Framework for Monitoring and Assessing Performance Quality of Railway Network Infrastructure: Hellenic Railways Case Study
Publication: Journal of Infrastructure Systems
Volume 20, Issue 4
Abstract
In accordance with European Policy, management, maintenance, upgrading, and repair of existing infrastructures play a very important role in their optimal use. Availability and access to information regarding the track-support structure, switches, crossings, and rails may efficiently lead to timely identification of the needs for maintenance and/or renewal. In the context of the previously mentioned considerations, a monitoring and assessing performance-quality (MAP-Q) framework has been developed for railway infrastructure, which aims to provide the railway operators and managers with global and complete knowledge on the condition of infrastructure and enable the maintenance process in the most effective way to achieve a three-fold objective, as follows: (1) increase performance of the component or te network overall, (2) achieve a coherent and consistent network with a harmonized level of performance, and (3) prevent deterioration in the short-term or long-term as a result of its usage. The framework is structured in six criteria, as follows: (1) performance/speed, (2) safety, (3) comfort, (4) maintenance cost, (5) operability/reliability, and (6) overall condition, and allocates to them 54 primary and 112 basic indicators, associated to the track, structure, and equipment. The methodology for quality assessment of the railway infrastructure was implemented on the railway network of Greece (Hellenic Railways). Analysis of the results showed that (1) the central division network has the highest performance indices in almost all criteria, and (2) the southern division network is inferior to those of central and northern Greece in speed/performance, comfort, maintenance cost, and general condition, owing to the older age of the three elements that compose the infrastructure (i.e., track, structures, and equipment). Such a comparison provides useful information towards harmonized upgrading and development of the network, minimizing the disadvantages of remote regions, and assuring the interoperability of the network throughout the area under analysis. If adjusted to the specific requirements and priorities of a railway authority, the framework can be merged to the decision-support mechanism, which is responsible for the maintenance of a high-quality-performance network.
Get full access to this article
View all available purchase options and get full access to this article.
Acknowledgments
Part of the methodology and results presented in this paper have been developed within the context of the study Management and Maintenance of the Integrated Quality Control System of the Hellenic Railways, assigned by Hellenic Railways to the Hellenic Institute of Transport, Center for Research and Development.
References
Alias, J. (1997). La voie feree, Eurolles Editions, Paris (in French).
American Railway Engineering and Maintenance-of-Way Association (AREMA). (2008). Practical guide to railway engineering, Lanham, MD.
Dodge, Y. (2003). The Oxford dictionary of statistical terms, Oxford University Press, London.
Esveld, C. (1989). Modern railway track, MRT-Productions, Duisburg, Germany.
Europa. (2014). 〈http://www.era.europa.eu/Document-Register/Documents/Level_crossing_safety_EU_2012.pdf〉 (Jan. 8, 2014).
European Commission. (2009). “A sustainable future for transport: Towards an integrated, technology-led and user-friendly system.”, Brussels, Belgium.
European Commission. (2012). EU transport in figures: Statistical pocket book 2012, Brussels, Belgium.
European Railway and Infrastructure Companies (CER). (2008). “Rail transport and environment–Facts and figures.” Rep. Prepared for the International Union of Railways, Paris.
Eurostat. (2014). 〈http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/cache/ITY_OFFPUB/CH_10_2012/EN/CH_10_2012-EN.PDF〉 (Jan. 8, 2014).
Gerike, R., and Belter, T., (2010). “Evaluating measures for improving accessibility of public transport systems for people with reduced mobility.” Proc., World Conference on Transport Research Society, Lisbon, Portugal.
Goodall, R. M., and Roberts, C. (2006). “Concepts and techniques for railway condition monitoring.” Proc., Int. Conf. on Railway Condition Monitoring, IEEE, New York, 90–95.
Hellenic Institute of Transport (HIT). (2005). “Management and maintenance of the integrated quality control system of the Hellenic Railways.”, Vol. 1, Thessaloniki, Greece.
Improverail. (2003). “Benchmarking exercise in railway infrastructure management.” Rep. Prepared for the European Commission, Brussels, Belgium.
International Union of Railways (UIC). (1989). Classification des voies des lignes au point de vue de la maintenance de la voie, Paris (in French).
International Union of Railways (UIC). (2008). “European railway traffic management system (ERTMS) benchmark study.” Final Project Rep., Paris.
International Union of Railways (UIC). (2014). 〈www.uic.org〉 (Jan. 8, 2014).
Klotzinger, E. (1995). “High tech maintenance of switches and crossing–Experience gained on Austrian federal railways.” Rail Eng. Int., 24(3), 10–13.
Linstone, A. H, and Turoff, M. (2002). The Delphi method: Techniques and applications, Addison-Wesley, Boston.
Maoh, H., and Kanaroglou, P. (2009). “A tool for evaluating urban sustainability via integrated transportation and land use simulation.” Urban Environ., 3(1), 28–46.
Retiveau, R. (1987). La signalization ferroviaire, Ecole des Ponts ParisTech, Paris (in French).
Rivier, R. E. (1984). Gestion de la maintenance des voies de circulation, Ecole des Ponts ParisTech, Paris (in French).
Roberts, C., Dassanayake, H. P. B., Lehrasab, N., and Goodman, C. J. (2002). “Distributed quantitative and qualitative fault diagnosis: Railway junction case study.” Control Eng. Pract., 10(4), 419–429.
Roden, A. (2005). “Monitoring system gives early warning of problems.” Int. Railway J., 45(9), 28–32.
Saaty, T. L. (1995). “Transport planning with multiple criteria: The analytic hierarchy process applications and progress review.” J. Adv. Transp., 29(1), 81–126.
Schreyer, C., Schneider, C., Maibach, M., Rothengatter, W., Doll, C., and Schmedding, D. (2004). “External costs of transport.” Rep. Prepared for Infras, Zurich, Switzerland.
Selig, E. T., and Waters, J. (1998). Track geotechnology and substructure management, Thomas Telford Publishers, London.
Transportation Research and Innovation Portal. (2014). “Progress in maintenance and management of rail infrastructure.” 〈http://www.transport-research.info/Upload/Documents/200602/20060203_172953_24946_Promain_Innovations_3.pdf〉 (Jan. 8, 2014).
University of Birmingham. (2007).“Detailed framework for information and data collection.”, European Commission, Brussels, Belgium.
Wang, W. (2000). “A model to determine the optimal critical level and the monitoring in condition based maintenance.” Int. J. Prod. Res., 38(6), 1425–1436.
Zietman, J., Rilett, L. R., and Kim, S. (2006). “Transportation corridor decision-making with multiattribute utility theory.” Int. J. Manage. Decis. Making, 7(2–3), 254–266.
Information & Authors
Information
Published In
Journal of Infrastructure Systems
Volume 20 • Issue 4 • December 2014
Copyright
© 2014 American Society of Civil Engineers.
History
Received: Apr 10, 2012
Accepted: Nov 5, 2013
Published online: Feb 25, 2014
Discussion open until: Jul 25, 2014
Published in print: Dec 1, 2014
Authors
Metrics & Citations
Metrics
Citations
Download citation
If you have the appropriate software installed, you can download article citation data to the citation manager of your choice. Simply select your manager software from the list below and click Download.