© Copyright 2014 Asset Management Consulting Limited. All rights reserved.

Introducing Network Rail (High Speed)

Network Rail High Speed (NR [HS]) is the infrastructure manager for the UK High Speed 1 Route and is responsible for maintaining and operating the railway infrastructure and three stations between St Pancras and the Channel Tunnel - on behalf of High Speed 1 (HS1), the infrastructure owner.

The HS1 railway infrastructure links London to continental Europe via the UK end of the Channel Tunnel and Dollands Moor Freight Yard at Cheriton. Section 1 was completed in 2002 and comprises a 69km stretch of track from the Channel Tunnel to Fawkham Junction in north Kent where a connection exits onto the classic railway route into Waterloo Station. Section 2, completed in 2007, consists of a 39km stretch of track from South�eet Junction in north Kent to the HS1 terminating station at St Pancras International.

The problem facing Network Rail (HS)

In October 2013 NR (HS) were required to submit to their stakeholders their plan and funding requirements for the next �ve year control period (2015 -2020). To secure the funding that the NR (HS) needed, they needed to provide a robust justi�cation behind the future plans and demonstrate that the assets were being managed in an optimal and sustainable way.

NR (HS) needed to develop a Whole Life Cost Model (WLC) for the asset base. This model would allow them to simulate their current Asset Management regimes over a 40-year timeframe and test di�erent regimes to determine whether or not the current plans were optimal. By doing this the most appropriate, and therefore selected regimes would be backed up by robust analysis.

How we helped

The key output of the project and the WLC model was the 40 year Asset Management plan forecasting the capital renewal volumes and associated costs. This therefore

Whole Life Cost Modellingwith Network Rail (High Speed)

enables stakeholders to set aside su�cient funds. The WLC model enabled us to analyse multiple maintenance and inspection regimes, taking into account the risk and cost, and provided justi�cation for the chosen regime based on the optimum WLC pro�le. The output of the model also enabled us to optimise the renewal strategy, taking into account not only the manufactures design life but also maintenance costs and risks associated as shown in Figure 1, Figure 2 and Figure 3 (below).

To secure the funding that the NR (HS) needed, they

needed to provide a robust justi�cation behind the

future plans and demonstrate that the

assets were being managed in an optimal

and sustainable way.

Version 1.0 (Feb-2014)

Introducing Network Rail (High Speed)

Network Rail High Speed (NR [HS]) is the infrastructure manager for the UK High Speed 1 Route and is responsible for maintaining and operating the railway infrastructure and three stations between St Pancras and the Channel Tunnel - on behalf of High Speed 1 (HS1), the infrastructure owner.

The HS1 railway infrastructure links London to continental Europe via the UK end of the Channel Tunnel and Dollands Moor Freight Yard at Cheriton. Section 1 was completed in 2002 and comprises a 69km stretch of track from the Channel Tunnel to Fawkham Junction in north Kent where a connection exits onto the classic railway route into Waterloo Station. Section 2, completed in 2007, consists of a 39km stretch of track from South�eet Junction in north Kent to the HS1 terminating station at St Pancras International.

The problem facing Network Rail (HS)

In October 2013 NR (HS) were required to submit to their stakeholders their plan and funding requirements for the next �ve year control period (2015 -2020). To secure the funding that the NR (HS) needed, they needed to provide a robust justi�cation behind the future plans and demonstrate that the assets were being managed in an optimal and sustainable way.

NR (HS) needed to develop a Whole Life Cost Model (WLC) for the asset base. This model would allow them to simulate their current Asset Management regimes over a 40-year timeframe and test di�erent regimes to determine whether or not the current plans were optimal. By doing this the most appropriate, and therefore selected regimes would be backed up by robust analysis.

How we helped

The key output of the project and the WLC model was the 40 year Asset Management plan forecasting the capital renewal volumes and associated costs. This therefore

enables stakeholders to set aside su�cient funds. The WLC model enabled us to analyse multiple maintenance and inspection regimes, taking into account the risk and cost, and provided justi�cation for the chosen regime based on the optimum WLC pro�le. The output of the model also enabled us to optimise the renewal strategy, taking into account not only the manufactures design life but also maintenance costs and risks associated as shown in Figure 1, Figure 2 and Figure 3 (below).

© Copyright 2014 Asset Management Consulting Limited. All rights reserved.

Figure 1: Control System Renewal Options Comparison

Figure 2: POE HPSS Renewal Regime Options Comparison

Figure 1shows the cost and risk pro�le of the control system with frequent (high cost low risk) or infrequent (low cost high risk & life extension) maintenance and renewal activities for comparison. This output enabled NR (HS) to choose optimum maintenance and renewal intervals and justify their fund request.

Figure 2gives a clear illustration on how the WLC pro�le can vary under di�erent renewal strategies. The baseline renewal strategy is based on manufacturer’s recommendation of 25 years, while the optimum renewal interval, after taking risks and maintenance costs into account, is considered to be 19 years instead - with a cost saving of £500K.

Capex

Signalling

POE Baseline

Signalling

POE 12yr Renewal

Signalling

POE 15yr Renewal

Signalling

POE 18yr Renewal

Signalling

POE 19yr Renewal

Signalling

POE 20yr Renewal

Planned Maintenance

Reactive Maintenance

Service Risk

Safety Risk

Key

Capex

Control System

Baseline ASP

Control System

High Cost/Low Risk

ASP

Control System

LowCost/High Risk

ASP

Control System

Life Extension

ASP

Control System

Best Operation

ASP

Planned Maintenance

Reactive Maintenance

Service Risk

Safety Risk

Key

In conclusionThe model and the outputs enabled the engineers in NR (HS) to either demonstrate their current maintenance strategy to be optimal, or justify their decision of changing maintenance and renewal intervals for optimising the balance between costs and risks in long term. In addition, the engineers are able to look at the broader Asset Management picture when they are making decisions or changing regimes on their infrastructure. The model will also be used by engineers for future analysis to test whether or not the changes to working practices / technologies deliver the outputs for the optimum whole life cost, before implementation.

© Copyright 2014 Asset Management Consulting Limited. All rights reserved.

Registered in the UK,Number: 03318715

For more information visit www.amcl.com

Figure 3presents how the WLC model enabled us to demonstrate a cost saving of £10M over 40 years by optimising the renewal strategy of the contact wire.

Figure 3: OCS Contact Wire Renewal Regime Options Comparison

Capex

Planned Maintenance

Reactive Maintenance

Service Risk

Safety Risk

Key

OCS

Original

£90,000,000

£80,000,000

£70,000,000

£60,000,000

£50,000,000

£40,000,000

£30,000,000

£20,000,000

£10,000,000

0OCS

Baseline