Track & trackside Box 2
Stage 1: Simulation (track section level)
Vehicles
Damage mechanisms
Stage 2: Statistical model (track section level)
Log (Actual maintenance cost)
= a + b Log D1 + c Log D2 + d Log D3
Track D1: Settlement
Activities: tamping or grinding
D3: RCF D2: Wear
We now know something about the damage done by different vehicles and the relative cost of those damage mechanisms
between actual costs (maintenance and or renewal) for actual track sections on a network (in our case the Swedish network) and damage. Estimates of the relative cost of different damage mechanisms can be estimated from the parameters in this second stage regression (the b, c and d parameters in Box 2), which in turn allows us to estimate the relative cost of different vehicles. The approach is being operationalised using actual data for
track sections in Sweden collected from Trafikverket. We have collected data for approximately 100 track sections and for the most common 6-8 vehicles. An important aspect of the approach is to get reasonably large number of model runs at simulation stage in order to enable a robust statistical model to be estimated in the second stage. The above approach is unique and combines engineering
and statistical approaches in a way that addresses some of the weaknesses of the two approaches when implemented separately. As well as giving us estimates of the marginal cost of different vehicle types (and on different track types) it also provides important and useful information on the relative costs of the different damage mechanisms. This research is a first step to prove
the usefulness of the concept and if successful we would hope to develop it further and apply it to data from other countries. Preliminary results are expected by mid-2014.
Access charges Alongside the above approach, as part of SUSTRAIL, we are undertaking further work on the level and composition of access charges. This includes other statistical work to establish, directly, the extent to which costs vary with incremental traffic. This work complements the work detailed in this article as it focuses on the level of incremental costs rather than the disaggregation into different vehicle types. Both research streams are important as, alongside incentivising the use of track-friendly vehicles through access charge differentiation, it is important to establish the overall ‘average’ level of charges which is consistent with the cost incurred by the infrastructure manager, to prevent discrimination against operators. We are also undertaking work to establish the response of operators, vehicle manufacturers and intermediates (e.g. leasing companies) to incentives from access charge regimes which currently have a degree of differentiation (e.g. Britain and Austria). It is important to understand whether there are barriers in the industry which prevent the desired response to any such incentives, namely the move to the use of rolling stock which minimises whole system cost. More details about this work are available on the SUSTRAIL
website or please contact Andrew Smith for queries about the combined economic/engineering approach or Phill Wheat for queries about the wider work in SUSTRAIL.
•
Dr Andrew Smith is senior lecturer in Transport Regulation and Economics at the Institute for Transport Studies (ITS) and Leeds University Business School; Phillip Wheat is a senior research fellow at ITS; Professor Simon Iwnicki is Director of the Institute of Railway Research at the University of Huddersfield; Kristofer Odolinski is a research assistant at VTI, Sweden
Dynamic rail weighing solutions for total weight management.
As pioneers in dynamic weighing of rail vehicles, we now have the largest number of in-motion weighing systems in operation worldwide.
Our specialist team develops solutions for all rail users, from train manufacturers and raw material producers to end users and infrastructure developers.
You’ll find our systems in action in almost every industry connected to rail networks.
T: +44 (0) 845 246 6714 E:
sales@railweight.co.uk www.averyweigh-tronix.com
Process Efficiency Fully Automated Fast / Slow Speed February 2014 Page 81
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100 |
Page 101 |
Page 102 |
Page 103 |
Page 104 |
Page 105 |
Page 106 |
Page 107 |
Page 108 |
Page 109 |
Page 110 |
Page 111 |
Page 112 |
Page 113 |
Page 114 |
Page 115 |
Page 116 |
Page 117 |
Page 118 |
Page 119 |
Page 120 |
Page 121 |
Page 122 |
Page 123 |
Page 124 |
Page 125 |
Page 126 |
Page 127 |
Page 128 |
Page 129 |
Page 130 |
Page 131 |
Page 132 |
Page 133 |
Page 134 |
Page 135 |
Page 136 |
Page 137 |
Page 138 |
Page 139 |
Page 140 |
Page 141 |
Page 142 |
Page 143 |
Page 144 |
Page 145 |
Page 146 |
Page 147 |
Page 148 |
Page 149 |
Page 150 |
Page 151 |
Page 152 |
Page 153 |
Page 154 |
Page 155 |
Page 156 |
Page 157 |
Page 158 |
Page 159 |
Page 160 |
Page 161 |
Page 162 |
Page 163 |
Page 164