This current situation analysis describes the current situation on the Uppsala - Umeå section. The report presents an overview of the current situation and developments in recent years, the compiled result is largely based on data provided by the Swedish Transport Administration and information obtained through interviews and conversations with various actors represented on the track.
The 64-mile stretch includes 10 straps and a variety of different parties, three different passenger transport contractors, three maintenance areas as well as several
The 640 km route includes 10 track sections and a variety of stakeholders, three different passenger traffic buyers, three maintenance areas and several different traffic operators and maintenance companies.
All actors who participated in interviews agree that the project objectives in ePilot correspond to the goals they want to achieve. They also agree that there is scope for improvements on the maintenance side and that these improvements are needed if these project objectives are to be achieved.
Stakeholders call for greater collaboration, better communication and feedback and improved flow of information, i.e. the right information in a timely manner to the right party. Several of those who participated in interviews mention that documentation is substandard and in some cases completely missed, it is felt that things have deteriorated over the years.
Faced with analysis of hard data on track, train, malfunctions, etc. the collection of data has been perceived as both complicated and difficult. Most of the information or input analysed in the report has been delivered by Trafikverket in the form of Excel files collected from each system. Several different systems are being used that require skills to obtain reliable information, combined with the fact that the order has been made during the summer when many analysts have gone on holiday has resulted in waiting times and difficulties in controlling reliability of data.
Another major problem is that one is generally very restrictive with what information you share, this applies to both Trafikverket and the other stakeholders on the route. This problem can be attributed to the current competitive release, the profit-making operators on the route would probably not like to share their shortcomings and weaknesses, nor the development of maintenance technologies that can benefit competitors.
The problems varies between different section parts. The long railway line has limited the possibilities for deeper analysis of the uncovered problems on each section, and it is very difficult to say what problems should be prioritised without further examination. The total additional delay on the route is largely caused by isolated events (ERTMS, switches, contact lines and accidents), and that the total is reflected by errors caused by infrastructure and accidents.
Most operational disruptions to the infrastructure are caused by switches and crossings (turnouts.YPoints?), where the fault disappeared, level crossings road railway, interlocking, signals, positioning systems and tracks. On Tthe facilities infrastructure causing the most repair time are track quality, train controle e systems, interlocking, and signals. Response time is an average of 10 hours and includes time for reparing of derailments. The cancellation time is contract-driven and varies between 2 to 4 hours (according to interview response).
The total number of errors that occurred annually reflects the repair and setup times and varies between years, for example, it can be assumed that there were more serious/major errors in 2012 than it did in the other years. In terms of the number, switches are recurring, by far the biggest problem area.
The Mean time to repair (MTTR) and Mean down time (MDT), are averaging 14 hours and have a relatively even distribution over the years, except that both MTTR and MDT dropped markedly until 2013 and have since gone up about 3 hours.
For maintenance of both vehicles and infrastructure, it is stated that the proportion of corrective maintenance can sometimes be up to 50 % of total maintenance. There is great potential to improve maintenance through collaboration, but in order to achieve this, communication and ensuring an open dialogue must be improved, and small steps and set concrete goals.
The final chapter describes a concrete example of how the type of current situation analysis presented by this report can be used to reduce the number of operational ly impacted deviations in order to increase the reliability of a technical system. The ERTMS project has developed a process to assess, evaluate and improve reliability during product development. Data from the operational follow-up are analysed and the categories of errors most in need of improvement are selected. The approach of ERTMS projects provides concrete examples of how operational monitoring through analysis of operational data can help to improve a system's reliability, with good results.
Project partners: Trafikverket, Luleå University of Technology, Omicold
Project leader: Ulla Juntti
The work is carried out by the summer workers Andreas Vallon and Anton Ljunggren, who are in the second year of the College of Engineering at Luleå University of Technology.