then finally determines the nature of
the fault based on the noise characteristics, to determine if it
is a bearing, raceway or other failure.
Prognostics aim to determine whether a fault is impending
and estimates how soon and how likely it is that a fault will
occur, therefore allowing us to predict remaining useful life.
So this could be the combination of the diagnostics, such as
line-side acoustic monitoring; but also having the facility to
determine when a bearing is likely to fail or in reality likely to
activate the line-side bearing temperature monitoring system.
3 Can We Create a Best Practice Structure?
Once we have defined the principles of condition monitoring,
and try to picture how this works in the field, we can start to
think about how we could define a logical implementation
structure in order to link key principles in each area.
Again K.S. Jardine [15] and S.A. Tesdal et al [16], provide a
good starting point in order to define such a model for a
successful condition monitoring regime.
1. Data acquisition step (information collecting): to obtain
data relevant to system health.
2. Data processing step (information handling): to handle
and analyse the data or signals collected in step 1 to
better understand and interpret the data.
3. Maintenance decision-making step (decision-making): to
recommend efficient maintenance policies.
If we link this with findings from P.A. Higgs et al [3], we
could conceptualise the following frame-work:
WƌŽƉŽƐĞĚŽŶĚŝƚŝŽŶDŽŶŝƚŽƌŝŶŐ&ƌĂŵĞǁŽƌŬ
/ĚĞŶƚŝĨLJ
EĞĞĚ
tŚĂƚdŽŽůƐ ĂĐŚƐƚĂŐĞŵƵƐƚ
ůĞĂƌŶĨƌŽŵƌĞƚƵƌŶŽĨ
ĞdžƉĞƌŝĞŶĐĞĂŶĚĨĞĞĚ
ĞƉůŽLJ ďĂĐŬƵƉƚŚĞĐŚĂŝŶ͘
dŽŽůƐĂŶĚ
WƌŽĐĞƐƐĞƐ
ĂƚĂ
ƋƵŝƐŝƚŝŽŶ
ĂƚĂ
WƌŽĐĞƐƐŝŶŐ
ĞĐŝƐŝŽŶ
DĂŬŝŶŐ
Figure 4: Condition monitoring framework concept.
3.1 Identify Need • Deploy into an organisation with ease.
• Strong decision making process.
Once we are clear on the definitions and basic concepts of
• Integrates easily with IT systems.
condition monitoring, we need to understand how we identify
a specific need for this process. It may well be possible that • Links in with other systems.
the need has already been identified and only the next step
needs to be progressed. Scottish Power [9] defined tried and tested or off the shelf as
one of their key attributes when selecting condition
However we have already discussed previously the pressure monitoring for improving their asset management.
to ensure value for money, whether applying a state of the art
technique or a simple measurement. However this may not always be possible; especially when
either the tool is so unique and so expensive that few
Further work will be defined in this area, but as a starting companies have used it.
point we can understand what motivations have been for other
industries in this area. P.A. Higgs et al [3] define typical So the technologies or methods that we choose, may have
drivers for such an approach: different patterns of diffusion (see Figure 4) [18], in that
depending on the product, people may be more willing and
• Predictive maintenance (85%) ready to adopt a new product. Who were brave enough to buy
the first smart phones or tablets? How quickly did these
• By intervening early to prevent a failure (95%)
succeed compared to say the first motor car?
• Cost saving (83%)
• Competitive advantage (70%)
• Quality incentives
• Production improvements
• Safety

These areas may be short term or long term goals, and may
overlap, as experiences or even technology changes, a short
term aspiration may become a more permanent requirement.

Typical processes for identifying a condition monitoring need

include Reliability Centred Maintenance (RCM). J. Moubray
[17] describes RCM 2, which contains a process where within
the operating context certain failure modes may benefit from
the use of condition monitoring tools.
3.2 What Tools and Techniques
It is important to stress, that we are implementing a system,
not just the tools and techniques and this goes hand in hand
with considering what should be developed.
What good is a tool if it is difficult to use, unreliable with
poor customer support? From the authors own experience,
these have been painful lessons, and choosing the “best” most
advanced tool or process may in fact not be the better option.
So we need to think about what meets the needs of the
requirement, taking account of some key considerations:
Figure 4: Patterns of diffusion.
So if you are an early adopter as in the example of the authors
experience of brake disc profile measuring equipment in the
UK, then you find yourself with more effort in delivering a
new system than a tried and tested method.
A way to help determine the effort required when launching a
new tool are Technology Readiness Levels (TRLs). Sauser
[19] notes their use within the US Department of Defense
(DoD) as a metric in assessing the risks associated with a
developing or acquired technology for a system solution (see
Figure 5). So provided that it is understood that these
assessments can be subjective, they can be a useful tool.

• Tried and tested.

• Resilient.
• Able to give a degree of accuracy that meets the
required needs (refer to case study).
• Easy to use.
• Delivers value for money.
• Acceptance by users.
• Able to measure what is required. Figure 5: Technology readiness levels, US Dept. of Defence.

4
So ideally we do want a tool or process which is readily
available and tried and tested, so even if for example the tool
is somewhere between TRL 8 and 9, it is important to take
advantage of suppliers contacts through other customers as
they may have a methodology which can be harnessed in the
deployment phase of the project.
3.3 Deployment of Tools and Processes
For a system to be successful in execution, we need to
manage expectations and ensure it is implemented correctly.
We certainly don’t want to launch condition monitoring for
the sake of it and which nobody uses or takes advantage of.

When we start to think of tools that we could deploy it is Habaibeh et al. [20] discuss that there are differences between
helpful to think about what is available to us. P.A. Higgs et al implementation from company to company; these can be a
[3] identified the following key techniques used in industry: result of cost or complexity of the technology involved.

Brandon [21] has detailed the types of challenges that are

dLJƉĞƐŽĨŽŶĚŝƚŝŽŶDŽŶŝƚŽƌŝŶŐĞƉůŽLJĞĚ likely to be experienced and overcome in order to roll out a
successful condition monitoring regime. We can frame these
challenges with some minor changes into the following
categories:
sŝďƌĂƚŝŽŶŶĂůLJƐŝƐ
KŝůŶĂůLJƐŝƐ
/ŶĨƌĂͲƌĞĚdŚĞƌŵŽŐƌĂƉŚLJ • Problem definition.
,ƵŵĂŶ^ĞŶƐĞƐ ™ Understanding the problem you are encountering.
DŽƚŽƌƵƌƌĞŶƚŶĂůLJƐŝƐ
LJĞWĞŶĞƚƌĂŶƚdžĂŵŝŶĂƚŝŽŶ
™ Ensure the boundaries are as wide as possible.
hůƚƌĂƐŽŶŝĐdŚŝĐŬŶĞƐƐdĞƐƚŝŶŐ • People
hůƚƌĂƐŽŶŝĐƌĂĐŬĞƚĞĐƚŝŽŶ ™ The right capabilities and behaviours, such as
DĂŐŶĞƚŝĐWĂƌƚŝĐůĞ/ŶƐƉĞĐƚŝŽŶ
ĐŽƵƐƚŝĐŵŝƐƐŝŽŶŶĂůLJƐŝƐ initiative and intelligence.
KƚŚĞƌ ™ Empowerment.
™ Resistance to new technologies.
Ϭ ϱ ϭϬ ϭϱ ϮϬ Ϯϱ ϯϬ
• Perceived threats.
™ Existing skills.
Figure 6: Type of condition monitoring tools.
™ Workforce size.
However the railway industry provides a backdrop which may ™ Traditional supervisory structure.
be considered unique to other industries. Likewise McNulty ™ Mistrust of automated or advanced systems.
[9] has already highlighted the significant interfaces which • Organisational structure.
exist, whether between infrastructure, train operators or train • Technology deployment.
maintainers.
It is important to consider the ability of an organisation to
So perhaps we could frame condition monitoring tools in a manage a new process. From experience it is preferable to try
railway application in the following manner: and align with the existing business structure, but be mindful
KŶďŽĂƌĚ KĨĨďŽĂƌĚ that changes may be required once a system has been
ͻ dƌĂŝŶŝŶĐŝĚĞŶƚƌĞĐŽƌĚĞƌƐ ͻ dƌĂŝŶĚĂƚĂĂŶĂůLJƐŝƐ deployed.
ͻ dƌĂŝŶDĂŶĂŐĞŵĞŶƚ ƐLJƐƚĞŵƐ;ǀŝĂƌĞŵŽƚĞŽƌ
ͻ ^ĞůĨƉŽǁĞƌĞĚŽŶďŽĂƌĚ ĚŝƌĞĐƚƚƌĂŝŶĚŽǁŶůŽĂĚƐͿ
ǀŝďƌĂƚŝŽŶ
McNulty [9] highlights that the railway industry is slow to
adapt to major change and so it is important to recognise this
when setting about any change management.

,ĂŶĚŚĞůĚ
However maybe we can learn something from high reliability
>ŝŶĞ^ŝĚĞ
ͻ tŚĞĞůƉƌŽĨŝůĞ
organisations [22] where typically they operate in highly
ͻ tŚĞĞůŝŵƉĂĐƚĚĞƚĞĐƚŝŽŶ
ͻ ŝƐĐWƌŽĨŝůĞ
ͻ ĐŽƵƐƚŝĐ
complex and risky environments, but somehow avoid
ͻ sŝďƌĂƚŝŽŶ
ͻ WĂŶƚŽŐƌĂƉŚ catastrophe. For example the nuclear industry and air traffic
ͻ ĐŽƵƐƚŝĐ
control.

3.4 Data Acquisition

^ŝŵƉůĞDĞĂƐƵƌĞŵĞŶƚ KĨĨ>ŝŶĞDĞĂƐƵƌĞƐ Data capture can encompass either ends of the spectrum from
ͻ KŝůĚŝƉƐƚŝĐŬ ͻ KŝůĂŶĂůLJƐŝƐ state of the art systems to the human eye. However it is
ͻ ^ŝŐŚƚŐůĂƐƐ ͻ &ŽƵƌŝĞƌdƌĂŶƐĨŽƌŵ
ͻ ^ƚĞĞůZƵůĞ /ŶĨƌĂƌĞĚ
important to understand how critical the quality of the data is
when deploying a condition monitoring regime.
Figure 7: Types of railway condition monitoring tools.

5
Data acquisition is a method of collecting and storing meaningful and efficient formats which can be interpreted for
important data from physical parts. This type of information maintenance or reliability decisions. An example is defined in
can be categorised either as event data (what happened) or one of the case studies.
condition monitoring data (what is continuing to happen).
In Figure 8, we can see how Alstom has developed a way to
However from experience, the author believes that what may take basic brake pad measurements and devise a way of
be traditionally called event data, may in fact be used for presenting wear rates over time or mileage, in order to
condition monitoring. Examples could include oil level highlight greater or lesser wearing positions (shown in red or
checks and oil changes. yellow) compared to normal wear rates (shown in green);
which may prompt further investigation.
It is important to ensure the accuracy of the data collection in
order to provide a reliable form of analysis. Lean Sigma is
one of the tools which can be used to measure the
effectiveness. TBM Consulting [23] defines reproducibility as
the ability of a measurement system to reproduce the same
result between different appraisers.

An example Lean Sigma approach is defined in the case

study.

If we are to take advantage of any measurement data, it is

logical that this data should be captured electronically; either
through a company’s ERP or data management system, such Figure 8: Brake pad wear monitor on Alstom Class 175.
as SAP or standard spreadsheet database. In both cases the
principle is the same, the system needs to work. A holistic approach to data is described by D. Lane and E.
Migueláñez [26], who identified how condition monitoring
can help reduce the cost of maintenance of wind turbines,
3.5 Data Processing and Decision Making which can be between 25-30% of generating costs. By taking
various sources of data, from different contexts, it can be
The data processing step is a way of handling or managing possible to more correct identify system failures, and reduce
the data and turning it into meaningful information, which in the incidences of false alarms.
turn assists the decision making process.
This is further supported by F. Siladic and B. P. Rasuo [27]
Dekker [24], highlights that people will only use software who comment that the rising maintenance and operating
applications if they can easily communicate with them. It costs, have forced the aviation industry to develop new
seems from the essence of Dekker’s text that either we need maintenance concepts by utilising aircraft and engine
to be able to understand what we are doing with the system or diagnostics, but integrated with other sources of information
in fact interpret what the data is telling us. How many times such as oil data and operating conditions.
have we as individuals misunderstood what something is
telling us? This is even more profound in the age of text So if we take the example of a train system, which can
messages, emails and social networking. monitor oil levels and sensor reliability, this can be combined
with physical examination data (which can be trended),
Although the software packages are improving since Dekker together with defect data and oil quality into one single
made these comments, the principle is still the same, that no knowledge base.
matter how many training courses people undergo, if a system
Kŝů
is made too complex with too many steps, the infrequent use ^ƵƉǀƐŶ
of a system will diminish the success of its implementation. KŝůůĞǀĞů ĂůĂƌŵƐ
ĂůĂƌŵƐ ;dD^Ϳ KŝůůĞǀĞů
Intuitiveness is the name of the game. ;dD^Ϳ ƌĞƉŽƌƚ
^W
The sadly fatal crash of AF447 [25], demonstrates the
^W <ŶŽǁůĞĚŐĞ
importance of being able to interpret what data is telling us, ĞĨĞĐƚ ĂƐĞ;^WͿ Kŝů
and sometimes if we are not careful we can become ZĞƉŽƌƚ YƵĂůŝƚLJ
ƌĞƉŽƌƚ
overwhelmed with the amount being delivered to us. ;džƚͿ

ƵƐŝŶĞƐƐ
However, if we can harness the available information in a KďũĞĐƚƐ
meaningful way, then there are methodologies and tools out ZĞĐŽŵŶĚ
ĐƚŝŽŶ
there which can help us in this analysis process.
For example, tools such as SAP BusinessObjects, are able to
take data developed from MRP systems and turn it into Figure 9: Holistic approach to train gearbox monitoring.

6
4 Case Study - How precise do we need to be? This was an important aspect, as the data was being used to
identify gearboxes (or final drives) which had excessive
4.1 Background leaks.

When taking any measurement we need to ensure during the
data capture phase that we have a system that gives the
required accuracy and reproducibility needed.
One of the challenges of working in a tight, cramped and dark
environment, such as underneath a train, is the difficulty in
performing clear examinations of components where a visual
check or measurement is required. So taking references from
our surroundings can help us build a picture of what we are
seeing.
So the method applied involved three people and ten
gearboxes. They each had to record the oil level in each
gearbox three times. However, in order do this, each gearbox
was inspected in random order only once at a time, so in
effect they were measuring 30 gearboxes each in random
order.
This was not a popular exercise, because the train was nearly
a quarter of a kilometre long in a low inspection pit, so was
very tedious!

In the case of brake disc wear examination (see Figure 10),
we also rely on our experience of what we expect to see, not
only what we actually see (object knowledge). So inference is
required to, for example, link up surfaces, such as the ‘man on
the bench’ in the image (see Figure 10).
Finally the results were entered into a Lean Sigma software
package, and the corresponding results presented (Figure 12).
*DJH5XQ&KDUWRI0HDVXUHPHQWVE\3DUWV2SHUDWRUV
5HSRUWHGE\ 6*URRP
*DJHQDPH 2LO/HYHO&KHFNV 7ROHUDQFH 
'DWHRIVWXG\ WK-XQH 0LVF 

     2SHUDWRUV


 

0HDQ 
0HDVXUHPHQWV

    

0HDQ


Figure 10: Inferring what we see: benches and brake discs.
So by visually inspecting the brake disc profile and using the
rudimentary tools defined in the maintenance manual, i.e. a
steel rule, it can be assumed wrongly that the disc has failed
the inspection criteria. This is an example where more
accurate condition monitoring tools would have the benefit of
removing any ambiguity.
4.2 Testing Repeatability
So how can we define how repeatable a measurement is? One
way is to use one of the tools used in Lean Sigma for
reproducibility.
This approach was applied recently to oil monitoring on a UK
tilting train, where historically oil levels are checked using a
mechanical dipstick; but there were questions raised on the
ease of taking the measurements and the corresponding
accuracy.

2SHUDWRUV
3DQHOYDULDEOH3DUWV
Figure 12: Repeatability results – out of control!
In terms of repeatability, all results ideally should be on the
same straight line; however what this data demonstrates is
that the measurements are out of control.
So this identifies that we must make improvements to the
measurement tools and methods.
As a result a new dipstick design has been commissioned, and
is hoped that on repeating the same measurement exercise, we
do indeed have a more repeatable and hence more precise
measuring method.
5 Conclusion

If we return to the two questions presented at the end of the

introduction, the author believes it is clear that we can
improve the way we deliver condition monitoring and
certainly define a best practice structure.

There is some way to go before the final framework is

delivered, however from the references alone, we can
certainly learn some new skills and ways of thinking.
Figure 11: Oil level checks on a UK tilting train.

7
So we can summarise some key messages:
• Never underestimate the work required to implement a
condition monitoring system.
• Be clear on what your measurement requirements are.
• Consider the readiness levels of any tools that are
identified.
• Ensure your tools meet your accuracy requirements, use
best practice methods to validate this.
• Involve your key stakeholders including suppliers and
your organisation.
• Map out the process from gathering the data to decision
support, and ensure each area is robust, and tried and
tested.
• Ensure there is a feedback loop to refine the process.
It is hoped that when the body of work is completed, that this
can be published as a guiding light in developing condition
monitoring from a railway perspective. Certainly from the
work being developed on the authors own rolling stock area,
very significant improvements are being made, and indeed
help us to measure our way out of trouble.
Acknowledgements
I would like thanks Professor Clive Roberts and Professor
Felix Schmid from the University of Birmingham for their
support and patience in writing this paper; Heather Close for
her perfect proof reading skills which has helped to shape the
final outcome and for it to make sense; and finally Annmarie
for having the patience of a saint.
References
[1] R. Marsden, “The Gresley D49 4-4-0 Hunt/Shire Class”,
LNER Encyclopedia, pp. 22, (2014).
[2] O. Phellap, “LNER D49 246 'Morayshire' at Doncaster
Works”, (2006).
[3] P.A.Higgs, R.Parkin, M. Jackson, A. Al-Habaibeh, F.
Zorriassatine, J. Coy. “A Survey on Condition Monitoring
Systems in Industry”, Proceedings of: ESDA 2000:7th
Biennial ASME Conference Engineering Systems Design and
Analysis, Volume 3, pp. 163-178, (2004).
[4] J.A.Brandon, “Automated diagnostic systems: the human
dimension”, 15th Congress on Condition Monitoring and
Diagnostic Engineering Management, pp. 561-564, (2002)
[5] K. Rajaram, “An interactive decision support system for
on-line process control”, European Journal of Operational
Research, Volume 138, pp. 554–568, (2002).
[6] University of Birmingham library resources, (2014).
[7] D. Smith, “Inside an Amazon Warehouse”, Slashdot.org,
(2012).
[8] ù. Kırıúa, N. Yüzügüllüb, N. Ergünc, A. Çevikc, “A
knowledge-based scheduling system for Emergency
Departments”, Knowledge-Based Systems, Volume 23, pp.
890–900, (2010).
[9] R. McNulty, “Realising the Potential of GB Rail”,
Department for Transport/Office of Rail Regulation, pp. 8-
320, (2011).
[10] S. Caldwell, “Train Derailment at Hatfield: A Final
Report by the Independent Investigation Board”, Office of
Rail Regulation, pp. 60-63, (2006).
[11] Health and Safety Executive, “Chancery Lane derailment
- HSE final report”, (2006)
[12] Ofcom, “Communications Market Report UK 2013”, pp.
21, (2014).
[13] S. Dunn, “Condition Monitoring in the 21st Century”,
The Plant Resource Centre, (2002)
[14] “Oxford English Dictionary - Online Edition”, Oxford
University Press, (2014)
[15] K.S. Jardine, D. Lin, D.Banjevic, “A review on
machinery diagnostics and prognostics implementing
condition-based maintenance”, Mechanical Systems and
Signal Processing, Volume 20, pp. 1483–1510, (2006).
[16] S.A. Tesdal, P.D. Tomlingson, “Equipment management
breakthrough maintenance for the 21st Century”, Proceedings
of the First International Conference on Information
Technologies in the Minerals Industry, pp. 29-45, (1998).
[17] J. Moubray, “RCM II”, (2000).
[18] S. Wardley, “Patterns of Diffusion Graph”,
blog.gardeviance.org, (2014)
[19] B. J. Sauser, J.E. RamirezǦMarquez, D. Henry, D.
Dimarzio, “A System Maturity Index for the Systems
Engineering Life Cycle”, International Journal of Industrial
and Systems Engineering, Vol. 3, 673 – 691, (2008).
[20] A. Al-Habaibeh, D. R. Whitby, R. M. Parkin, M. R.
Jackson, “The development of an internet-based mechatronic
system for remote diagnostic of machinery using embedded
sensors”, Proceedings ICOM03, International Conference on
Mechatronics , pp. 297-302, (2003).
[21] J.A.Brandon, “Automated diagnostic systems: the human
dimension”, 15th Congress on Condition Monitoring and
Diagnostic Engineering Management , (2002).
[22] “High Reliability Organization”, Wikipedia, (2014).
[23] TBM Consulting Group, “Sigma Kaizen Green Belt
Certification”, (2012).
[24] R. Dekker, “On the use of operations research models for
maintenance decision making”, Microelectronics Reliability,
Volume 35, pp. 1321–1331, (1995).
[25] “Final Report into A330-203 F-GZP Air France AF-447
Rio De Janiero to Paris”, Bureau d’Enquêtes et d’Analyses,
(2012).
[26] D. Lane, E. Migueláñez, “Predictive diagnosis for
offshore wind turbines using holistic condition monitoring”,
Oceans 2010, pp.1-7, (2010).
[27] M. F. Siladic, B. P. Rasu, “On-Condition Maintenance
for Nonmodular Jet Engines: An Experience”, Journal of
Engineering for Gas Turbines and Power, Volume 131,
(2009).