Available online at www.sciencedirect.

com
Available online at www.sciencedirect.com
ScienceDirect
ScienceDirect
Transportation
Available Research
online Procedia 00 (2019) 000–000
at www.sciencedirect.com
Transportation Research Procedia 00 (2019) 000–000 www.elsevier.com/locate/procedia

ScienceDirect www.elsevier.com/locate/procedia

Transportation Research Procedia 40 (2019) 808–814

www.elsevier.com/locate/procedia

13th International Scientific Conference on Sustainable, Modern and Safe Transport

13th International 2019),
(TRANSCOM Scientific
HighConference on Sustainable,
Tatras, Novy Smokovec –Modern and Safe
Grand Hotel Transport
Bellevue,
(TRANSCOM 2019),Slovak High Tatras, Novy
Republic, Smokovec
May – Grand Hotel Bellevue,
29-31, 2019
Slovak Republic, May 29-31, 2019
Reliability analysis of metro vehicles operating in Poland
Reliability analysis of metro vehicles operating in Poland
Rafał Melnik*, Seweryn Koziak, Bogdan Sowiński, Andrzej Chudzikiewicz
Rafał Melnik*, Seweryn Koziak, Bogdan Sowiński, Andrzej Chudzikiewicz
Warsaw University of Technology, Faculty of Transport, Koszykowa 75, 00-662 Warsaw, Poland
Warsaw University of Technology, Faculty of Transport, Koszykowa 75, 00-662 Warsaw, Poland

Abstract
Abstract
Reliability of the metro vehicles is a key factor for providing of regular, safe and undisturbed passenger transport in the urban
Reliability of theThe
agglomerations. metro vehicles
research is a key
contains factoranalyses
failure for providing
of the of
tworegular, safemetro
types of and undisturbed
vehicles, andpassenger transport
comparison in reliability
of their the urban
agglomerations.
functions. Data on The researchofcontains
damages the metro failure analyseshave
rail vehicles of the two
been types ofin metro
obtained vehicles,
the form and comparison
of complaint protocols.ofHaving
their reliability
extracted
the damages
functions. from
Data the same of
on damages protocols
the metrotherail
next step was
vehicles havetobeen
allocate in thein established
obtained the form ofgroups. Theprotocols.
complaint two subgroups
Havinghave been
extracted
the damages
created: from the
mechanical andsame protocols
electrical the next step was to allocate in the established groups. The two subgroups have been
failures.
created:
The mechanical
results andhave
of analysis electrical
shownfailures.
that the rolling stock of two types is subject to a significant number of damages in the initial
phase of exploitation.
The results of analysisAmong vehicles
have shown thatof
thethe same stock
rolling type there
of twoare differences
types is subjectin to
number of damages
a significant of one
number kind (mechanical
of damages or
in the initial
phase of exploitation.
electrical) Among
and considered vehicles
damage group.of the same type there are differences in number of damages of one kind (mechanical or
electrical) and considered damage group.
© 2019 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V.
© 2019 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V.
© 2019 The Authors.
Peer-review Published byof
under responsibility Elsevier B.V. committee of the 13th International Scientific Conference on Sustainable,
the scientific
Peer-review under responsibility of the scientific committee of the 13th International Scientific Conference on Sustainable,
Peer-review
Modern under responsibility of
Modern and Safe Transport (TRANSCOM2019).
and Safe Transport (TRANSCOM the scientific
2019).committee of the 13th International Scientific Conference on Sustainable,
Modern and Safe Transport (TRANSCOM 2019).
Keywords: reliability, rail vehicles, metro
Keywords: reliability, rail vehicles, metro

1. Introduction
1. Introduction
Metro Warszawskie Sp. z o.o., hereinafter referred to as the Operator, is a municipal corporation managing and
Metro Warszawskie
providing Sp. z o.o.,
passenger transport hereinafter
services referred
by the urban to as the Operator,
underground is ainmunicipal
rail system Warsaw, corporation
Poland. Themanaging and
metro system
providingconsists
currently passenger transport
of one line inservices by the urban
the north-south underground
direction – M1 andrail
thesystem
centralinsection
Warsaw, Poland.
of the The
second linemetro
– M2system
(east-
currently
west). consists
Total of of
length oneM1
lineline
in the north-south
is 22 km and current – M1 of
directionlength andM2theline
central
– 6section of the second
km. Ultimately, the line – M2
urban (east-
study of
west). Total length of M1 line is 22 km and current length of M2 line – 6 km. Ultimately, the urban study of

* Corresponding author. Tel.: +48-22-234-7706.

* E-mail address:author.
Corresponding rme@wt.pw.edu.pl
Tel.: +48-22-234-7706.
E-mail address: rme@wt.pw.edu.pl
2352-1465 © 2018 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V.
Peer-review©under
2352-1465 responsibility
2018 The of the scientific
Authors. Published committee
by Elsevier B.V. of the 13th International Scientific Conference on Sustainable, Moder n and
Safe Transport
Peer-review (TRANSCOM
under 2019).
responsibility of the scientific committee of the 13th International Scientific Conference on Sustainable, Moder n and
Safe Transport (TRANSCOM 2019).

2352-1465  2019 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V.

Peer-review under responsibility of the scientific committee of the 13th International Scientific Conference on Sustainable, Modern and
Safe Transport (TRANSCOM 2019).
10.1016/j.trpro.2019.07.114
 Rafał Melnik et al. / Transportation Research Procedia 40 (2019) 808–814 809
2 Melnik et al. / Transportation Research Procedia 00 (2019) 000–000

conditions and directions of spatial development provides the implementation of three lines. Warsaw Metro operates
three types of trains:

• Series 81 (referred as T1)

• Alstom Metropolis (referred as T2)
• Siemens Inspiro (referred as T3)

T1, T2 and T3 trains are carrying passengers on the M1 line, and only T3 units on the M2 line. Currently all T1,
T2 and T3 vehicles are operating in a six-wagon configuration. T1 trains have been operating since the opening of
the M1 line in 1995. The first T2 trains were put into operation in the second half of 2000, while the last T2 units
were put into operation in 2005. T3 vehicles were succesively delivered in 2013 – 2015. Quantity of Warsaw metro
train units and their average annual mileage are depiceted in Table.1.

Table 1. Quantity and mileage of Warsaw metro train units.

Train Quantity Mean annual mileage
T1 22 44 800 km
T2 18 96 800 km
T3 35 51 500 km

Metropolitan railway plays a crucial role in the transport system of the Poland’s capital. It should be highlighted
that it is the only metro system in Poland. Its successful operation depends highly on reliability and availability of
the vehicles. The statistical analysis of vehicle’s reliability should be performed frequently in order to:

• Establish correct maintenance plans

• Keep sufficient quantity of spare parts
• Managing number of vehicles in operation to meet passenger demands – Conradie (2015)

Such the analyses were performed for rail vehicles by e.g. Spiroiu (2015), Szkoda and Kaczor (2016).
Particularly metro vehicles were an object of analysis by Cheng et al. (2013), Qin et al. (2014) and Yin et al. (2017).
Restel’s (2013) research work is focused on infrastructure impact on railway transportation system reliability.
Explanation of reliablity and availability definitions, and their relations were given by Milutinović and Lučanin
(2005). An example of reliability analysis of different municipal transport means – buses – was carried out by
Rymarz et al. (2013). Melnik and Koziak (2017) described running gear fault detection method for the rail vehicles’
monitoring system in order to plan earlier services in case of damages and increase vehicles’ availability.
Preconditions and methodology development for another diagnostic system of a rolling stock is discussed by Gerlici
et al. (2017).
The aim of the study was aforementioned reliability analysis basing on data received from the Operator.
The study is focused on T2 and T3 vehicles, since T1 type is an old design and will be replaced by new vehicle
types in future. Reliability analysis presented herein covers discussion of failures occurred for all T2 trains and
comparison of reliability functions within group of all T3 trains and between T2 and T3 units.

2. Maintenance of metro vehicles

The Operator provides a vehicle maintenance system, which includes maintenance levels resulting from Annex 3
to the Regulation of the Minister of Infrastructure of October 12, 2005. (Journal of Laws No. 212, item 1771), which
are provided in Table 2. The level of maintenance is a list of maintenance activities performed for a given vehicle
defined by the scope of this work. On the basis of Annex 3, the Operator has developed a detailed maintenance plan
for each type of vehicle due to different technological level. From the point of view of mileages, maintenance plans
of T2 and T3 vehicles are comparable, however theoretically T3 units should be the least frequently taken out of
operation for the inspections and repairs. The T1 maintenance plan provides two major repairs, G1 and G2, with G2
810 Rafał Melnik et al. / Transportation Research Procedia 40 (2019) 808–814
Melnik et al. / Transportation Research Procedia 00 (2019) 000–000 3

repaired after 24 years of operation or after covering 2 880 000 km. For T2 and T3 trains one type of major repair is
planned – G1. For trains T2 and T3, the time interval to majpr repair G1 is the same and is equal to 16 years.
Significant differences occur in the case of mileage for the major repair – for T3 vehicles it is 3 200 000 km.
For annual mileages of T3 vehicles (52 000 km), the main repair will be carried out after a specified time interval
instead. Comparison of maintenance plan of T2 and T3 units is presented in Table. 2.

Table 2. Comparison of maintenance plan of T2 and T3 units.

Symbol Type of inspection/repair T2 T3
PK Check 2 weeks 33 000 km
PO Periodic inspection 23.75 – 26.25 thous. km 100 000 km
PD Additional inspection 95 – 105 thous. km 200 000 km
R1 Repair 190 – 210 thous. km 400 000 km
R2 Repair 380 – 420 thous. km 800 000 km
R3 Repair 760 – 840 thous. km 1 600 000 km
G Major repair 1 600 000 km 3 200 000 km

Data referring to T2 trains’ failures was presented in the form of complaint forms covering the period from
16.10.2000 (protocol No. 1 for unit no. 16) to December 30, 2010 (report No. 2201 for unit no. 33). From this
period, a total of 2056 complaint protocols have been collected, excluding empty protocols with the assigned
number. The number of registered failures is greater than the number of complaint protocols, as one protocol
reported from several to a dozen or so failures. After specifying the failure from the same complaint protocols, 2483
failures were finally received, which were assigned to individual groups, proposed on the basis of the most common
failures which are presented in Table 3.

Table 3. List of failures groups.

No. Mechanical failures group No. Electrical failures group
1 Running gear 13 Power supply
2 Drive unit 14 Harness
3 Brake system – pneumatic 15 ECU
4 Brake system – other 16 Control
5 Body/Chassis 17 Electrodynamic brake
6 Pneumatic system 18 COMET (Diagnostic system)
7 Door 19 ATP (Automatic train protection)
8 Horn 20 Current collector
9 Body mirrors 21 Driver Vigilance Device
10 Windshield washer 22 HVAC
11 Wipers 23 Lighting
12 Other mechanical 24 Speaker/Audio
25 Other electrical

In the case of T3 vehicles, complaint protocols covered the period from 08.11.2013 to 08.05.2015. A total of
4210 complaint protocols were collected from this period. Analysis of the protocols led to extracting of total 9102
failures. Some of the T3 failures groups were common with T2, nonetheless other failures were different, thus the
extra groups were establish – 37 groups total for T3 trains.
 Rafał Melnik et al. / Transportation Research Procedia 40 (2019) 808–814 811
4 Melnik et al. / Transportation Research Procedia 00 (2019) 000–000

3. Example of failure analysis

The detailed analysis of the total number of failures of all T2 trains is presented in Figure 1, whereas the
numbers on abscissa correspond to the groups of failures (Table 3).

Fig. 1. Comparison of the mean reliability function of T2 and T3 vehicles.

Failure analysis allowed identifying the most frequent failures that were repeated for all T2 trains. Most
frequently, the doors failed (group 7). As can be seen from the consultation with the Operator's employee, most door
failures were caused by passengers who entered the vehicle after the sound signal of closing door. The number of
door failures is about three times higher (almost 27% of the total) than the second in the order of occurrence –
breakdowns of the electrodynamic braking system (group 17). The number of damages of the braking system
(without electrodynamic brake) in the analyzed period constitutes about 6% of failures (group 3 and 4 combined).
Failures of the running gear (group 1) in most cases constitute damage and wear of wheelsets, damage to the
pneumatic air springs of secondary suspension and grease leaks from the axlebox. They constitute approx. 5.8% of
the total number of failures. Damages of a wheelset, which include irregular wear or wheel-flats (Chudzikiewicz
et al. (2008), Dižo et al. (2017)), are particularly severe due to several reasons. First of all, they worsen running
safety and dynamic behavior of the vehicle leading at the same time to reducing comfort level (Droździel et al.
(2010)). Second of all, these damages have negative impact on track condition, causing significant deterioration of
rails. Another adverse effect is the propagation of vibrations to the buildings and city infrastructure – Korzeb and
Chudzikiewicz (2015).
A considerable part of the failures are damage to the chassis and body (group 5) – approx. 7%. This is largely
due to the presence of corrosion and problems with painting, as well as incorrect fixing of elements such as slats,
roof linings or glass panes. Failures from this group appear after several years of operation of the vehicles. However,
these are not usually failures that have a direct impact on running safety.
Failures of AOP constitute about 5% of total failures and appeared in almost every T2 unit. AOP failures usually
resulted in the inability to achieve speeds greater than 20-35 km/h.
Among the systems characterized by low failure frequency one should first of all indicate the drive unit (group
2) – only 5 failures were recorded for all T2 trains, two of which were oil leaks, the next two damages of the rubber
parts of the clutch, and the most serious one was the disconnection of the tooth wheel halves.
It should be noted that the most failures occurred in the first two-three years after being put into operation. In the
following years, the number of failures dropped rapidly, what may be an evidence of improving the reliable
components by the manufacturers. The failures occurring in 2010 are mainly damages to the body and chassis –
corrosion paint defects.
812 Rafał Melnik et al. / Transportation Research Procedia 40 (2019) 808–814
Melnik et al. / Transportation Research Procedia 00 (2019) 000–000 5

4. Reliability analysis

Reliability function determines probability of failure-free operation of the object at a given time or other
dimension (e.g. a traveled distance). Assuming that the object is new at time t = 0 and fails in time T, the reliability
function R(t) will take the form describe by e.g. Pham (2006):

𝑅𝑅(𝑡𝑡) = 𝑃𝑃(𝑇𝑇 > 𝑡𝑡) 𝑡𝑡 ≥ 0 (1)

R(t) is the probability P of not damaging an object in the interval (0, t). This function can be calculated as an
integral of probability density function of time to failure f(x), or equivalently can be related to cumulative
distribution function F(t) giving the probability that the failure has occurred in the interval (0, t):
∞
𝑅𝑅(𝑡𝑡) = ∫𝑡𝑡 𝑓𝑓(𝑥𝑥)𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑 = 1 − 𝐹𝐹(𝑡𝑡) (2)

In the presented analyzes, mileage of the vehicle was considered, not time of exploitation. Therefore,
the estimated reliability functions are expressed in the function of distance s, which better reflects passenger-
kilometers by vehicle.
Reliablity analysis results are presented for all T3 trains in Figure 2. The T3 vehicles taken for the comparison
achieved different mileages and failure rates, e.g. train no. 52 reached only 32 788 km with 223 breakdowns,
whereas unit no. 43 reached 151 570 km with 510 failures.

Fig. 2. Reliability functions for T3 vehicles.

 Rafał Melnik et al. / Transportation Research Procedia 40 (2019) 808–814 813
6 Melnik et al. / Transportation Research Procedia 00 (2019) 000–000

Reliability function allows comparing failure rates of individual vehicles. In addition, the failure rate of the
vehicle can be estimated relative to the average reliability function obtained from all vehicles of the same type.
The more R(s) function for a given vehicle is shifted to the right relative to the mean R(s), it can be considered as
more reliable unit. Based on the obtained reliability functions, it is possible to determine which vehicle is
characterized by a greater or lesser failure rate.
Assuming a quality criterion of reliability as a deviation the average reliability function, it can be stated that the
trains put into operation as the first ones (65÷75) are characterized by relatively low reliability to approximately
100 000 km of mileage.
The above comparison does not distinguish the significance of the individual failures, but only their number and
frequency of occurrence. Serious failures can include, for example, running gear damages, which occurred more
frequently for the first batch of T3 trains, although their reliability function R(s) is advantageous.
A comparison of the mean reliability function R(s), calculated on the basis of data relating to all of the T2 and T3
vehicles included in the analysis, is presented in Fig. 3.

Fig. 3. Comparison of the mean reliability function of T2 and T3 vehicles.

The comparison of the reliability function covers the initial period of operation which corresponds to a maximum
of the third maintenance level (in the case of T2). The result of the comparison is also influenced by the number of
vehicles – in the case of T3 trains, the number of vehicles included in the analysis was twice as large as the number
of T2 vehicles.

5. Conclusions

The purpose of the analysis was to evaluate failures and reliability of the T2 and T3 type of vehicles. These units
exploited by the Operator represent similar technological state.
The analysis showed that the T2 and T3 vehicles are subject to a significant number of failures in the initial
period of operation. In the case of T2 vehicles, after a period of about 3 years from the moment of putting into
operation, the number of failures decreased significantly. T3 trains had been operating too short (less than 2 years)
to observe a similar relationship.
Generally, failures of all types of vehicles can be classified as ‘electrical’ and ‘mechanical’. Among the vehicles
of the same type there are differences in the number of damages of a given type (electric or mechanical) and a given
group of damages. Noteworthy is the very small number of damage of a drive system in the analyzed period.
However, number of failures related to the braking system in T2 and T3 vehicles is significant. This is particularly
adverse since braking system affects safety. The most frequent breakdowns were the doors (both units), which is
also confirmed by the analysis of the average time between failures of a given group. On the basis of the analyzed
complaint protocols, it is difficult to conclude about the nature of door damage and its causes, however, in the
majority of cases, these failures occur as a result of improper behavior of passengers, which may indicate that door
are not adapted to operating conditions.
814 Rafał Melnik et al. / Transportation Research Procedia 40 (2019) 808–814
Melnik et al. / Transportation Research Procedia 00 (2019) 000–000 7

Analysis of reliability functions of T2 and T3 trains showed differences in the reliability of the same types of
trains. Comparing the average reliability function of T2 and T3 vehicles, it can be concluded that T2 units are more
reliable than T3. The result of the comparison may be influenced by a smaller number of T2 units included in the
analysis (twice smaller number than T3 trains).

Acknowledgements

The Authors would like to express gratitude to Metro Warszawskie Sp. z.o.o for providing data used in the study.

References

Conradie, P.D.F., Fourie, C.J., Vlok, P.J., Treurnicht, N.F., 2015. Quantifying System Reliability in Rail Transportation in an Ageing Fleet
Environment. South African Journal of Industrial Engineering 26.2, 128–142.
Cheng, X., Xing, Z., Qin, Y., Yuan, Z., Pang, S., Xia, J., 2013. Reliability Analysis of Metro Door System Based on FMECA. Journal of
Intelligent Learning Systems and Applications 5, 216–220.
Chudzikiewicz, A., Opala, M., Sowiński, B., 2008. Using Lookup Tables for a Railway Rail Profile Wear Calculation. In Zobry, I. (Ed.).
Proceedings of the 11th Mini Conference on Vehicle System Dynamics, Identification and Anomalies, 1–11.
Dižo, J., Blatnický, M., Steišūnas, S., 2017. Assessment of Negative Effects of a Coach Running with the Wheel-Flat on a Track by Means of
Simulation Computations. Diagnostyka 18.3, 31–37.
Droździel, J., Kardas-Cinal, E., Sowiński, B., 2010. Railway Vehicle Safety Assessment Affected by Wheel and Rail Wear. In Zobry, I. (Ed.).
Proceedings of the 12th Mini Conference on Vehicle System Dynamics, Identification and Anomalies, 81–89.
Gerlici, J., Nozhenko, O., Cherniak, G., Gorbunov, M., Domin, R., Lack, T., 2017. The Development of Diagnostics Methodological Principles
of the Railway Rolling Stock on the Basis of the Analysis of Dynamic Vibration Processes Of The Rail. MATEC Web of Conferences 157,
8 pages.
Korzeb, J., Chudzikiewicz, A., 2015. Evaluation of the vibration impacts in the transport infrastructure environment. Archive of Applied
Mechanics 85. 9–10, 1331–1342.
Melnik, R., Koziak, S., 2017. Rail Vehicle Suspension Condition Monitoring – Approach and Implementation. Journal of Vibroengineering 19.1,
487–501.
Milutinović, D., Lučanin, V., 2005. Relation between Reliability and Availability of Railway Vehicles. FME Transactions 33.3, 135–139.
Qin, Y., Zhang, Z., Shi, J., 2014. Reliability Analysis and Prediction of Metro Vehicles’ Bogie Frame. Applied Mechanics and Materials 590,
872–877.
Pham, H., 2006. System Reliability Concepts, in “System Software Reliability”. In: Pham, H. (Ed.). Springer-Verlag,London, pp. 440.
Restel, F.R., 2013. Impact of Infrastructure Type on Reliability of Railway Transportation System. Journal of KONBiN 25.1, 21–36.
Rymarz, J., Niewczas, A., Pieniak, D., 2013. Reliability Analysis of the Selected Brands of City Buses At Municipal Transport Company. Journal
of KONBiN 26.2, 111–122.
Spiroiu, M.A., 2015. Reliability Analysis of Railway Freight Wagon Wheelset. Applied Mechanics and Materials 809–810, 1097–1102.
Szkoda, M., Kaczor, G., 2016. Reliability and Availability Assessment of Diesel Locomotive Using Fault Tree Analysis. Archives of Transport
40.4, 65–75.
Yin, H., Wang, K., Qin, Y., Hua, Q., Jiang, Q., 2017. Reliability Analysis of Subway Vehicles Based on the Data of Operational Failures.
EURASIP Journal on Wireless Communications and Networking 212, 8 pages.