jurisdiction: US

text: b' Amtrak\nOffice of Inspector General\n\n EVALUATION REPORT E-09-05\n\nAmtrak\xe2\x80\x99s Infrastructure Maintenance Program\n\n September 29, 2009\n\n\n\n\nThis report will become available to the public on October 29, 2009.\n\x0c EXECUTIVE SUMMARY\n\nPURPOSE\n\n The purpose of this review was to evaluate the efficiency and effectiveness of\nAmtrak\xe2\x80\x99s Infrastructure Maintenance Program and to identify opportunities for improvement.\n\nMETHODOLOGY\n\n The efficiency and effectiveness of Amtrak\xe2\x80\x99s Infrastructure Maintenance Program was\nevaluated by utilizing a combination of qualitative and quantitative evaluation techniques.\nWe conducted a comprehensive set of interviews of Amtrak Engineering staff members to\ndetermine what, why and how Amtrak completes its infrastructure maintenance work. To\nmeasure the relative efficiency and effectiveness of Amtrak\xe2\x80\x99s Infrastructure Maintenance\nprogram, we benchmarked Amtrak\xe2\x80\x99s performance metrics to those of comparable European\nrailroads. To identify the \xe2\x80\x9cbest practices\xe2\x80\x9d in infrastructure maintenance, we visited six\nEuropean countries/infrastructure operators that were included in the benchmarking study\nand had unique expertise in specific areas of infrastructure maintenance and renewal.\n\nOVERALL CONCLUSIONS\n\n Amtrak maintains over $17 billion worth of infrastructure assets throughout its\nnational rail passenger system, with the majority of these assets being located in the\nnortheast region of the United States. Although a significant portion of its infrastructure\nassets are over aged, over the last several years Amtrak\xe2\x80\x99s Engineering Department has done\na commendable job of improving infrastructure reliability and reducing infrastructure\noperating expenses.\n\n In addition to these recent improvements, our benchmarking shows that Amtrak has\nan opportunity to further reduce its long-term infrastructure capital and operating\nmaintenance costs by $50 million to $150 million per year by improving the overall efficiency\nand effectiveness of its infrastructure maintenance program to the level of comparable\nEuropean railroads. It is recognized that many of the major cost drivers (e.g. age of\ninfrastructure, weight of trains, multi-year funding commitments, regulatory rules and\npolicies) impacting infrastructure maintenance are outside of Amtrak and/or the Amtrak\nEngineering Department\xe2\x80\x99s direct control. To capitalize on the opportunity to further reduce\nAmtrak\xe2\x80\x99s long-term infrastructure maintenance costs, the OIG has made 16\nrecommendations on the actions that Amtrak management should take to either influence\nthe cost drivers that are outside their direct control or implement positive changes in the cost\ndrivers that are within their direct control.\n\n\n\n\n i\n\x0cTABLE OF CONTENTS\n\nINTRODUCTION\n PURPOSE 1\n SCOPE/ METHODOLOGY 1\n SUMMARY 2\n\nAMTRAK INFRASTRUCTURE\n BACKGROUND 4\n CURRENT INVENTORY 4\n CAPITAL REINVESTMENT LEVELS 14\n STATE OF GOOD REPAIR 15\n INFRASTRUCTURE EXPENSES & OPERATING RELIABILITY 16\n SUMMARY 18\n\nINTERNATIONAL BENCHMARKING\n COMPARATORS 19\n PHYSICAL PLANT AND OPERATIONS 21\n ASSET AGE COMPARISON 23\n METHODOLOGY 26\n NORMALIZATION PROCESS 27\n RESULTS 29\n SUMMARY 33\n\nFINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS\n\n CAUSAL FACTORS IMPACTING EFFICIENCY & EFFECTIVENESS 34\n PROCESS 36\n LABOR 57\n TECHNOLOGY 63\n SUMMARY \xe2\x80\x93 RECOMMENDATIONS 76\n\nLIST OF APPENDICES\n\nI SUMMARY OF EUROPEAN BEST TECHNOLOGY PRACTICES 78\nII CONTRIBUTORS 79\n\n\n\n\n ii\n\x0c INTRODUCTION\n\nPURPOSE\n\n The purpose of this review was to evaluate the efficiency and effectiveness of\nAmtrak\xe2\x80\x99s Infrastructure Maintenance Program and to identify opportunities for improvement.\n\nSCOPE/METHODOLOGY\n\n This review evaluated the efficiency and effectiveness of the maintenance of Amtrak\xe2\x80\x99s\ninfrastructure assets, which can be categorized into their technical disciplines of Track,\nStructures, Electric Traction and Signal and Communications. Although Amtrak owns and\nmaintains infrastructure assets throughout the continental United States, the majority of\nAmtrak\xe2\x80\x99s infrastructure assets are located in the Northeast Corridor between Washington, DC\nand Boston, Massachusetts.\n\n The efficiency and effectiveness of Amtrak\xe2\x80\x99s Infrastructure Maintenance Program was\nevaluated by utilizing a combination of qualitative and quantitative evaluation techniques.\nWe conducted a comprehensive set of interviews of Amtrak Engineering staff members to\ndetermine what, why, and how Amtrak completes its infrastructure maintenance work. We\ninterviewed the Engineering staff members who had a direct influence on the decision\nmaking and the implementation of the Infrastructure Programs; including the Chief Engineer,\nthe Deputy Chief Engineers, the Division Engineers, the Senior Director of Clearances &\nInspections, the Senior Director of Planning & Budgeting, and others. The information\nobtained from the Engineering Staff interviews was subsequently used to develop a Systems\nDynamic Model that identifies the causal factors impacting both the efficiency and\neffectiveness of Amtrak\xe2\x80\x99s Infrastructure Maintenance Program.\n\n The relative efficiency and effectiveness of Amtrak\xe2\x80\x99s Program was determined by\nbenchmarking Amtrak\xe2\x80\x99s infrastructure maintenance performance metrics to those of\ncomparable European railroads. To obtain the required information for the European\nInfrastructure Programs, Amtrak enlisted the help of BSL Management Consultants, which\nhad been benchmarking the performance of European Infrastructure Programs for the past\n12 years. During these 12 years, BSL developed, with the cooperation and approval of the\nInternational Union of Railroads (UIC), a normalization process that produced meaningful\ncomparisons of railroad maintenance costs by taking into consideration the differences in the\nmajor cost drivers (e.g. labor cost levels, purchasing power, turnout density, etc.) of each\nrailroad. The data provided by this benchmarking analysis was used to help identify the\nspecific railroads that had the best infrastructure maintenance practices in Europe.\n\n\n\n\n 1\n\x0c Based upon the quantitative results of the benchmarking analysis and also the\nknowledge of BSL Management Consultants regarding European infrastructure maintenance\nprocedures and technology, we decided to visit the following six countries/infrastructure\noperators to identify their \xe2\x80\x9cbest practices\xe2\x80\x9d related to infrastructure maintenance. The team\n Operators/Countries Chosen for Benchmarking\n that visited the European\n infrastructure operators included\n \xe2\x80\xa2Network Rail, Great Britain \xe2\x80\xa2Banverket, Sweden Amtrak\xe2\x80\x99s Chief Engineer, the\n \xe2\x80\x93 Decreased unit cost by 24% in 3 years\n Deputy Chief Engineer of each\n \xe2\x80\x93 Cost-optimizing track possession policy\n \xe2\x80\x93 One of best cost performers\n \xe2\x80\x93 Bridge maintenance tools\n\n engineering discipline, the BSL\n \xe2\x80\x93 Advanced KPI agreements and asset \xe2\x80\x93 One leader in Europe for optimizing track\n management tools maintenance and extend track system\n \xe2\x80\xa2ProRail, The Netherlands lifetimes\n \xe2\x80\x93 Rich experience of contract\n management \xe2\x80\xa2DB AG, Germany infrastructure consultant, and two\n OIG evaluators. The results of\n \xe2\x80\x93 Advanced application of asset \xe2\x80\x93 One of the most efficient railroads\n management tools \xe2\x80\x93 20% cost improvement from a\n multi-annual funding agreement\n\n the benchmarking analysis and\n \xe2\x80\x93 Deployment of remote control\n components \xe2\x80\x93 Analytical HR-dimensioning tool\n \xe2\x80\x93 High density of bridges \xe2\x80\x93 Innovative multi-disciplinary teams\n (incl. movable bridges)\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2SSB, Switzerland\n \xe2\x80\xa2\xc3\x96BB, Austria the review of \xe2\x80\x9cbest practices\xe2\x80\x9d are\n \xe2\x80\x93 Top performer, highly cost\n efficient and quality focused\n incorporated into the findings and\n \xe2\x80\x93 Cost efficient reinvestment strategy\n for signaling\n\n\n recommendations of this\n \xe2\x80\x93 Good business-case based decision\n \xe2\x80\x93 Highest train punctuality\n making\n in Europe\n \xe2\x80\x93 Analytical cost accounting\n\n evaluation.\n \xe2\x80\x93 "Lean infrastructure approach"\n \xe2\x80\x93 Established\n KPI measure-\n ment system\n\n\n\n\nEVALUATION SUMMARY\n\n Amtrak maintains over $17 billion worth of infrastructure assets throughout its\nnational rail passenger system, with the majority of these assets being located in the\nnortheast region of the United States. Although a significant portion of its infrastructure\nassets are over aged, Amtrak\xe2\x80\x99s Engineering Department has done a commendable job of\nimproving infrastructure reliability and reducing infrastructure operating expenses. During\nthe FY \xe2\x80\x9902 to FY \xe2\x80\x9907 time period, the Engineering Department reduced its infrastructure\noperating expenses by 15% and its actions contributed towards a 60% reduction in\ninfrastructure-related train delays.\n\n Despite these recent reductions in infrastructure operating expenses, it is estimated\nthat Amtrak spends about $50 million more per year than the average European Railroad and\n$150 million more per year than the \xe2\x80\x9cbest\xe2\x80\x9d 1 European Railroads to maintain and renew\ninfrastructure assets comparable to Amtrak\xe2\x80\x99s Northeast Corridor 2 . There are numerous\nfactors that determine why Amtrak spends more on its infrastructure maintenance and these\ncan be categorized as either outside Amtrak\xe2\x80\x99s control or within Amtrak\xe2\x80\x99s control.\n\n\n\n1\n The expenditure level of the \xe2\x80\x9cbest\xe2\x80\x9d European Railroads is calculated based on the average of the railroads with\nexpenditure levels in the lower half of the sample.\n2\n The estimated $50 million to $150 million performance gap is based upon Amtrak\xe2\x80\x99s total operating and capital\nexpenditures related to the maintenance and renewal of NEC infrastructure assets.\n\n\n 2\n\x0c Some of the major factors that impact infrastructure maintenance and are outside\nAmtrak Engineering\xe2\x80\x99s direct control are:\n\n o Age Of Infrastructure \xe2\x80\x93 it is estimated that 30% of Amtrak\xe2\x80\x99s infrastructure assets are\n beyond their design service life, which is much worse than European Railroads, and,\n therefore, require higher frequencies of inspections and maintenance intervention.\n o Weight of trains \xe2\x80\x93 the average passenger train on the NEC is more than twice that of\n the average European passenger train and there is even a larger variance in the\n weight of freight trains operated over these infrastructures. The weight of rolling\n stock has a significant impact on infrastructure maintenance expenses since the\n heavier trains require heavier, more expensive infrastructure components to support\n them; the heavier components are more expensive to maintain; and the heavier trains\n cause more damage to the infrastructure.\n o Multi-Year Funding \xe2\x80\x93 Amtrak has not had the advantage of receiving multi-year capital\n funding commitments, which is a significant impediment to the planning and execution\n of an efficient and effective capital maintenance program.\n o FRA and Civil Regulations \xe2\x80\x93 Amtrak must operate within FRA and Civil regulations that,\n at times, negatively impact its ability to optimize the efficiency of its maintenance\n programs.\n\n Some of the major factors that impact infrastructure maintenance and are within\nAmtrak\xe2\x80\x99s control are:\n\n o Advanced Technology/Equipment \xe2\x80\x93 Amtrak could improve the efficiency and\n effectiveness of its infrastructure maintenance program by using the advanced\n technologies and equipment that are being used by the European Railroads. In some\n cases, the financial benefits that could be derived from the advanced technology\n depend upon the modification of FRA and/or Civil Regulations.\n o Asset Management Process \xe2\x80\x93 Amtrak could improve the efficiency and effectiveness\n of its maintenance programs by expanding the scope of its asset management process\n to provide the data and analytic capabilities required to optimize Amtrak\xe2\x80\x99s investment\n of capital and operating funds in the infrastructure assets in support of Amtrak\xe2\x80\x99s\n strategic operating goals.\n o Maintenance processes \xe2\x80\x93 Amtrak could improve the efficiency of its maintenance\n programs by expanding the use of Industrial Engineering techniques to optimize the\n use of labor, machinery, and available \xe2\x80\x9ctrack time.\xe2\x80\x9d\n\n We recommend that Amtrak pursue the actions summarized on pages 76 and 77 of\nthis evaluation, recognizing that the Engineering Department has already initiated some of\nthe recommended actions, that they are not totally in control of all factors, and that they\nmust enlist the support of outside agencies to accomplish several of these tasks. The rest of\nthis report describes Amtrak\xe2\x80\x99s infrastructure in more detail, explains the results of our\nbenchmarking with European railroads, and discusses our findings and recommendations\nintended to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of Amtrak\xe2\x80\x99s infrastructure maintenance.\n\n\n 3\n\x0c AMTRAK INFRASTRUCTURE\n\n\nBACKGROUND\n\n When Amtrak began operations on May 1, 1971, it owned no track or right-of-way and\nrelied upon the host railroads to provide all of the infrastructure and most of the manpower\nrequired to operate its trains. Over time, Amtrak began to acquire the infrastructure that it\nrequired (i.e. maintenance facilities, stations, some right-of-way, etc.) to operate the national\nrail passenger system. The vast majority of the right-of-way was acquired in 1976 when the\nRailroad Revitalization and Regulatory Reform Act transferred ownership of the Northeast\nCorridor (NEC) to Amtrak. In subsequent years, three additional short segments of non-\nNortheast Corridor route segments were acquired by Amtrak. It should be noted that:\n\n 1) the NEC uses existing rail lines that were built by four separate railroads as\n early as the 1830\xe2\x80\x99s and that significant portions of the infrastructure assets date\n back to the late 1800s and early 1900\xe2\x80\x99s,\n 2) similar to other assets acquired from the original passenger train operators, the\n right-of-ways had significant amounts of deferred maintenance.\n\n\nCURRENT INVENTORY\n\n Amtrak\xe2\x80\x99s infrastructure assets are located throughout the continental United States, but\nthe majority of them are located in the Northeast between Washington, DC and Boston,\nMassachusetts. Amtrak owns and maintains infrastructure assets (i.e. track systems,\ncommunication and signal systems, electric traction systems, stations, bridges & tunnels,\nmaintenance yards, maintenance of way bases, and mechanical facilities) along the following\nrail lines.\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Northeast Corridor:\n o Washington to New York\n o New Haven to Boston\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Northeast Corridor Feeder Lines\n o Philadelphia \xe2\x80\x93 Harrisburg\n o New Haven \xe2\x80\x93 Springfield\n o New York - Albany\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Michigan Line\n\nAdditionally, Amtrak owns and maintains station, yard, and mechanical facilities at the\nfollowing locations.\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Chicago\n \xe2\x80\xa2 New Orleans\n\n\n 4\n\x0c \xe2\x80\xa2 Florida Station\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Los Angeles\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Oakland Station\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Seattle Station\n\n During FY \xe2\x80\x9906, Amtrak\xe2\x80\x99s Engineering Department produced a State of Good Repair\n(SOGR) Document that grouped the company\xe2\x80\x99s infrastructure assets into four major\ncategories (i.e. Track, Communication and Signaling, Electric Traction, Structures) and six\ngeographical locations (i.e. NEC Mainline, Springfield Line, Harrisburg Line, Albany, Central,\nand West). This document provided a very comprehensive accounting of the infrastructure\nassets that Amtrak owns and an assessment of their state of good repair. An asset is\nconsidered to be in a State of Good Repair when that asset is being maintained and replaced\nwithin the design life of that component.\n\nTrack\n\n The State of Good Repair document provides insight into the wide range in types of\ninfrastructure assets, their condition, and their distribution throughout the country. As\nshown in the following summary table, track assets are distributed throughout the United\nStates, with the majority of them located within the NEC mainline.\n\n Summary - Track Assets by Location\n\n\n Asset\n Description Unit NEC Sp\xe2\x80\x99fld Albany Harris. Central West\n\nTracks miles 1,196 86 99 274 160 17\nTurnouts each 1,807 19 29 222 228 0\nTrack Fasteners sets 5,838,180 390,720 6,727 322,080 528,000 42,740\nWood Ties each 575,000 284,590 296,850 745,110 527,000 76,290\nConcrete Ties each 2,919,090 195,369 0 161,040 264,000 21,370\nInsulated Joints each 12,204 446 551 1,822 1,176 362\n\n\nIn addition to geographical dispersion, there is also a wide range in the condition of the\nassets at each of these locations that require the appropriate maintenance and renewal\nprograms. The rail, tie, and ballast conditions vary from that of the recently re-laid tracks\n\n\n\n\n 5\n\x0cwith concrete ties, new rail, and renewed ballast (picture on the left) to track that has worn\nrail, poor ties, and contaminated ballast (picture on the right).\n\n\n\n\nIn addition, the degraded rail and tie condition that exists at various locations throughout\nAmtrak\xe2\x80\x99s system creates poor track geometry, as illustrated in the following picture of a turn\nout in Washington Union Station, that causes poor ride quality and increased maintenance\nexpenses for both the track system and rolling stock.\n\n\n\n\n Note: This picture illustrates the\n poor alignment, gauge, cross\n level, and curvature of the\n station and crossover track.\n\n\n\n\nElectric Traction\n\n A review of Amtrak\xe2\x80\x99s Electric Traction assets reveals that, although Amtrak has electric\ntraction assets on only two lines, there is a wide range in the condition of these assets and\nthe size and complexity of the electric traction systems. The following table is a summary of\nthe types and locations of the major electric traction systems/components.\n\n\n\n\n 6\n\x0c Summary - Electric Traction Assets by Location\n\n Asset Description Unit NEC Sp\'fld Albany Harris. Central West\n\n Catenary System Miles 1,285 0 0 278 0 0\n Freq. Converters Systems 18 0 0 3 0 0\n Catenary Poles Each 25,543 0 0 6,046 0 0\n ET Transformers Each 123 0 0 23 0 0\n ET Breakers Each 895 0 0 132 0 0\n ET Switches Each 2,141 0 0 180 0 0\n 3rd Rail Feet 153,120 0 0 0 0 0\n\nBy far, the majority of the electric traction assets lie along the NEC mainline between\nWashington and New York and between New Haven and Boston. The complexity of the\nlisted assets ranges from the relatively simple catenary pole, shown in the following picture\non the left supporting a signal transformer, to a frequency converter station that includes\nmultiple electric systems as in the aerial picture on the right.\n\n\n\n\nSimilar to the situation with track, there is a large variance in the condition of the individual\nassets making up Amtrak\xe2\x80\x99s electric traction system. Overall, the electric traction system that\nexists between New Haven and Boston is in excellent condition since it was recently installed\nas part of the electrification project of Amtrak\xe2\x80\x99s mainline between New Haven and Boston.\nThe following picture on the left illustrates the essentially pristine condition of the constant\ntension catenary system that has been installed to support the high-speed rail service\nenabling the Acela to attain a maximum speed of 150 mph between New Haven and Boston.\n\n\n\n\n 7\n\x0cThe picture on the right illustrates the much older system on the south end of the mainline\nthat is a non-constant tension system with components that are beyond their design service\nlives and that have major levels of deterioration. Examples of this include the contact wires\nthat are far beyond their 30 year design service life and the severe deterioration that many\nof the catenary poles have experienced (see following pictures) on the south end of the\nrailroad.\n\n Tubular Catenary Deterioration Pole Foundation Erosion\n\n\n\n\nThe extremes in individual asset conditions can also be seen in the electric traction sub-\nstations where new single pole vacuum breakers sit beside 70 year old breakers (following\npicture on left) and 70 year old power transformers (following picture on right).\n\n\n\n\n 8\n\x0cCommunication & Signaling\n\n As detailed in the following chart, Amtrak has Communication & Signaling (C&S)\nassets located throughout its national system, with the majority of those assets located in the\nnortheast portion of the country.\n\n Summary - Communication & Signaling Assets by Location\n\n Asset Description Unit NEC Sp\xe2\x80\x99fld Albany Harris. Central West\n\nABS Miles 1,085 83 19 261 104 0\nPositive Train Control Miles 428 0 0 0 66 0\nInterlockings Each 119 11 3 18 31 0\nRadios Units 6,650 115 117 613 2,255 2,262\nSwitch Heaters Each 1,149 22 2 173 40 0\nCETC System Each 3 0 0 0 1 0\nCrossing System Each 11 36 0 3 97 0\n\nAs described in the following sections of this report, the state of good repair of the C&S\nassets are relatively good and the capital renewal costs low compared to that of the other\ninfrastructure asset categories. However, there are C&S assets that are either nearing or\nbeyond their useful service life. For example, the maintenance intensive, air operated switch\nmachines shown in the following picture (left) should be replaced by modern electric switch\nmachines that are more reliable and require less maintenance.\n\n Air Operated Switch Machine Electric Switch Machine\n\n\n\n\nOther C&S assets that are not in a state of good repair are illustrated by the following\npictures of a deteriorated signal case cable and an obsolete interlocking machine.\n\n\n\n\n 9\n\x0c Signal Case Interlocking Machine\n\n\n\n\nAmtrak also has three centralized electrification and traffic control (CETC) centers that have\nobsolete computer software systems that need to be replaced with modern server based\nsystems that are more economical to operate and that are easily backed up with a redundant\nsystem at a remote location.\n\nStructures\n\n The following table summarizes the major types of structures that Amtrak owns and\nwhere they are located. As it will be shown in the following sections of this evaluation, the\nexisting condition of facilities is a major issue for Amtrak because a major portion of these\nassets are not in a \xe2\x80\x9cState of Good Repair\xe2\x80\x9d and the cost to either rehabilitate or replace them\nwill run into the billions of dollars.\n\n Summary \xe2\x80\x93 Structures and Locations\n\n Asset\n Description Unit NEC Sp\'fld Albany Harris. Central West\n\nMoveable Bridge Each 10 0 1 0 2 0\nSignal Bridge Each 99 6 2 76 4 0\nBridge Ties Each 16,417 2,500 1,700 500 883 0\nUndergrade\nBridge Each 929 77 69 195 57 0\nCulvert Each 480 120 92 141 67 0\nFence Feet 778,000 35,000 45,000 62,000 40,000 0\nM/E Facility Sq. Ft. 1,258,000 0 124,000 0 1,244,000 414,000\nM/W Base Sq. Ft. 582,000 33,000 13,000 100,000 24,000 21,000\nStation Each 18 7 3 8 269 139\nTransp. Facilty Sq. Ft. 297,000 0 2,000 3,000 92,000 70,000\nTunnel Feet 95,973 0 1,584 750 0 0\nRetaining Wall Feet 74,000 2,700 0 4,000 0 0\n\n\n 10\n\x0c Moveable bridges is one of the asset categories that is a major challenge for the\nEngineering Department because they are critical to the operation of the railroad, the bridges\nare very old with significant deferred maintenance, and any rehabilitation or replacement\nprogram will disrupt the normal operation of the railroad. The bridges are critical to the\noperation of the railroad since they must open and close reliably up to 3,000 times per year\nto permit water traffic to pass and avoid delays or disruptions in service to both rail\npassenger traffic and water traffic. Eleven of the thirteen moveable bridges that Amtrak\nowns were built between 1901 and 1919 and none of them are in a state of good repair.\n As illustrated in the picture on the left of the\n Thames River Bridge in Groton, Connecticut,\n moveable bridges are very large, complicated\n structures with many critical structural, electrical,\n and mechanical systems.\n\n\n\n\n Since many of these structures are either next to or relatively close to salt water, they\nare exposed to conditions that accelerate the normal deterioration of\nsteel structures. The picture to the right illustrates the extent of the\ncorrosion that occurs to the stringers of bridges after they have been\nexposed to these conditions. When these conditions occur, a decision\nneeds to be made whether it is more economical to repair the\ncomponents of the structure (e.g. bridge stringers) or to replace the\nentire structure. In some cases, the replacement of the entire structure\nis warranted when there is extensive deterioration in the other major\ncomponents of the structure.\n\n\n\n\n Another asset category that is a major challenge to the Engineering Department is\ntunnels. Amtrak currently has eleven tunnels with a total length of almost 100,000 feet.\nThese tunnels were built in the 1871 to 1934 time period and have experienced problems\n\n\n 11\n\x0cwith waterproofing, drainage, structural integrity, and lighting. In addition, poor alignment\nof some tunnels prevents Amtrak\xe2\x80\x99s high-speed trains from operating anywhere near their\ndesign speed and consequently prevents the company from operating its premium service at\nits optimal train schedule. The following picture on the left illustrates the extensive\ndeterioration to the concrete lining of tunnels and the picture on the right the fouling of\ntracks caused by seepage of water into the tunnels. It should be noted that these conditions\n\n\n\n\ncreate mud spots, defects in track alignment and profile, and accelerates corrosion of critical\ntrack components.\n\n Amtrak owns a substantial amount of fixed facilities, such as passenger rail stations,\nmaintenance of equipment (M/E) facilities, and maintenance of way (M/W) facilities (see\nsquare footage statistics in table on page 10). Amtrak\xe2\x80\x99s major passenger rail stations include\nPenn Station New York, 30th Street Station Philadelphia, Baltimore Penn Station, Washington\nUnion Station, Boston Back Bay Station, Chicago Union Station, Los Angeles Union Station,\nSeattle King Street Station, and New Orleans Station. The capital reinvestment in these\nstations has not kept pace with the deterioration of many of the facilities\xe2\x80\x99 sub systems. The\nfollowing picture illustrates the type of deterioration that takes place to sub systems that are\ncritical to the support of the facility super-structure.\n\n Corroded Girder\n\n\n\n\n 12\n\x0c Amtrak also owns almost 182 miles of fencing and over 15 miles of retaining walls that\nare included in the inventory of structural assets. Although these are not high-profile assets,\nthe fences are essential to insure the safety of rail passenger operations and the retaining\nwalls are required to support the railroad fill sections. The following picture on the left\nillustrates a section of right of way fencing that is currently a potential hazard since, in its\ncurrent condition; it will not adequately deter trespassers from entering the right-of-way.\nThe following picture on the right illustrates the deterioration of a retaining wall that\ncompromises its ability to adequately support the adjacent right-of-way.\n\n\n\n\n Amtrak\xe2\x80\x99s Engineering Department, which issued a report in FY 2007 on the State of\nGood Repair (SOGR) of the Capital Replacement Cost\ncompany\xe2\x80\x99s infrastructure assets, Source:\n\nestimated that it would cost over $6,000\n Engineering 2007 SOGR Doc.\n\n\n$17 billion to replace Amtrak\xe2\x80\x99s\ncurrent infrastructure assets. As $5,000\n\n\nillustrated in the following bar $4,000\n\ngraph, the NEC main line has the\nhighest asset replacement cost (Millions) $3,000\n\n\nand its structures account for $2,000\n\nalmost 50% of that value.\nStructures include all bridges, $1,000\n\n\ntunnels, fencing, retaining walls, $0 Structures\n\nstations, rolling stock and right- Electric Traction\n NEC\n\n\n\n Springfield\n\n\n\n\n Communication & Signals\n Harrisburg\n\n\n\n\nof-way maintenance facilities,\n Albany\n\n\n\n\n Track\n Central\n\n\n\n\n West\n\n\n\n\noffices, and ancillary buildings.\nStructures account for such a\nlarge percentage of the total\nreplacement cost because of the high unit cost to replace the major infrastructure assets of\nmoveable bridges, major stations, and the Baltimore Tunnel. For example, the replacement\nof the movable bascule of the Thames River Bridge in Connecticut, which is a major but\npartial rehabilitation of this asset, cost $76 million to complete. Amtrak owns and maintains\n12 other moveable bridges that have similar capital upgrading requirements.\n\n\n\n\n 13\n\x0cCAPITAL REINVESTMENT LEVELS\n\n There have been wide variances in the amount of capital reinvested each year to\nmaintain Amtrak\xe2\x80\x99s infrastructure assets. These variances have been the product of a\ncombination of when Amtrak acquired the infrastructure assets and the amount of capital\nfunding that was appropriated to Amtrak by the Federal Government. As previously\ndescribed, the majority of Amtrak\xe2\x80\x99s assets are located in the Northeast Corridor (i.e. NEC\nmainline between Washington and Boston, Springfield Line, Harrisburg Line, and Albany\nCorridor). In 1976, Amtrak acquired the NEC in a run-down condition due to years of\ndeferred maintenance that occurred while the railroad was under the stewardship of the\nPenn Central and, for a brief time, Conrail. Subsequent to Amtrak\xe2\x80\x99s acquisition of the\nNortheast Corridor (NEC), the US Congress authorized a $1.7 billion, five year capital\nprogram to reduce deferred maintenance, improve system reliability, and reduce end-point\nrunning times in the Northeast Corridor. This investment of capital funds did produce many\nof the anticipated operating benefits, but this initial infusion of capital funds was not followed\nup with sufficient levels of capital funding to properly maintain and replace the infrastructure\nassets as they reached the end of their useful service life. This phenomenon is illustrated in\nthe following graph that compares the actual amount of capital funds that was invested in\nthe NEC infrastructure each year to the amount of capital that would have been required to\nmaintain these assets in a \xe2\x80\x9cState of Good Repair.\xe2\x80\x9d\n NEC Capital Investment History\n Investment Millions ($) Data Source: Engineering SOGR Doc.\n 500\n 450\n Actual Annual Investment\n 400\n 350 Annual Capital\n 300 Replacement Value\n SOGR\n 250\n 200\n 150\n 100\n 50\n 0\n 76 78 80 82 84 86 88 90 92 94 96 98 00 02 04 06\n Fiscal Year\n\n\nThe blue line illustrates the wide variances in the amount of capital funds that were invested\nin the NEC each year, which is directly related to the amount of capital funds that Congress\nhad appropriated to Amtrak. The red line is Amtrak\xe2\x80\x99s Engineering Department\xe2\x80\x99s estimate of\nthe amount of capital that was required in each fiscal year to maintain the railroad\ninfrastructure in a state of good repair. This amount increases in FY 2000 to reflect the\n\n\n\n 14\n\x0cincrease in capital assets that occurred from the electrification of the NEC between New\nHaven and Boston.\n\n It should be noted that the red line estimates the amount of capital that is required\neach year to maintain the assets at a constant level of \xe2\x80\x9cState of Good Repair,\xe2\x80\x9d but it does not\ninclude capital that is required to eliminate any pre-existing levels of deferred maintenance\n(i.e. infrastructure that are beyond their design service life.) As previously described, the\nNEC did have a significant amount of deferred maintenance when Amtrak acquired it, and\nconsequently, the red line understates the amount of capital that would have been required\nto both eliminate the deferred maintenance and continuously maintain the infrastructure\nassets at a \xe2\x80\x9cState of Good Repair.\xe2\x80\x9d\n\nSTATE OF GOOD REPAIR\n\n Amtrak Engineering has defined that a \xe2\x80\x9cState of Good Repair\xe2\x80\x9d exists when the\ninfrastructure assets are being maintained/replaced before the assets reach the end of their\ndesign life, which means that there is no deferred maintenance of infrastructure assets.\nAlthough the design life of an asset may vary because of its specific use (e.g. the design life\nof rail on straight track vs curved track), it is reasonable to use an average design life when\nassessing the overall \xe2\x80\x9cState of Good Repair\xe2\x80\x9d of infrastructure assets and preparing high-level\ncapital funding estimates. This approach was taken by Amtrak\xe2\x80\x99s Engineering Department to\nestimate the relative \xe2\x80\x9cstate of good repair\xe2\x80\x9d of the NEC and the results are summarized in the\nfollowing table. This table provides both a numeric and color coded identification of the\npercentage of assets, measured in terms of their replacement cost, that were considered to\nbe in a \xe2\x80\x9cState of Good Repair\xe2\x80\x9d during FY 2007. That is, 70% of Amtrak\xe2\x80\x99s infrastructure\n\n Infrastructure Condition\n % at State of Good Repair\n Data Source: Eng. SOGR Doc.\n NEC Springfield Albany Harrisburg Central West Total\n\n Track 81% 86% 93% 88% 92% 97% 83%\n\nCommunications & Signals 82% 96% 95% 32% 86% 5% 78%\n\n Electric Traction 54% NA NA 8% NA NA 48%\n\n Structures 63% 84% 88% 79% 53% 63% 64%\n\n Total 69% 86% 90% 69% 65% 68% 70%\n Color Convention: 85% - 100% 60% - 84% 0% -59%\n\nassets are in a \xe2\x80\x9cState of Good Repair\xe2\x80\x9d or conversely 30% of Amtrak\xe2\x80\x99s assets are beyond their\ndesign service life, which is a measure of deferred capital reinvestment (i.e. $5.2 billion.)\nThis chart illustrates that every infrastructure discipline and every geographical area has\ndeferred maintenance. It also illustrates that, although electric traction has the highest\n\n\n 15\n\x0coverall percentage of deferred maintenance, the other infrastructure disciplines had critical\nlevels of deferred maintenance at certain geographical areas (e.g. Communication and\nSignaling on the Harrisburg Line).\n\nINFRASTRUCTURE EXPENSES AND OPERATING RELIABILITY\n\n There is a close relationship between the condition of a railroad\xe2\x80\x99s infrastructure and\nthe railroad\xe2\x80\x99s operating and financial performance. The following sequence of relationships\ndescribes how the condition of the infrastructure impacts the factors that determine\noperating and financial performance:\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 deteriorated infrastructure conditions will increase the frequency and severity of\n asset operating failures (i.e. defects),\n \xe2\x80\xa2 the increase in asset defects will increase unscheduled maintenance and the\n operating expenses required to complete repairs,\n \xe2\x80\xa2 asset defects will also increases the frequency and length of en-route train delays\n and possibly decrease train operating speeds,\n \xe2\x80\xa2 increases in train delays will negatively impact train on-time-performance (OTP),\n \xe2\x80\xa2 decreases in train operating speeds will lengthen train schedules,\n \xe2\x80\xa2 the combination of poor OTP and longer train schedules will negatively impact train\n ridership and revenue.\n\nThe latter part of this chain of relationships (i.e. relationship between train delays, OTP, train\nschedule, and train revenue) has been explored in greater detail in Amtrak\xe2\x80\x99s OIG Evaluation\nReport E-09-02 Financial Impact of Equipment Delays.\n\n If it is agreed that infrastructure condition can affect the operating and financial\nperformance of the company, then it should logically follow that increased capital investment\nin the infrastructure should also have a positive impact on both operating and financial\nperformance of the company. To test\nthis, we first compared infrastructure NEC Capital Investment vs Infrastructure-related Train Delay\n\ncapital investment levels to $350 70\n\ninfrastructure performance, as\n $300 60\nmeasured by infrastructure-related\n Delay Minutes per 10K TM\n\n\n\n\ntrain delays. As shown in the graph to $250 50\n\n\nthe right, for the time period FY \xe2\x80\x9901 to Capital\n (Millions)\n\n\n\n\n $200 40\n\nFY \xe2\x80\x9907, there appears to be a strong Investment\n\n $150 30\ncorrelation between the level of capital Train\n Delay\nfunding and infrastructure-related $100 Minutes 20\n\n\ntrain delays. Upon closer examination, $50 10\n\nthere appears to be a one year time\n $0 0\nlag between changes in capital 01 02 03 04 05 06 07\n\ninvestment and changes in\n Fiscal Year\n\n\n\ninfrastructure performance. For example, the decrease in capital funding that occurred from\n\n\n 16\n\x0cFY \xe2\x80\x9901 to FY \xe2\x80\x9902 was followed the next year by an increase in infrastructure related train\ndelays (i.e. reduced level of infrastructure performance).\n\n We then compared infrastructure investment levels to core operating expense levels\nfor the FY \xe2\x80\x9901 to FY \xe2\x80\x9906 time period. As illustrated in the following graph, we noted a similar\nstrong correlation between infrastructure capital investment levels and its core operating\nexpenses. Also similar to the\nprevious comparison, there was NEC Infrastructure\na one year time lag between Capital Investment vs Core Operating Expenses\n Core Expenses from FIS-Fingate\nchanges in capital investment 350 155\n\nand the corresponding change 300 150\n\n\n Capital Investment ($ Millions)\nin core operating expenses.\n\n\n\n\n Core Operating Expenses ($\n 145\n 250\n\n 140\n\n\n\n\n Millions)\n 200\n 135\n 150\n 130\n\n 100\n Capital Investment Core Operating Expenses 125\n\n 50 120\n\n\n 0 115\n 01 02 03 04 05 06\n Fiscal Year\n\n\n Although our analysis shows a fairly strong historical correlation between increased\ncapital investment and reductions in both infrastructure-related train delays and\ninfrastructure core operating expenses, capital investment levels should not be considered\nthe only factor in these positive developments. At the same time that the capital investment\nlevel was increasing, the Engineering Department was implementing actions to both reduce\ninfrastructure-related train delays and the core operating expense levels. For example, to\nhelp improve train OTP, the Engineering Department had established goals for each of its\ndivisions to reduce the defect related delays by infrastructure discipline (i.e. track, ET, C&S,\nStructures) and these goals are related to the overall OTP goals of Amtrak\xe2\x80\x99s Acela train\nservice. Actual performance was measured against these goals on a weekly basis and\nreviewed at the assistant division engineer level. To improve financial performance, the\nEngineering Department implemented management actions that helped it to reduce its\noperating expenses by approximately 11% during this five year time period when the US\neconomy experienced a 14% inflation rate as measured by the Consumer Price Index.\n\n To summarize, our analysis revealed that, historically, increases in capital investment\ncoupled with strong management actions has resulted in significant improvements in\ninfrastructure reliability and financial performance. This appears to be a recipe for future\nsuccess.\n\n\n\n\n 17\n\x0cSUMMARY \xe2\x80\x93 AMTRAK INFRASTRUCTURE\n\n The review of Amtrak\xe2\x80\x99s infrastructure and the history of its capital re-investment\nprovided the following information:\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Amtrak owns and maintains over $17 Billion (FY \xe2\x80\x9907) of infrastructure assets that are\n located throughout the United States.\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 The majority of Amtrak\xe2\x80\x99s infrastructure assets are located in Amtrak\xe2\x80\x99s Northeast\n Corridor.\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Due to past under-funding of capital programs, it is estimated that up to 30% of\n Amtrak\xe2\x80\x99s infrastructure assets are not being maintained in a SOGR and that over\n $5.2 Billion of capital funding is required to eliminate the related deferred\n maintenance.\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Even though there had been a history of under-funding capital program\n requirements, the recent increases in capital funding for infrastructure programs and\n the Engineering Department\xe2\x80\x99s management actions have contributed towards:\n o an overall reduction in infrastructure related train delays, and\n o an overall reduction in infrastructure operating maintenance expenses.\n\n\n\n\n 18\n\x0c INTERNATIONAL BENCHMARKING\n\n Amtrak\xe2\x80\x99s NEC infrastructure maintenance program was benchmarked to the infrastructure\nmaintenance programs of European railroads to identify any significant gaps in the efficiency\nand effectiveness of Amtrak\xe2\x80\x99s program and to reveal any potential areas for improvement.\nAlthough there were significant challenges to insure that the appropriate measures were\nbeing used to compare infrastructure maintenance programs for railroads of different sizes,\noperating conditions, and national economic factors, the international benchmarking\nproduced credible results because:\n 1. Amtrak\xe2\x80\x99s asset and operational characteristics match remarkably well with its peer\n European railroads, and\n 2. There is an established benchmarking methodology that takes into consideration\n factors outside the control of the infrastructure maintainer (e.g. currency, purchasing\n power, labor cost levels, etc.).\n\nCOMPARATORS\n\n The review compared Amtrak\xe2\x80\x99s NEC-infrastructure maintenance program to that of\nfifteen (15) European railroads (see the following illustration and table) that cumulatively\naccount for 144,600 track miles of railroad. This table identifies the infrastructure system\nmanagers since, contrary to Amtrak, many of the European countries have separate\nmanagers for their rail operations and for their infrastructure operations. All benchmark\nresults have been made anonymous for confidentiality reasons.\n\n Amtrak\xe2\x80\x99s Peer Railroads in Europe\n\n\n Railroad/ Network size\n Country\n Infrastructure Manager [main track-miles]\n\n Austria \xc3\x96sterreichische Bundesbahnen (RR) 4.700\n\n Belgium Infrabel (IM) 3.900\n\n Denmark Banedanmark (IM) 2.100\n\n Finland Ratahallintokeskus (IM) 4.500\n\n France R\xc3\xa9seau Ferr\xc3\xa9 de France (IM) 30.500\n\n Germany Deutsche Bahn AG (RR) 36.300\n\n Ireland Iarnr\xc3\xb3d \xc3\x89ireann (RR) 1.500\n\n Italy Rete Ferroviaria Italiana (IM) 16.200\n Soci\xc3\xa9t\xc3\xa9 Nationale des Chemins\n Luxembourg 300\n de Fer Luxembourgeois (RR)\n The Netherlands ProRail (IM) 3.000\n\n Norway Jernbaneverket (IM) 2.700\n Administrador de Infraestructuras\n Spain 9.200\n Ferroviarias (IM)\n Sweden Banverket (IM) 7.400\n\n Switzerland Schweizerische Bundesbahnen (RR) 3.000\n\n United Kingdom Network Rail (IM) 19.300\n\n\n\n\n 19\n\x0c Amtrak\xe2\x80\x99s OIG contracted with BSL Management Consultants to participate in the\nbenchmarking study since BSL is a European based company with over 12 years of\nexperience benchmarking the infrastructure maintenance programs of European Railroads.\nBSL has worked with the UIC (Union Internationale de Chemis de Fers \xe2\x80\x93 International Union\nof Railroads) and the European Railroads to develop a comprehensive data base of the\nEuropean infrastructure maintenance programs. BSL has also developed an agreed upon\nmethodology 3 that normalizes the cost drivers of infrastructure maintenance so that valid\ncomparisons can be made of the maintenance expenditure levels of the various railroads.\n\n The NEC was chosen for the comparison since both its infrastructure and operations\nare very similar to those of the European railroads. For this comparison the NEC was\nsubdivided into two sections, one designated as \xe2\x80\x9cSpine\xe2\x80\x9d that includes 1,243 electrified main\ntrack miles between Washington, DC and Boston, Massachusetts, the other designated as\n\xe2\x80\x9cNEC\xe2\x80\x9d that also includes the 361 main track miles from the two feeder lines to Harrisburg and\nSpringfield for a total of 1,604 main track miles. The map below shows Amtrak\xe2\x80\x99s routes as\nthey were considered for the Benchmarking.\n\n Amtrak NEC\xe2\x80\x99s Infrastructure as benchmark reference\n Albany\n\n Boston\n SPG-Feeder Springfield\n 63 route miles\n 86 track miles\n 6 mUS$ maintenance\n 2 mUS$ renewal\n\n\n not considered Providence\n\n NED-Spine\n 156 route miles\n 350 track miles\n 29 m$ maintenance\n New Haven\n Feeder Lines 24 m$ renewal\n\n\n\n not an Amtrak property\n HRB-Feeder\n New York\n 104 route miles\n 275 track miles Spine\n 10 mUS$ maintenance\n 73 mUS$ renewal Newark\n\n NYD-Spine\n Trenton\n Harrisburg 97 route miles\n 389 track miles\n 50 mUS$ maintenance\n Philadelphia 61 mUS$ renewal\n\n\n\n Wilmington\n Baltimore\n MAD-Spine\n 146 route miles\n 504 track miles N\n 46 mUS$ maintenance\n 53 mUS$ renewal\n\n\n Washington, DC\n\n\n\n\n3\n This methodology is described on page 27 of this document.\n\n\n 20\n\x0cPHYSICAL PLANT AND OPERATIONS\n\n It is reasonable to compare Amtrak\xe2\x80\x99s infrastructure maintenance program to that of its\nEuropean Peer passenger rail systems since the critical features of Amtrak\xe2\x80\x99s NEC physical rail\nsystem and its operation are very similar to those of its European Peers and a normalization\nprocess can be used to account for any significant variances that do occur in these factors.\nThe following chart illustrates how Amtrak\xe2\x80\x99s infrastructure assets and operational\ncharacteristics compare to those of the European average for each characteristic. For this\ncomparison, the European averages have been indexed to 1, and Amtrak\xe2\x80\x99s value for each\ncharacteristic has been plotted relative to the European index. With the exception of Freight\nTrain Weight, most of Amtrak\xe2\x80\x99s parameters are very close to that of the European average.\n\n NEC\'s deviation from European sample\'s average\n\n Share of multiple\n track\n\n Freight train Degree of\n weight electrification\n\n\n Passenger Density of\n train weight turnouts\n\n Average index = 1\n Gross\n Density of\n tonnage\n stations\n\n\n Share of tunnels on\n Train frequency route length\n Share of bridges on route\n length\n\n\n Note: European values for the asset characteristics and operational parameters have been indexed to 1 and Amtrak\xe2\x80\x99s\n comparable value has been plotted as the blue diamond.\n\n\n\nThe following series of charts illustrate how the characteristics of Amtrak\xe2\x80\x99s infrastructure\nassets and operations in the NEC compare to that of each European railroad.\n\n\n\n\n 21\n\x0c Share of multiple track Degree of electrification\n [% of total route length] [share of electrified main track and total main track]\n [%] [%]\n 100\n100 100\n 93 100 95\n \xc3\x98 = 66\n\n\n 75\n 75\n\n\n \xc3\x98 = 42\n 50 50\n\n\n\n 25 25\n\n\n\n\n 0 0\n Spine NEC R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 R8 R9 R10 R11 R12 R13 R14 R15 Spine NEC R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 R8 R9 R10 R11 R12 R13 R14 R15\n\n\n\n\n The NEC is characterized by a higher percentage of multiple tracks and electrification than\n the average percentage for the European railroads. However, there are three European\n railroads that have the same degree of electrification as Amtrak\xe2\x80\x99s NEC.\n\n Density of turnouts in main track Density of passenger stations\n [units/\n [units/\n main track-mile]\nmain track-mile]\n\n\n\n 0,4\n 2\n\n\n 0,3 \xc3\x98 = 0,24\n \xc3\x98 = 1,22\n 1,25\n 1,10\n 0,2 0,19\n 1 0,17\n\n\n\n 0,1\n\n\n\n 0 0\n Spine NEC R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 R8 R9 R10 R11 R12 R13 R14 R15 Spine NEC R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 R8 R9 R10 R11 R12 R13 R14 R15\n\n\n\n\n The turnout density describes the average number of turnouts per main track-mile. Here,\n Amtrak\xe2\x80\x99s NEC is very close to the European average. However, the density of stations on the\n NEC is less than the European average, with some European railroads having more than\n twice the Amtrak station density.\n\n\n [1.000 train-miles/\n Annual train frequency\n Similar to the density of passenger\n main track-mile]\n\n freight trains\n stations, the NEC\xe2\x80\x99s train frequency,\n 30 which includes traffic by other\n passenger trains operators, is slightly less than the\n 20 \xc3\x98 = 15,7\n European average, with two\n 13,5\n European railroads having train\n 11,9\n frequencies more than twice that of\n 10\n Amtrak. Freight train frequency on\n the NEC is noticeably lower than\n 0\n Spine NEC R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 R8 R9 R10 R11 R12 R13 R14 R15 that on European RRs.\n\n\n\n\n 22\n\x0c One of the major cost drivers of infrastructure maintenance is the amount of tonnage\n operated over the railroad. The following graph (left) shows that the NEC carries above\n average gross tonnage per track mile compared to European networks. This is primarily due\n to higher weight of US passenger cars and locomotives, which are roughly double the weight\n of the European average.\n\n\n Annual gross tonnage Average passenger train weight\n [gross tonnes/\n[million gross ton-miles/\n train]\n main track-mile]\n\n\n 10\n Freight trains 500\n\n 7,87\n 8 Passenger trains\n 7,12 400\n \xc3\x98 = 268\n \xc3\x98 = 5,82\n\n 6 300\n\n\n 4 200\n\n\n 2 100\n\n\n 0 0\n Spine NEC R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 R8 R9 R10 R11 R12 R13 R14 R15 Spine NEC R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 R8 R9 R10 R11 R12 R13 R14 R15\n\n\n\n\n Although there were a few instances where there were significant differences in network and\n operational parameters, it can be seen that on the average the NEC and European railroad\n networks match well and build a solid foundation for a cost and performance benchmarking.\n\n\n Asset Age Comparison\n\n The comparison of infrastructure asset ages is an important element in the\n benchmarking process since the age of an asset has a significant impact on its maintenance\n costs 4 , especially when the asset is obsolescent and not in a State of Good Repair.\n Consequently, the age distributions and average age of Amtrak\xe2\x80\x99s major asset groups were\n compared to that of the European railroads. The following charts and narrative provide an\n age comparison (as of 2006) of Amtrak rail, turnouts, and under-grade bridges to that of the\n European railroads.\n\n\n\n\n 4\n A description of the relationship between infrastructure asset age and its maintenance costs is included in the discussion\n on Life Cycle Costs on page 50 of this evaluation.\n\n\n 23\n\x0c Amtrak\'s Age Distribution of Rail Peer Group Comparison\n for Average Age of Rail\n\n [miles] [years]\n\n 33\n Amtrak\xe2\x80\x99s target\n half life: 22 yrs.\n200 30\n 30 29\n 28\n \xc3\x98 age =\n 32,5 years\n150 24\n 23\n 22\n 21\n100 20 19\n 20\n 19\n\n 16\n 15\n 50 14\n\n\n\n 0 installation 10\n year NEC R1 R2 R3 R4 R6 R7 R8 R9 R10R11R12R13R15\n 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000\n Amtrak Amtrak\n Data available for MAD, NYD, HRB, Expected lifetime (SOGR) 44 yrs.\n equiv. 50% of NEC, 2.028 rail miles, other data not available Target average age 22 yrs.\n Regeneration equilibrium ~2,3% p.a.\n Average annual replacement\xc2\xb9 ~92 rail-miles\n\n\n\n\n The above graphs illustrate how the age distribution and the average age of rail on\nAmtrak\xe2\x80\x99s NEC compares to that of the rail on the European railroads. It is obvious to see\nthat investments in new rail were not done on a continuous basis, but on an irregular basis\nwhen capital funding was available. The investment in new rail funded by the Northeast\nCorridor Improvement Project (NECIP) in the late 1970\xe2\x80\x99s and by the Rail Revitalization and\nRenewal Act in the 2000\xe2\x80\x99s clearly shows up on this graph. The average age of the NEC\xe2\x80\x99s rail\nis 33 years compared to a significantly lower average of 21 years in Europe. Age distributions\nalso reflect how much of the rail is already beyond its service life and how much will have to\nbe renewed within the upcoming years. It should be noted that this assessment of State of\nGood Repair uses age as the only criteria. In reality, other factors are considered by Amtrak\nbefore any rail is renewed. For example, rail in curves do not achieve 44 years of average\n life expectancy due to higher wear while\n [miles]\n Rail becoming\n straight rail might have a longer service life.\n over aged\n within next 10\n The chart to the left shows the same age\n 200 yrs. (29%)*\n distribution, but now highlights (in red) the\n ~ 585 miles rail that already exceeds the typical average\n 150\n lifetime of 44 years and how many miles of\n rail that will have to be renewed within the\n 100 Rail over aged\n > 44 yrs. following ten years (in yellow). The chart\n (16%)*\n above also illustrates the annual rate that\n 50 ~ 327 miles\n rail needs to be renewed on the NEC (92\n rail-miles per year) to insure this asset is in\n 0\n installation\n year a SOGR and not operated beyond its service\n 1940 1945 1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005\n\n life.\n *: Percentage refers to sample size of 2,208 miles\n\n\n\n\n 24\n\x0c Similar to track, turnouts in the NEC are a major type of track asset that are on\naverage older than turnouts in Europe. As illustrated in the following charts, the NEC\xe2\x80\x99s\nturnouts are on average 29 years old while the European average is just over 20 years. The\nage distribution chart shows that the investment in new turnouts peaked during the NECIP\nwhen capital funding was available for infrastructure investments. The following Age\nDistribution Chart also illustrates the 686 turnouts that were beyond their useful service life\nand should be renewed. Based upon the estimated 32 year service life of turnouts and the\nroughly 2,200 turnouts that are in the NEC, Amtrak would have to replace, on the average,\n69 turnouts per year to maintain these assets in a State of Good Repair. Any replacement\nrate that is less than this will, in the long term, increase the average age of the turnouts and\nbuild up an investment back log.\n\n\n Amtrak\'s Age Distribution of Turnouts Peer Group Comparison for\n Average Age of Turnouts\n\n [units] [years]\n\n\n 30 29\n250\n 28 Amtrak\xe2\x80\x99s target\n Turnout units over\n half life: 16 yrs.\n aged within next\n Turnout units\n200 10 years 25\n over aged\n (32%)\n >32 yrs. 23\n (31%)\xc2\xb9\n 22\n 699 units\n150\n \xc3\x98 age =\n 686 units 28,7 years 20 19\n\n100\n 15 16 15\n\n\n 50\n\n\n\n installation 10\n 0 year NEC R1 R2 R3 R4 R6 R11 R13 R15\n 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000\n Amtrak Amtrak\n Data available for MAD, NYD, HRB, Expected lifetime (SOGR) 32 yrs.\n equiv. 60% of NEC, 1.293 units, other data not available Target average age 16 yrs.\n 1) Based on NEC total Regeneration equilibrium ~3,1% p.a.\n Average annual replacement\xc2\xb9 ~69 turnouts\n\n\n\n\n 25\n\x0c The age distribution of the approximately 1,000 NEC under-grade bridges is illustrated\nin the following chart. Although the under-grade bridges have a life expectation of 100 to\n 150 years, their renewals typically\n require a long planning horizon and\n Amtrak\'s Age Distribution\n of Undergrade Bridges multi-million dollars of capital funding.\n [ number] This chart also illustrates that 2/3 of the\n 150\n 100%\n NEC bridges are 85 years or older.\n 75%\n\n 100\n 66% of all bridges\n are 85 yrs. or older 50%\n\n\n 50\n 25%\n\n\n\n 0 0% ye ar built\n 1891-1895\n 1896-1900\n\n\n\n\n 1921-1925\n 1926-1930\n\n\n\n\n 1951-1955\n 1956-1960\n\n\n\n\n 1981-1985\n 1986-1990\n 1901-1905\n\n\n\n\n 1931-1935\n\n\n\n\n 1961-1965\n\n\n\n\n 1991-1995\n < 1881\n 1881- 1885\n 1886-1890\n\n\n\n\n 1906-1910\n 1911- 1915\n 1916-1920\n\n\n\n\n 1936-1940\n 1941- 1945\n 1946-1950\n\n\n\n\n 1966-1970\n 1971- 1975\n 1976-1980\n\n\n\n\n 1996-2000\n > 2001\n\n\n\n Amtrak\n Data available for equiv. 85% of NEC,\n 983 bridges, other data not available\n\n\n\n\n In summary, the average age of major Amtrak infrastructure assets are significantly\nhigher than the average age of comparable assets on European railroads, a substantial\nportion of Amtrak\xe2\x80\x99s assets remain in service beyond their expected service life, and up to\nanother 1/3 of these major assets will be reaching the end of their expected service life over\nthe next 10 years.\n\n\n\nBENCHMARKING METHODOLOGY\n\n The objective of the benchmarking process is to compare Amtrak\xe2\x80\x99s infrastructure\nmaintenance costs to the infrastructure maintenance costs of comparable railroads. The\ninfrastructure maintenance costs include all operating and capital expenditures required to\nmaintain the base rail line (i.e. excludes new construction for expansion or increased\ncapacity). The infrastructure assets include track, communication and signaling, electric\ntraction, and bridges & tunnels. The benchmarking excludes the infrastructure maintenance\nrelated to fixed structures, such as stations and office buildings, since the data base of\nEuropean infrastructure maintenance did not include these expenses.\n\n The benchmarking approach quantifies the infrastructure maintenance cost as the sum\nof all annual expenditures and a multi-annual average of capital investment expenditures for\nthe defined infrastructure assets. A multi-year average is used for the annual capital\ninvestment to take into consideration the often wide variances in annual capital investments\nthat have historically occurred due to irregular levels of capital budgets. The amount used\nfor the capitalized renewal expenses is based on the average of five years of actual capital\n\n\n 26\n\x0cexpenditures. This is an acceptable approach to estimate the average annual capital\nexpenditure since the size of the network includes a statistically significant number of assets\nand the regeneration cycle for the asset renewals is very long. This is the same approach\nthat has been used in many successful UIC benchmarking projects.\n\n\nNORMALIZATION PROCESS\n\n Although Amtrak\xe2\x80\x99s infrastructure characteristics and operations are very similar to that\nof the average characteristics of European railroads, any differences in network configuration\nor system operation could cause maintenance costs to vary and, therefore, could possibly\nskew any benchmark results. For example, if railroad A has double the number of turnouts\nper main track-mile than railroad B, railroad A would have higher maintenance costs. A cost\nnormalization process will adjust a railroad\xe2\x80\x99s maintenance cost level by taking into\nconsideration the different network configurations and system operations. Normalized costs\nreflect what a railroad\xe2\x80\x99s specific cost level would be if it operated under the circumstances of\nthe reference railroad. For this comparison Amtrak is the reference case, so all benchmark\npartners\xe2\x80\x99 costs were normalized to Amtrak\xe2\x80\x99s specific characteristics for the parameters shown\nin the following chart.\n\n Normalization Factors\n\n\n\n 1 Purchasing Power Parities\n\n\n 2 Individual labor cost levels\n\n\n 3 Degree of electrification\n\n\n 4 Single vs. multiple track\n\n\n 5 Turnout densities\n\n\n 6 Track utilization\n\n\n\n\nConsequently, after the normalization process the infrastructure maintenance cost per main\ntrack-mile for the European railroads will be reported as if:\n \xe2\x80\xa2 the railroads had a common purchasing power parity with the US\n \xe2\x80\xa2 the company\xe2\x80\x99s labor costs matches Amtrak\xe2\x80\x99s labor costs\n \xe2\x80\xa2 their degree of electrification was 95% as on the NEC\n \xe2\x80\xa2 their network had 93% multiple track as on the NEC\n \xe2\x80\xa2 their turnout density was 1.1 turnouts per main track-mile\n \xe2\x80\xa2 their train frequency was 11,900 trains miles per track mile, and\n \xe2\x80\xa2 their annual gross tonnage was 7.12 million gross ton miles per main track-mile.\n\n\n 27\n\x0cEach normalization step is a conversion with individual formulas based on experience or\nregression analyses developed in the UIC benchmarking approach. It is important to point\nout that the normalization procedure only harmonizes external factors that cannot be directly\nimpacted by the Engineering Department\xe2\x80\x99s maintenance programs.\n\n\n\n\n 28\n\x0cRESULTS\n\n The benchmarking results have been subdivided into two sections.\n\n 1. The first section compares the performance of Amtrak\xe2\x80\x99s infrastructure to that of its\n European peer railroads.\n 2. The second section compares Amtrak\xe2\x80\x99s infrastructure maintenance cost levels to that\n of its European peer railroads.\n\n\nPerformance\n\n Although there was not a significant amount of data available regarding the\nperformance of European infrastructure, the data that was available indicated that Amtrak\xe2\x80\x99s\ninfrastructure performed as reliably as, if not more reliably than, the infrastructure of its\nEuropean peers. The relative performance of the countries\xe2\x80\x99 railroad infrastructure was\ncompared based upon the reliability of these assets and its ability to support the on-time-\nperformance of passenger trains. The performance of the Communication & Signaling and\nthe Electric Traction systems are measured as the number of annual failures that impact train\non-time performance per 100 main track miles. The performance of the track system is\nmeasured as the percentage of the network that has been impacted by temporary speed\nrestrictions due to poor track quality.\n\n As illustrated in the following chart on the left, the NEC\xe2\x80\x99s Communication & Signaling\nfailure rate is slightly below the European average and the chart on the right illustrates that\nthe NEC\xe2\x80\x99s ET failure rate matches the European average failure rate.\n\n The NEC\'s C&S failure rate is slightly below European\n For NEC\'s ET the failure rate matches European average,\n average, good practice is still significantly lower\n some peers have very low failure levels\n\n Train affecting C&S failures\n [failures/ Train affecting ET failures\n 100 main track-miles] [failures/\n 100 electrified main track-miles]\n 234\n 70 68\n\n\n 200\n 60\n 173\n\n 50\n 150 \xc3\x98 = 84\n 129 \xc3\x98 lower 50%\n 125 of peers = 37 40\n 108\n 100 28\n 30\n 74 \xc3\x98 = 13 \xc3\x98 lower 50% of peers = 3,4\n 68 64\n 59 20\n 45 20\n 50 16\n 32 14\n 27\n 18 16 10 8\n 6 6 5 5 4\n 2 1 1\n 0\n R9 R12 R10 R13 R4 R2 Spi R5 R7 R6 R3 R 15 R8 R11 0\n R13 R10 R12 R6 Spi R3 R7 R11 R15 R5 R4 R9 R2 R8\n\n\n\n\n 29\n\x0cThere was less data available from the European railroads on track reliability. However, as\nillustrated in the following chart, the NEC\xe2\x80\x99s level of temporary speed restrictions for track is\nvery low compared to some of the European railroads that reported the related statistics.\n\n NEC\'s level of temporary speed restrictions for track is\n very low\n\n TSR due to poor track quality\n share of network length affected multiplied by duration\n\n\n [%]\n\n 2,29\n\n\n\n 2,0\n\n\n\n\n 1,5 1,45 \xc3\x98 = 1,3 (R2-R4)\n\n\n \xc3\x98 = 0,8 (R2-R9)\n 1,0\n\n\n\n\n 0,5\n 0,24 0,27\n\n 0,00 0,00\n 0,0\n Spine R2 R3 R4 R7 R9\n\n\n\n\nAs previously stated, the data that was available from the European railroads indicated that\nAmtrak\xe2\x80\x99s infrastructure performed as reliably, if not more reliably, than the average of its\nEuropean peers.\n\nMaintenance Cost Level\n\n At the summary benchmarking level, Amtrak\xe2\x80\x99s overall expenditures for NEC\ninfrastructure maintenance are 20% higher than the average normalized level of the 15 peer\nEuropean Railroads. As illustrated in the following BSL graph, Amtrak\xe2\x80\x99s annual renewal and\n maintenance expenditures amount to\n Normalized annual expenditures \xe2\x80\x93 total $208 thousand per main track mile\n all peers normalized to NEC as reference case\n while the European railroads amount\n [1.000 US$/\n main track-mile]\n to an average of $174 thousand per\n 380 main track mile, with individual RR\n Renewal\n costs ranging from $91 thousand to\n 300\n 303\n $380 thousand per main track mile.\n Maintenance\n\n \xc3\x98 = 174\n This comparison includes both\n 200\n 208\n 197 194 191\n 187 180 operating and capital expenditures on\n \xc3\x98 lower 50% = 118\n 148 infrastructure maintenance to insure\n 123 122 117 117\n\n 100\n 112 112\n 91 that all expenses are included in this\n comparison and avoids any issues\n 0\n related to different accounting rules for\n R1 R13 NEC R10 R7 R12 R5 R14 R11 R6 R15 R3 R9 R2 R4 R8 capitalizing expenses. It should be\n NEC 208\n \xce\x94\n (unit cost)\n \xce\x94\n (%)\n noted that this comparison cannot be\n Average 174 -34 -16%\n\n Good practice 118 -90 -43%\n\n\n\n 30\n\x0cused to make any conclusions about the relative efficiency of the maintenance programs\nsince factors, such as the relative levels of deferred maintenance, plays such a significant\nrole in determining both the levels of renewal and maintenance expenditures.\n\n The cost performance of the railroads can be grouped in basically three cost level\nclusters. The \xe2\x80\x9clower 50%\xe2\x80\x9d, representing half of the sample with the lowest annual\nexpenditures, vary between $91 thousand and $148 thousand with an average of $118\nthousand per main track mile. This level of expenditures, which can be defined as the \xe2\x80\x9cbest\npractice\xe2\x80\x9d maintenance level, is over 40% lower than Amtrak\xe2\x80\x99s expenditures for the NEC. The\nsecond cluster, which includes Amtrak, has expenditure ranges from $180 thousand to $208\nthousand per main track mile. All these railroads have a relatively equal cost performance.\nThen finally, two railroads stand out with high expenditure levels above $300 thousand per\nmain track mile.\n\n If Amtrak performed infrastructure maintenance on the NEC at the average\nexpenditure levels of the European peer railroads, it would be able to reduce its average\nannual expenditure levels by over $50 million and if it could perform at the average level of\nthe lower 50% of the European peer railroads, it would be able to reduce its annual\nexpenditure level by almost $150 million.\n\n The following four charts, which utilize the same graphical conventions as the previous\nchart, illustrate how Amtrak\xe2\x80\x99s four disciplines of infrastructure maintenance (i.e. Track,\nCommunications & Signals, Electric Traction, and Structures) compare on a 1,000 $ US/main-\ntrack mile basis to that of European railroads.\n\n Track C&S\n\n\n [1.000 US$/ [1.000 US$/\n main track-mile] main track-mile]\n\n 83,2\n 146,7\n 150 80\n Renewal\n Renewal\n 121,0\n 115,1\n 106,7 57,0\n Maintenance \xc3\x98 = 82,0\n 60\n 53,3\n 100 Maintenance\n 89,9 88,1\n 84,4 \xc3\x98 lower 50% = 63,2 \xc3\x98 = 34,0\n 80,7 43,6\n 73,7\n 65,7 40 \xc3\x98 lower 50% = 23,0\n 61,4 32,6 31,3\n 51,0 48,6 27,3\n 50 24,6 24,3 23,6\n 40,5 21,4 20,3 19,1\n 20\n\n\n\n\n n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.\n 0 0\n R13 R7 R10 NEC R12 R11 R5 R15 R3 R4 R9 R6 R2 R8 R1 R14 R13 R12 NEC R5 R10 R9 R2 R6 R4 R11 R15 R3 R8 R1 R7 R14\n\n\n\n\n 31\n\x0c Electric Traction Structures\n\n [1.000 US$/ [1.000 US$/\nmain track-mile] main track-mile]\n Renewal\n 53,9 19,6\n 20\n Renewal\n 50\n 44,7 16,5\n\n 39,6 14,8\n 40 37,5\n Maintenance 15 Maintenance\n 35,8 \xc3\x98 = 27,9 \xc3\x98 = 10,3\n 12,2\n 31,2 11,2\n 30 28,0 \xc3\x98 lower 50% = 19,9 10,7\n 26,7 26,0 25,4 10 8,7 \xc3\x98 lower 50% = 7,5\n 8,0\n 19,8 7,4\n 20\n 16,0 5,7\n 14,0 13,6\n 5 4,4\n 9,5\n 10\n\n\n n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.\n 0 0\n R5 R13 R1 R10 R12 NEC R6 R8 R2 R11 R7 R3 R15 R4 R9 R14 R6 NEC R9 R10 R11 R2 R12 R4 R3 R15 R8 R1 R5 R7 R13 R14\n\n\n\n\nThat is, for each of the infrastructure disciplines, there is a gap between Amtrak\xe2\x80\x99s level of\noperating maintenance and capital expenditures and that of the European peer group. As\npreviously stated, these comparisons of summary cost metrics do not determine which\nmaintenance programs are being managed effectively, but they do indicate the level of\nsavings in infrastructure maintenance expenses that Amtrak could attain by performing at the\nlevel of its European peer group.\n\n The previous four charts are summarized in the following BSL gap analysis chart that\nidentifies the variance between Amtrak\xe2\x80\x99s maintenance cost level and that of the European\naverage maintenance cost level (on the left) and that of the \xe2\x80\x9cbest practice\xe2\x80\x9d maintenance cost\nlevel for each infrastructure discipline (on the right). The annual cost per track mile of\nAmtrak\xe2\x80\x99s Track and C&S maintenance programs have the largest gap to the European peer\ngroup, which highlights them as priority disciplines for necessary improvement activity.\n\n\n Gap Anal ysis Mainten an ce and Ren ewal Expe nditu res\n total am ount i n mi lli on US $ agai nst peer g rou p\'s avera ge and low er 50%\n\n NE C a g ainst av er ag e o f p ee r g ro up \'s\n N EC ag a inst pe er gr o up \'s av er ag e\n low er 50%\n\n [mUS$] [mUS$]\n Tr ac k C& S ET Struc tures Infra Trac k C &S ET Struc tures Infra\n onl y\xc2\xb9 onl y \xc2\xb9 only \xc2\xb9 onl y \xc2\xb9 total \xc2\xb2 only \xc2\xb9 only \xc2\xb9 onl y \xc2\xb9 only\xc2\xb9 total\xc2\xb2\n\n\n 0 0\n\n\n\n\n -50 -50\n\n\n\n\n -100 -100\n\n\n\n\n -150 -150\n\n\n 1) Ga p to peers wit h discipline specific data only\n 2) Ga p re gardin g all 15 pee rs\n\n\n 32\n\x0cSUMMARY \xe2\x80\x93 INTERNATIONAL BENCHMARKING\n\n The benchmarking of Amtrak\xe2\x80\x99s infrastructure maintenance program to that of the\nEuropean RRs revealed the following summary findings:\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 The physical and operational characteristics of Amtrak\xe2\x80\x99s NEC are remarkable similar to\n those of the European RRs, although there were a few instances where there were\n significant differences (e.g. freight and passenger train weight.)\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 The average age of major NEC asset groups is significantly higher than the average\n age of comparable European RR infrastructure assets.\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Amtrak\xe2\x80\x99s major infrastructure asset groups performed as reliably as the average\n European infrastructure performance.\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Amtrak spent approximately 20% more than the average European RR and 40% more\n than the \xe2\x80\x9clower 50%\xe2\x80\x9d of the European RRs to maintain its NEC infrastructure assets.\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 If Amtrak performed infrastructure maintenance and renewal on the NEC at the\n average expenditure levels of the European RRs, it would be able to reduce its\n average annual expenditure levels by over $50 million, and if it could perform at the\n average level of the lower 50% of the European RRs, it would be able to reduce its\n annual expenditure level by almost $150 million. The estimated $50 million to $150\n million performance gap is based upon Amtrak\xe2\x80\x99s total operating and capital\n expenditures related to the maintenance and renewal of NEC infrastructure assets.\n\n\n\n\n 33\n\x0c FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS\n\n\nCAUSAL FACTORS IMPACTING EFFICIENCY AND EFFECTIVENESS\n\n Although there are numerous ways to define and measure efficiency, they all include\nmeasures of output (i.e. a desired product or outcome) and input (i.e. the amount of effort,\nexpense, energy, etc.) that are required to produce the output. For the purposes of\nmeasuring the efficiency of Amtrak\xe2\x80\x99s Infrastructure Maintenance Program, it is reasonable to\nmeasure efficiency in terms of the units and the cost of production. The following flow chart\nis a Dimensional Analysis that illustrates how the basic production and cost elements inter-\nrelate to generate an efficiency metric.\n\n\n\n Production and Cost Elements Impacting the\n Efficiency of Infrastructure Maintenance\n\n\n Working Production Rate Production\n = Hours\n x (Units per work hour) = (# Units)\n\n\n Non-Productive\n Hours\n\n Hours\n = at Work\n\n Paid Hours\n Not Worked\n\n Total Paid Efficiency\n Hours (Units/$)\n\n Labor Rate\n x ($/Hour)\n\n\n Labor\n = Cost ($)\n\n Material\n + Cost ($)\n\n Other Total Cost\n + Cost ($) = ($)\n\n\n\n\nThese production and cost elements were identified by Amtrak\xe2\x80\x99s Engineering staff as the\ncritical elements that determine overall maintenance efficiency. It should be noted that these\nsame elements were identified by the European Infrastructure Maintainers during our review\nof their \xe2\x80\x9cbest practices.\xe2\x80\x9d For example, all infrastructure maintainers want to maximize the\nnumber of working hours of each infrastructure maintainer. There are various methods and\ntechnologies available to accomplish this objective, which will be described in the following\nsections of this evaluation\xe2\x80\x99s findings.\n\n\n\n\n 34\n\x0c In addition to identifying the production and cost elements, we also identified the\nendogenous (i.e. controlled by Amtrak Engineering) and exogenous (i.e. outside the control\nof Amtrak Engineering) factors that impact the production and cost elements that determine\nmaintenance efficiency. These production and cost drivers have been added to the following\nEfficiency Dimensional Chart to illustrate how the endogenous drivers (green) and the\nexogenous drivers (red) impact each element of the Dimensional Chart. It can be seen that\nsome of the drivers impact more than one of the dimensional elements and consequently\nhave a greater impact on infrastructure maintenance efficiency. For example, the availability\nof multi-year funding impacts Amtrak\xe2\x80\x99s ability to attract and retain a skilled labor force and it\nalso impacts Amtrak\xe2\x80\x99s ability to negotiate the optimal contract terms for long lead material\nitems.\n\n\n\n\n Production and Cost Drivers\n\n\n\n Working Production Rate Production\n = Hours\n x (Units per work hour) = (# Units)\n\n\n Non-Productive\n Hours\n\n Hours Labor Skilled\n = at Work Agreements Labor\n\n Paid Hours\n Not Worked FRA- Work\n Regulations Process\n Total Paid Efficiency\n Hours (Units/$)\n Multi-Year- Equipment\n Labor Rate\n x ($/Hour)\n Funding Technology\n\n\n Labor\n = Cost ($)\n\n Material\n + Cost ($)\n\n Other Total Cost\n + Cost ($) = ($)\n Exogenous\n Driver\n\n Endogenous\n Driver\n\n\n\n\n Our findings and recommendations are organized around the major endogenous cost\ndrivers of skilled labor, work processes, and equipment technology and the exogenous\nfactors will be discussed as they relate to each of these cost drivers.\n\n\n\n\n 35\n\x0cWORK PROCESSES\n\n Our evaluation of Amtrak\xe2\x80\x99s infrastructure maintenance program revealed that\nsignificant opportunities exist to improve Amtrak\xe2\x80\x99s production rate (i.e. units per work hour)\nby improving its infrastructure maintenance work processes. As illustrated in the flow chart\non page 35, the level of production from Amtrak work forces is a function of how many hours\nthat are actually worked and the work force productivity, as measured by the number of\nunits produced per labor hour. Production per work hour is driven by a combination of the\nskill level of the workforce, the type of maintenance technology, and the processes used to\nperform the maintenance work. Listed below are six findings and recommendations related\nto Amtrak\xe2\x80\x99s opportunities to improve maintenance processes.\n\n\nFinding No. 1 \xe2\x80\x93 Amtrak could benefit from having a comprehensive Infrastructure\nAsset Management process in place that would enable the company to plan for\nand implement optimal maintenance and renewal programs.\n\n\nDiscussion\n\n The Asset Management Primer 5 issued by the US Department of Transportation states\nthat asset management \xe2\x80\x9cis a systematic process of maintaining, upgrading, and operating\nphysical assets cost-effectively. It combines engineering principles with sound business\npractices and economic theory, and it provides tools to facilitate a more organized, logical\napproach to decision-making. Thus, asset management provides a framework for handling\nboth short- and long-range planning.\xe2\x80\x9d The two key objectives of asset management are to:\n\n 1) provide the type, quantity, and quality of assets that are required to support the\n corporation\xe2\x80\x99s strategic operating plans, and\n 2) provide these assets in the most cost-effective way.\n\n\nAsset Management Process\n\n Our review of the literature on asset management revealed that, although there are\nvarious methods of describing the asset management process, they all included the basic\nfunctions illustrated in the following process flow chart.\n\n\n\n\n5\n Asset Management Primer, US Department of Transportation, December 1999\n\n\n 36\n\x0c Asset Management Process Model\n\n\n\n\nThis process produces an asset management plan (AM) that takes into consideration:\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 the Level of Service required to support the strategic operating plan\n \xe2\x80\xa2 the current state of infrastructure assets\n \xe2\x80\xa2 the critical assets required for sustained performance (i.e. risk factors), and\n \xe2\x80\xa2 the optimal capital investment and maintenance strategies based on \xe2\x80\x9clife-cycle costs\xe2\x80\x9d.\n\nIt should be pointed out that asset management is a data intensive process that is dependent\nupon having both an up-to-date asset registry and the ability to analyze the available data to\noptimize the financial and operating benefits of the asset management programs. The asset\nregister typically includes the following information:\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 description (e.g. asset no., purchase date, drawings, contracts, pictures, etc.)\n \xe2\x80\xa2 location (e.g. GPS mapping, address)\n \xe2\x80\xa2 purchase costs\n \xe2\x80\xa2 annual depreciation\n \xe2\x80\xa2 accumulated depreciation\n \xe2\x80\xa2 maintenance costs\n \xe2\x80\xa2 condition\n \xe2\x80\xa2 performance\n \xe2\x80\xa2 use (e.g. gross ton miles per year)\n \xe2\x80\xa2 estimated service life\n \xe2\x80\xa2 actual, condition adjusted service life\n\nThe analytic capabilities required by this process include:\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 the estimation of the expected and actual residual life time infrastructure assets. This\n is usually done by means of decay curves that are devised from condition ratings and\n usage over many years of observations\n \xe2\x80\xa2 life-cycle-cost models\n \xe2\x80\xa2 asset performance models\n \xe2\x80\xa2 failure and risk assessments\n \xe2\x80\xa2 evaluation tools for modeling different scenarios for maintenance, refurbish, and\n replacements alternatives.\n\n\n 37\n\x0cObservations in Europe\n\n The majority of the European infrastructure maintainers we visited used sophisticated\ninfrastructure asset management processes to help them optimize the maintenance and\nrenewal programs of the infrastructure assets that are required to support the corporation\xe2\x80\x99s\nstrategic operating plans.\n\n A prime example of how a European infrastructure maintainer coordinates its decision\nmaking process is illustrated in the following asset management decision process used by\n NetWork Rail. It shows how the\n Asset management framework - decision process begins on a\n decisions strategic policy level and leads\n Type of railway we want and\n down to the operational execution\n are prepared to pay for\n Network policy\n level. It can be seen that this\n Usage and Train services and capability/ process coordinates all asset\n Major decisions on\n output definition capacity requirements\n management decisions to optimize\n maintenance, renewal and Asset policies\n the programs that will provide the\n enhancement Standards and\n specifications\n Translation of policies into\n practical specifications\n infrastructure assets required for\n Specification of maintenance, Asset plans the company\xe2\x80\x99s planned rail\n operations.\n renewal and enhancement\n work Local delivery\n Optimised delivery and\n plans resource plans\n Scheduling and recording Local delivery\n of work execution\n\n\n\n\n NetWork Rail\xe2\x80\x99s Engineering Data Center (EDC) plays a critical role helping the\ncompany to attain its goal of transforming the company from a find and fix philosophy to a\npredict and prevent philosophy. NetWork Rail has concluded that switching to the new\nmaintenance philosophy has enabled them to improve the reliability of their infrastructure\nassets and to optimize the efficiency of their maintenance programs. As an example of their\nimproved infrastructure reliability, NetWork Rail provided the following chart that illustrates\nhow the quality of their track structure, which is Level 2 Exceedences per mile\n\nmeasured as level 2 deviations from standard per 2.400\n\n\n\n\nmile, improved since they have implemented this 2.100\n\n\n\n\nprocess. The EDC ensures that the investment of\n 1.800\n\n\n\n\ncapital and operating funds are optimized by\n 1.500\n Number per mile\n\n\n\n\nscheduling asset replacements and renewals, labor,\n 1.200\n\n\n\n 0.900\n\n\nmachinery, and track outages to minimize the life 0.600\n\n\n\ncycle costs of the infrastructure assets. It should be 0.300\n\n\n\nnoted that, to be able to perform the planning and 0.000\n 1999/00 2000/01 2001/02 2002/03 2003/04 2004/05 2005/06 2006/07 2007/08\n\n\nscheduling of infrastructure maintenance, an asset\n Financial Year\n\n\n\n\n 38\n\x0cdata base must be available that provides a readily available record of the condition,\nperformance, use and maintenance expenses of all infrastructure assets.\n\n SBB in Switzerland is another European railroad that makes a conscious effort to\noptimize its infrastructure\nmaintenance and renewal\nexpenditures. They have\ndeveloped an optimization\nmodel to find the cost-optimal\nbalance of maintenance,\nrefurbishment, and renewal at\npredetermined performance\nlevels. The chart to the right\nillustrates how SBB optimizes\nthe life cycle costs of its\ninfrastructure assets, although\nthe actual modeling is far\nmore complicated and\ndetailed than that shown in\nthis chart.\n\n\n\n ProRail in the Netherlands also has an asset management system in place that helps\nto determine the optimal asset decisions to attain the company\xe2\x80\x99s corporate strategies. This\nwas accomplished by defining the\nrelationship between maintenance\nactivities/costs and asset performance,\nthe relationship between asset\nperformance and operating\nperformance, and the life cycle costs of\nthose assets which is very similar to the\nprocess that SBB uses. For example, as\nshown in the picture on the left,\nProRail\xe2\x80\x99s asset management system\nincludes up-to-date pictures of its\ninfrastructure assets and an assessment\nof its current condition. This\ninformation is cataloged geographically\nto support engineering decisions related to prioritizing projects and to phasing work to\noptimize the efficient use of labor, equipment, and track time.\n\n As previously mentioned, to be able to optimize the infrastructure maintenance\nprograms, the railroads need to have a data base that provides a readily available record of\n\n\n 39\n\x0cthe condition, performance, use and\nmaintenance expenses of all infrastructure\nassets. Network Rail in England, as\nillustrated in the flow diagram to the right,\nuses state-of-the-art technology to measure\nthe condition of its infrastructure assets and\nthen efficiently transfers this data to its\nasset registers, which are managed by its\nEngineering Data Center, to provide up-to\ndate reports on asset condition. This\ninformation is used, in combination with the\nother asset register data, to make informed\ndecisions related to the maintenance,\nupgrading, or replacement of infrastructure assets and the scheduling of any related work.\n\n Banverket of Sweden uses a web-based asset management system (BMS) developed\nby Vagverket (the Swedish National Road Administration) to manage its infrastructure assets,\nwith modules for technical and administrative data, inspections, planning, maintenance\nrecords, and documents. A condition class rating for every asset defect is used as a first step\nin screening structures for repair, rehabilitation, and replacement. Currently, Banverket\nbridge managers use their experience to prioritize projects, but a BMS module is being\nprepared that will use present value calculations to determine optimal\nmaintenance/renewal/replacement strategies.\n\n During our visits to the European Railroads, we observed many examples of how they\nhave developed and effectively use an extensive database on the condition of their bridges.\nFor example, SBB and NetWork Rail have programs that provide up-to-date information of\nasset condition through their inspection program, grade the assets based upon their\ncondition, develop the maintenance priorities based upon asset condition and use (e.g. type\nor rail line), determine optimal level of maintenance/renewal, and then schedule the\nmaintenance/renewal work to minimize the impact on rail\noperations and to optimize the efficiency of the\nmaintenance/renewal work. To obtain and record the\ncondition of their bridges, SBB utilizes specially trained\nengineering employees (i.e. must past qualification training\nand testing) to perform regular inspections of all bridges and\ntheir supporting structures and record their findings on\ncomputers while in the field. As illustrated in this picture, an\nSBB employee is recording the results of his inspection of\nthe masonry support piers of a bridge while suspended\nunder the bridge. This process improves the reliability and timeliness of the bridge\ninspections since the inspection conforms to the standard inspection process, the results are\ninput on site, and it avoids transcriptions errors that might occur when manual reports are\nre-entered into an asset data base.\n\n\n 40\n\x0c NetWork Rail utilizes the results of its inspection reports to rate the condition of its\nbridges and then these ratings are used along with data on route/service type, material type,\ndeterioration rates, and required strength to decide on the proper maintenance intervention\n(i.e. replace, strengthen, repair, waterproof, etc.) As previously stated, NetWork Rail\xe2\x80\x99s\nphilosophy is to predict and prevent infrastructure asset failures and this process provides\nthem the basic information and disciplined process to accomplish it. Completing the\nappropriate type or inspection at the proper frequency (i.e. time interval) is a critical element\nof NetWork Rail\xe2\x80\x99s overall program. Amtrak will consider if any portion of NetWork Rail\xe2\x80\x99s, as\nwell as other European infrastructure maintainer\xe2\x80\x99s, inspection program should be adopted by\nAmtrak.\n\n In addition to the information we obtained from the European Railroads that we\nvisited, we learned that the UIC (Union Internationale Des Chemins De Fer) has completed a\n4-year project addressing the maintainability of bridges in Europe. This project has produced\na wealth of information on the methods and processes available to optimize the\nmaintenance, renewal, and replacement programs of railway bridges. The UIC study has\nincorporated the actual bridge inventory of 20 railroads and the technical expertise of 84\nInstitutes (e.g. University of Queensland, University of Maryland, etc.) and Companies (e.g.\nPortland Cement Association, Laboratoire Central des Ponts et Chaussees, etc.) to research\nthe following subject areas.\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Condition Assessment\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Structural behavior and monitoring\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Repair and strengthening\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Dynamic effects and vibration\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Life cycle analysis\n\nThe UIC Bridge Project may provide critical information that Amtrak could utilize to improve\nboth the effectiveness and efficiency of its bridge maintenance and renewal programs.\n\n\nAmtrak Asset Management\n\n Similar to the European Railroads, Amtrak Engineering is implementing an asset\nmanagement system (Maximo from IBM) that is to coordinate \xe2\x80\x9cwhat to do\xe2\x80\x9d (e.g. Inspections\nand tests, root cause analysis) and \xe2\x80\x9chow to do it\xe2\x80\x9d (e.g. workforce allocation, maintenance\nplanning, financial accountability) to determine the optimal point for maintenance\nintervention and capital investment. These goals are comparable to those of European\ninfrastructure asset management systems and it is reasonable to expect that, once\ncompleted, Amtrak\xe2\x80\x99s asset management system will provide the same level of benefits being\nexperienced by the European infrastructure maintainers.\n\n\n\n\n 41\n\x0c Amtrak\xe2\x80\x99s Engineering Department is currently in the process of completing its\ninfrastructure asset register by capturing the attribute data of its assets and it is also\nimplementing the processes required to capture labor and material expenses related to asset\ninspection and maintenance. As illustrated in the following flow chart, Amtrak is still in the\nbeginning stages in its efforts to implement a comprehensive asset management process.\n\n\n\n\n Color convention: high/medium/low degree of completion\n\n\nAmtrak Engineering is commended for the significant progress that it has made towards\ncompleting Amtrak\xe2\x80\x99s infrastructure asset register and the collection of asset maintenance\nexpenses. It should be noted that the German railroad Deutsche Bahn required over ten\nyears to collect and input the data for its infrastructure asset register. Although Amtrak\nEngineering has made significant progress towards implementing an effective asset\nmanagement system, there is still a long list of action items that must be completed before\nAmtrak will be able to benefit from the system\xe2\x80\x99s anticipated financial and operating benefits.\nWhen completed, Amtrak\xe2\x80\x99s infrastructure asset management system should:\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 align the asset management plan with the corporate long range strategy\n o asset performance, availability, accepted risk level, regulatory compliance\n \xe2\x80\xa2 provide an up-to-date asset register\n \xe2\x80\xa2 assess impact of asset condition\n o predict asset failures, estimate residual asset life\n \xe2\x80\xa2 develop a life-cycle-cost and optimization model\n \xe2\x80\xa2 develop a business risk model\n \xe2\x80\xa2 develop methods to optimize maintenance work/procedures\n \xe2\x80\xa2 develop methods to optimize capital investment work\n\n\n\nRecommendation 1 \xe2\x80\x93 That the Chief Engineer continue to develop and implement\nan asset management process that will provide the appropriate data and business\ndecision processes required to optimize Amtrak\xe2\x80\x99s infrastructure maintenance and\nrenewal programs.\n\n\n\n\n 42\n\x0cFinding No. 2 \xe2\x80\x93 Amtrak could benefit from the expanded use of Industrial\nEngineering techniques to optimize the use of resources on infrastructure\nmaintenance projects.\n\n\nDiscussion\n\n The information we collected during our interviews and field trips revealed that the\nprocesses that Amtrak currently uses to complete infrastructure inspections and maintenance\nare primarily determined by:\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Historic methods for completing maintenance tasks,\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Federal Railway Administration (FRA) regulations, and\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Available maintenance technology.\n\nAlthough these production drivers are not 100% independent of each other, they can be\nindividually reviewed to identify better methods and procedures to perform infrastructure\nmaintenance work.\n\n It is reasonable that Amtrak\xe2\x80\x99s current work processes are in large part determined by\nthe historic methods for completing similar tasks. However, this is not the most reliable\nmethod to insure that efficient processes are being used to complete the maintenance tasks.\nThis fact was illustrated to us by Mr. Tom Denio, Superintendent, Engineering Production.\nMr. Denio related how Amtrak\xe2\x80\x99s Tie Gang was laying 60-100 ties per day when he first\narrived to work at Amtrak. Following his review of the maintenance process, he modified the\nsequencing of the work to emulate the process used on the Norfolk Southern RR (NS) and\nwas able to increase the production to 700 ties per day with the same size labor force. He\nfurther stated that the NS can lay from 1,300 to 1,800 ties per day with the same level of\nman-power, but utilizing employees with a different skill set and processes that are not\nfeasible on a passenger rail system.\n\n Further discussions with our Engineering Staff members revealed that Amtrak does\nnot routinely perform Industrial Engineering analyses to determine the optimal processes for\ncompleting the various maintenance tasks. For that matter, Amtrak\xe2\x80\x99s Engineering\nDepartment has only one individual at the staff level who is qualified as an Industrial\nEngineer. This is in contrast to the practices that were observed at the European railroads.\nFor example, Network Rail, the infrastructure maintenance company in England, has an\nEngineering Data Center (EDC) that monitors the condition of the infrastructure assets and\nthen plans and reports upon the maintenance of the infrastructure assets. Network Rail\nprepares detailed plans for the execution of its infrastructure work, including written\nprocedures, activities, manpower assignments, equipment assignments and the logic that\nsupports these plans.\n\n\n\n\n 43\n\x0c In addition to NetWork Rail in England, DB in Germany also uses Industrial\nEngineering techniques to identify the optimal processes to complete infrastructure\nmaintenance work. During our visit with DB, they described how their analytical work\nidentified and quantified the benefits of performing the inspection and maintenance of\nswitches using a team comprised of both track employees and communication & signaling\nemployees. Switches are complex machines that include components that are inspected and\n maintained by different engineering disciplines. The track\n structure (rails, ties, tie plates, spikes, ballast and sub-\n ballast) are the responsibility of the Track Department\n and the switch motors, switch heaters, electronic\n detection, control and signal equipment are the\n responsibility of the Communication & Signaling\n Department. The following picture illustrates the rails,\n ties, push rods, pneumatic switch motor, and an oil\n switch heater of a \xe2\x80\x9cvintage\xe2\x80\x9d switch that is close to the\n end of its useful service live.\n\n The safe and reliable operation of switches is dependent upon the ability of each\nswitch component to operate reliably and as designed. The most effective and efficient\nmethod to inspect the components of the switch is to have the Track and C&S Departments\njointly inspect the switch. A joint inspection of the switch will minimize the amount of time\nthe switch is out of service for inspection and it will insure, not only that the components of\nthe switch will operate properly, but that all the components of the switch operate properly in\ntandem.\n\n By expanding the use of Industrial Engineering techniques, Amtrak should be able to\nboth increase the productivity of its labor and improve the quality of infrastructure\nmaintenance.\n\n\n\nRecommendation 2 \xe2\x80\x93That the Chief Engineer expand the Industrial Engineering\nexpertise within Amtrak\xe2\x80\x99s Engineering Department so that it can regularly\ndevelop infrastructure maintenance programs that optimize the use of manpower,\nmaterials, and technology.\n\n\n\n\n 44\n\x0cFinding No. 3 \xe2\x80\x93 Amtrak could benefit from a comprehensive set of metrics to\nmonitor infrastructure maintenance performance and to support effective\ndecision-making.\n\n Amtrak indirectly reports infrastructure maintenance efficiency at a high level by\nproducing both production reports and budget reports. As shown in the following table,\nAmtrak Engineering reports on its actual weekly and year-to-date production against its goals\nfor each maintenance function. This information is also presented in Amtrak\xe2\x80\x99s Monthly\nPerformance Report along with Engineering Actual and Budgeted Expenses. The\n\n\n\n\ncombination of the production and cost metrics provides a high-level measure comparing\nEngineering Actual and Budgeted Efficiency. However, this does not provide a measure of\nthe efficiency of specific maintenance activities (e.g. # ties per labor hour), which is needed\nto more effectively manage the resources of the engineering department. For example, this\ninformation is required to determine if labor efficiency is increasing or decreasing, if past\ncapital investments have provided their anticipated benefits, and the magnitude of benefits\nthat should be anticipated from future investments or changes in maintenance practices.\n\n Our evaluation revealed that there are many benefits that can be derived from the\nway US Class I and European railroads use unit production rates to plan for and report upon\ntheir infrastructure maintenance gangs. Utilizing production unit rates for daily planning\n\n\n 45\n\x0cenables the Class I railroads to better coordinate manpower assignments, material\nrequirements, and track outage or curfew requirements. The reporting of daily production\nrates by production gang helps to ensure that there is an organization-wide focus on\nproduction levels and that actual production equals or exceeds planned production. The\nproduction reports, which are shared on an organization-wide basis, generate an in-house\ncompetition between the production gangs and by themselves help to increase the overall\nproductivity of the infrastructure maintenance programs.\n\n Our interview with the Chief Engineer of the Canadian National RR (CN) revealed that\nthey have both high level and detailed level measures of maintenance efficiency. CN\ncompares actual daily production to production goals by maintenance gang and the\nengineering staff has the experience to know if the specific gang is working efficiently given\ntheir actual production and the particular environment in which they are working. For\nexample, the actual production rate of a tie replacement gang would be different on straight\ntrack than on an interlocking. CN also measures and reports upon the number of units\nproduced per 100 labor hours and the direct labor cost per unit produced. We also learned\nthat Deutsche Bahn (DB), Germany, uses standard production rates as part of its human\nresources dimensioning tool to identify the human resources (i.e. number and type of\nemployee by craft) required to complete the company\xe2\x80\x99s planned infrastructure maintenance,\nrenewal, and replacement programs.\n\n Network Rail, as illustrated in\nthe chart to the right, took a slightly\ndifferent approach of measuring labor\nproductivity by reporting upon the\n\xe2\x80\x9cTime on Tools\xe2\x80\x9d of their maintenance\ncrews. The \xe2\x80\x9cTime on Tools\xe2\x80\x9d is the\nsame metric as Working Hours that is\nshown in the Systems Dynamic Model\nthat is shown on page 34 of this\nevaluation. NetWork Rail compares\nthe \xe2\x80\x9cTime on Tools\xe2\x80\x9d to the total\nnumber of available hours as a\nmeasure of how efficiently available\nlabor resources were employed. These measures are provided by maintenance territory (as\nshown above) and also by maintenance discipline (e.g. track, C&S, etc.)\n\n\nRecommendation 3 \xe2\x80\x93 That the Chief Engineer develop and use a comprehensive\nset of metrics that monitor infrastructure maintenance performance to support\neffective decision-making.\n\n\n\n\n 46\n\x0cFinding No. 4 - The combination of Railway Worker Protection rules and Civil\nNoise Abatement Regulations significantly reduces the overall productivity of\nproduction crews.\n\nDiscussion\n\n As previously discussed, Mr. Tom Denio, who was Amtrak\xe2\x80\x99s Superintendent of\nEngineering Production stated that work processes is a major factor that determines labor\nproductivity. The impact of disruptions to the work process became very apparent during a\nsite visit to the Harrisburg Line where Amtrak\xe2\x80\x99s track laying system was working. The Track\nLaying System (TLS) is a highly automated combination of men (approximately 100 both on\nsite and support) and machinery that renews the track structure (i.e. ballast, ties, and rail) in\na single pass over the renewed right of way. The TLS is designed to continuously (i.e.\nwithout stopping) pick up old ballast, ties, and rail and lay down new ballast, ties and rail.\nAlthough the TLS is designed to operate without stopping, the process was constantly\nstopped for safety reasons while regularly scheduled trains passed the work site. During the\n period of time that we watched\n its operation, the TLS was\n inactive for more than 50% of\n the time waiting for trains to\n approach and then pass the\n work site. Unlike the Freight\n Railroads, Amtrak\xe2\x80\x99s TLS is not\n as efficient as it could be\n because it cannot curfew\n regularly scheduled intercity\n and commuter trains on the\n right of way where the TLS\n operates. In addition, local city\n noise ordinances have\n prevented Amtrak from\n performing the work at night.\n Consequently, the unit cost of\n this infrastructure maintenance\nprocess is significantly higher than theoretically possible because of the conditions under\nwhich it operates.\n\n Our visits to the European railroads revealed that they face many of the same\nchallenges that Amtrak faces to safely and efficiently perform infrastructure maintenance\nwhile minimizing any interruptions to scheduled train operations. The following processes\nand technologies are being used by Amtrak\xe2\x80\x99s European peer railroads to overcome these\nchallenges and improve the efficiency of their maintenance programs.\n\n\n\n\n 47\n\x0c\xe2\x80\xa2 Switzerland uses an automated system to warn infrastructure maintenance crews\n when a train was approaching their work site. The system provides reliable and\n sufficient warning so that the work crews can move to a safe location before the train\n arrives at the work site. Although the crews productivity is interrupted while the train\n approaches and passes the work site, the number of flagmen required at the work site\n is significantly reduced. The number of required flagmen can be quite large (e.g. nine\n at one time) for major programs such as the TLS when working on tracks with\n numerous curves.\n\n\xe2\x80\xa2 For every mile of its main line tracks, ProRail has 5 \xc2\xbd hours scheduled - twice a week\n during weekday nights - in the railroad\xe2\x80\x99s timetable for track maintenance. The\n following chart illustrates the tracks available (tracks highlighted in green) to ProRail\n for maintenance work on this portion of the railroad on Night 1. A different set of\n tracks are available for maintenance on Night 2 of the schedule. It should be noted\n that other tracks are still available for regular train movements on both night\n schedules. By providing dependable, uninterrupted track access time for\n maintenance work in the railroad timetable, ProRail is able to achieve 4.5 to 5 hours of\n productive working time on each shift.\n\n ZDR2009220\n Dinsdag / Woensdag A-week E+F A: 00.00 \xe2\x80\x93 05.30 B: 00.00 - 05.30 Tek: RZ-Rtd\n OHR-nacht C: 01.20 \xe2\x80\x93 05.30 D: 01.20 \xe2\x80\x93 05.30\n A E: 00.20 \xe2\x80\x93 00.50 F: 01.30 \xe2\x80\x93 02.00\n Versie: OHR 2009 Def C\n B Ri. Ddr\n verdeeld 20080822\n D ZDR2009164\n Aanvraag in behandeling in de Krg\n Rb Bgn Essen 00.05 \xe2\x80\x93 05.35 Zlw Wld\n gebruikersoverleggen Odb Zvb\n Etn\n Aanvraag verdeeld via de Tafel van\n Verdeling Rsd Tek: RZ-Rtd\n Gs\n ZDR2009182 Tek: RZ-Rtd Hsl Hsl Hsl\n 00.15 \xe2\x80\x93 05.45\n ZDR2009230\n ZDR2009156 23.45 \xe2\x80\x93 05.15 Nvbr\n Bdpb\n 00.30 \xe2\x80\x93 06.00 Tbge\n\n\n\n Tbwt Tbr Gz\n Tb Bd Tek: NO\n Mdb ZDR2009104\n Vs Sloe Tbi 00.10 \xe2\x80\x93 05.40\n Ot ZDR2009141\n ZDR2009235\n A: 00.10 \xe2\x80\x93 05.40 Ri. Gdm\n 00.25 \xe2\x80\x93 05.55\n B: 02.00 \xe2\x80\x93 05.45 Ri. Nm\n Weeksoorten OHR 2009\n Start OHR 2009: A Hdl\n Bmr Bgk Ck\n Week 50: zon (A-week) Tek: RZ-Ut Vlb Mo\n Ltm Mlo\n A B C D A B C D A Vrij\n 50 51 52 01 02 03 04 05\n Vga\n ZDR2009148\n 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13\n 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 00.15 \xe2\x80\x93 05.45\n Ri. Nm\n 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29\n 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 B Htda Tek: NO\n Btl\n 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45\n 46 47 48 49 50\n Ht\n Ri. Kn\n ZDR2009169 Ect\n 00.15 \xe2\x80\x93 05.45\n Grvn\n Br\n Dn Hrt\n\n\n\n Tg\n Hm Vl\n Bet\n\n\n\n Wt Hln\n Gp\n Rv\n Ohze Mz\n Ehb Hze\n At PSV\n Bdl\n ZDR2009184\n ZDR2009541\n 00.10 \xe2\x80\x93 05.40 Sm\n 00.15-05.45\n Ehv\n Bon\n\n\n\n\n Mbt\n Lut Srn\n Std\n\n Rm\n Mt ZDR2009193\n 00.15 \xe2\x80\x93 05.45 Duitsland\n ZDR2009205\n Bk A Han\n 00.45 \xe2\x80\x93 06.15\n A+B\n Bde ZLSM\n Egh Cvm Krd\n Glo Sbk Sn Nh\n Edn Hb C Lg ZDR2009212\n Mtr B Hrl A: 00.48 \xe2\x80\x93 05.28\n ZDR2009208 B: kader voor KIO,\n Belgi\xc3\xab A: 00.15 \xe2\x80\x93 05.45 maximaal 26 keer: 00.14 \xe2\x80\x93 00.48\n ZDR2009216 Mes Sgl Vk Sog Kmr Vdl B: 01.40 \xe2\x80\x93 05.00\n 23.45 \xe2\x80\x93 05.15 Zlsm C: 01.40 \xe2\x80\x93 05.00\n\n\n\n\n\xe2\x80\xa2 Volker Rail, which performs infrastructure maintenance for ProRail in the Netherlands,\n utilizes a system that allows its workers to safely work while trains pass on adjoining\n tracks. As shown in the following pictures, the workers perform their duties within an\n\n\n\n\n 48\n\x0c enclosure that is basically a shell of a rail car. This system significantly improves the\n productivity of these crews since their work is no longer interrupted by passing trains.\n\n\n\n\nRecommendation 4 a \xe2\x80\x93 That the Chief Engineer investigate the feasibility of\nimplementing the European practices used to optimize the productivity of its\ninfrastructure maintenance crews.\n\nRecommendation 4 b \xe2\x80\x93That the Chief Engineer identify the civil noise and other\nrestrictions that are the greatest impediment to efficiency and develop the\noperating and financial benefits that would justify their modification.\n\nRecommendation 4 c \xe2\x80\x93 That the Vice President for Government Affairs &\nCorporate Communications work with local governmental jurisdictions in an\nattempt to modify the civil restrictions that the Chief Engineer identified as\nhindering the efficiency of infrastructure maintenance.\n\n\n\n\n 49\n\x0cFinding No. 5 \xe2\x80\x93 Amtrak could benefit from the adoption of some of the long term\nplanning processes that are being used in Europe.\n\n Effective long term planning of infrastructure maintenance and renewal activities has a\nmajor impact on asset performance and life cycle costs. A newly built or renewed asset has\nan expected lifetime 6 in which it functions with a minimal effort of maintenance (economical\nlifetime). Beyond this point, functionality can only be achieved with intensified maintenance\nresulting in higher costs and usually loss of asset quality (technical lifetime) until even further\ndeterioration leads to loss of function. Ideally, an identified equilibrium of maintenance and\nrenewal costs leads to the lowest life cycle costs (LCC). Any variation leads to either higher\nmaintenance costs or waste of asset value due to early replacement.\n\n The relationship between the lifetime costs and performance of infrastructure assets is\nillustrated in the following diagram that was prepared by ProRail. It should be noted that the\nprerequisites to effectively managing the optimal replacement times for thousands of\ninfrastructure assets is a thorough understanding of the asset condition, the factors causing\nasset degradation and the nature of this degradation. This can only be achieved by regular\nand objective asset condition monitoring, which can be effectively delivered by automated\nsystems as previously mentioned, and by fact based analysis that has quantified the factors\ncausing asset degradation.\n\n\n\n\n6\n Lifetime can be determined by physical age, level of usage, or measured condition.\n\n\n 50\n\x0c The majority of the European infrastructure managers that we visited use a long term\nplanning process to determine their maintenance and renewal programs. It should be noted\nthat the long term planning process is enabled by the multi-year funding commitments made\nby each country for the infrastructure maintenance and renewal programs. The multi-year\nfunding programs, ranging from three to five years, enabled the European infrastructure\ncompanies to develop programs for the cost effective and timely replacement of\ninfrastructure assets. Historically, Amtrak receives only a one year funding commitment for\nits maintenance and renewal programs and frequently does not know what this level of\ncommitment is until well into the budget year. The impact of this funding situation on\nAmtrak\xe2\x80\x99s ability to optimize the efficiency of its capital programs is further described later in\nthis section.\n\n In addition to simply performing long term infrastructure planning as a stand alone\nprocess, some of the European infrastructure maintainers have successfully merged their\nlong term planning process with the company\xe2\x80\x99s strategic objectives, asset maintenance and\nperformance goals, information and reporting systems, and manpower and organization. As\nillustrated in the following chart, ProRail described how they coordinate these planning and\nmanagement processes to attain their corporate objectives and optimize their infrastructure\nmaintenance and renewal programs.\n\n\n\n\n ProRail links Strategic Objectives\n with Infrastructure Maintenance and Renewal Planning\n\n\n Awareness of Structures and\n Transparency in\n the relationship\n between activities,\n Awareness of the\n interaction the long-term\n Systems for\n effectively using\n Strategic\n between\n costs and\n performance\n performance by\n .managers and\n effects of\n maintenance\n the insights\n referred to\n In A, B, and C\n objectives\n (LCM).\n operators\n A B C D\n\n Maintenance Life Cycle Quality Information Management Man &\n management Management assurance instruments organisation\n The chain ProRail has\n The of primary The data for Instruments\n relationship embedded\n All decisions processes asset (including professionalisation\n between costs, on new building\n activities and including tasks, management, procedures) and across the\n alternatives and responsibilities financing systems for organisation by\n performance is maintenance and authorities systems and supporting asset developing knowledge\n known and versus renewal\n applied. A and internal and dashboards management, and experience, skills\n are taken on the external (kpis) are financing system and behavioural\n relationship is basis of interfaces is available, reliable and dashboard\n established with aspects, based on\n demonstrably described and and managed at are implemented desired standards &\n the performance lowest LC costs managed a sufficient\n of operators values and\n level motivation.\n\n 1 2 3 4 5 6\n\n 51\n\x0c Our review of the European infrastructure maintainers also identified the following\nprocesses that were being used to help them plan for the optimal maintenance,\nrefurbishment and replacement of the railroad\xe2\x80\x99s infrastructure assets. Some of these\nprocesses are enabled by the funding mechanisms utilized by the particular European central\ngovernment and consequently Amtrak may not be able to adopt them without appropriate\nchanges being made to its capital and operating subsidy legislation.\n\nPlanning Horizon The planning horizon for the European infrastructure maintainers tended to\nbe longer than that for Amtrak. For example, ProRail used a 10 year planning horizon for its\nmajor projects, which were described and reviewed at a high-level summary level and then\nhad shorter term plans that were described and reviewed at increasing levels of detail.\nThese plans eventually cascaded down to weekly plans that were very detailed, describing\nwork procedures, labor assignments, material and tool requirements, and track outages.\nThis process helped to insure that the long term infrastructure requirements were properly\nplanned for and that these plans were coordinated with mid-term and near term plans and\nprograms.\n\nAsset Designs In line with their longer planning horizon, the European infrastructure\nmaintainers planned and designed their assets based upon their future transportation\nrequirements and not just upon their need to replace or upgrade existing assets. A prime\nexample of this is the new city line that is planned for Stockholm, Sweden. This new line will\nsupplement the existing rail line that serves Stockholm\xe2\x80\x99s Central station and will include two\ntracks, six kilometers of railway tunnels, three new stations, and a one kilometer flyover.\nAnother example of this approach is the new high-speed rail line being built between Vienna\nand St. Polten, Austria. This rail line, which is being built as part of a long term project to\nincrease the rail passenger capacity between Western Europe and Eastern Europe, includes\nan intermediate station stop that has no near-by population centers. The station stop has\nbeen constructed with the concept that \xe2\x80\x9cbuild it and they will come.\xe2\x80\x9d\n\nMulti-Year Funding Commitment All of the European infrastructure maintainers have some\nform of multi-year funding commitment from their federal rail passenger agency. Both\nDeutsche Bahn and OBB have a 5 year rolling capital budget commitment, NetWork Rail has\na 5 year capital commitment, and ProRail has a 4 year capital commitment. The multi-year\nfunding commitments enable the European infrastructure maintainers to both prepare long-\nrange infrastructure plans and to implement the actions (e.g. order long-lead materials,\nnegotiate cost effective multi-year contracts, hire and train qualified staff) required to\nefficiently complete the related programs. It should be noted that some of the multi-year\nfunding commitments are made concurrent with commitments by the infrastructure\nmaintainer to make measurable improvements in the operating and/or financial performance\nof the rail line.\n\nCapital Funding Justification To provide their Federal Government a yardstick to measure the\nbenefits of capital investment in the railroads infrastructure, ProRail presents three funding\nscenarios:\n\n\n 52\n\x0c 1. Base case \xe2\x80\x93 current funding level that results in decreased asset condition, a\n back log of required capital investment, and decreased network\n quality/performance.\n 2. Current Performance Levels \xe2\x80\x93 funding level required to avoid further\n deterioration of asset condition.\n 3. Improved Performance \xe2\x80\x93 funding level required to return infrastructure to a\n SOGR and improve the network quality/performance.\n\nProRail stated that this approach has helped them to justify the capital funding required to\nimprove the quality and performance of their network.\n\nLife Cycle Costs Many of the European infrastructure maintainers took into consideration the\nlife cycle costs to make decisions regarding when to replace assets and how to prioritize their\ncapital projects. Even though the European infrastructure maintainers had consistent subsidy\nlevels, these subsidy levels were not adequate to support their unconstrained funding\nrequirements and they did have to allocate available funds to their highest priority projects.\n\nCapital Funding Allocation Sweden utilizes the approach of allocating its capital funds taking\ninto consideration the combination of projects that optimizes the railroads financial and\noperating performance. This approach goes beyond reviewing individual projects/programs\nas stand alone proposals and takes into consideration network utilization, project criticality\nand how each project impacts other projects and the bottom line performance of the\nrailroad. This approach appears to enhance Sweden\xe2\x80\x99s ability to optimize the financial\nbenefits of its capital investments.\n\nOperating versus Capital Budget To insure that the operating budget is directly linked to\ncapital investments, Deutsche Bahn of Germany first develops it capital budget utilizing the\nLive Cycle Cost approach to optimize financial benefits and then develops the operating\nbudget that reflects the operating and financial benefits derived from the capital investments.\nFor example, if a section of rail line is totally renewed, then the reduced maintenance\nrequirement for this section of the rail line would be reflected in the operating budget and\nthe improved train performance would be reflected in the revenue budget.\n\nMaintenance Prioritization SBB, Switzerland, has a formal, quantifiable process to prioritize\ntheir infrastructure maintenance programs. SBB uses a risk assessment model that, utilizing\nup-to-date condition assessments of the infrastructure assets, quantifies the risk (i.e. cost)\nrelated to train derailments, train delays, and asset repairs. This risk assessment takes into\nconsideration type of asset, type of rail line, consequences of asset failure, and probability of\noccurrence. If applicable at Amtrak, this process will help the company optimize the financial\nand operating benefits of the money invested in infrastructure maintenance.\n\n Amtrak could realize the following benefits by adopting the \xe2\x80\x9cbest practices\xe2\x80\x9d of the\nEuropean Railroads related to long term planning:\n\n\n\n\n 53\n\x0c \xe2\x80\xa2 Insure that the appropriate infrastructure assets will be available to support the\n company\xe2\x80\x99s strategic goals.\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Insure that the highest priority projects will receive the available capital funding.\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Improve the method for justifying the investment of federal funds into Amtrak\xe2\x80\x99s\n infrastructure.\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Insure that the infrastructure maintenance program, which includes both the capital\n programs and operating programs, is optimized.\n\n\nRecommendation 5 - That the Chief Engineer establish a long-term planning\nprocess that optimizes the investment of capital and operating funds for\ninfrastructure maintenance by taking into consideration the timing of asset\nrenewals and related asset reliability and performance.\n\n\n\n\n 54\n\x0cFinding No. 6 - The lack of a multi-year capital funding program has negatively\nimpacted the efficiency of Amtrak\xe2\x80\x99s infrastructure maintenance program.\n\nDiscussion\n\n The most common theme revealed to us by Amtrak\xe2\x80\x99s Engineering staff is the negative\nimpact Amtrak\xe2\x80\x99s current capital budgeting process has on labor productivity. Historically,\nAmtrak Engineering does not know with certainty what its capital budget level will be until\nafter the fiscal year begins. Often, Engineering does not have a fixed capital budget until the\nsecond quarter of the fiscal year when it is too late to make any efficient adjustments in\nprojects prioritizations or labor assignments. The absence of a predetermined capital budget,\nmore importantly a multi-year capital budget, has negatively impacted the efficiency of the\ncapital projects by:\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Inhibiting the Engineering Department from hiring and training the skilled labor force\n required to efficiently perform the capital projects since, otherwise, they would hire\n and train employees who would have to be laid off if the required capital funding is\n not obtained.\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Preventing the Engineering Department from ordering the long lead material items to\n have them on hand when required for the capital projects since, otherwise, they risk\n the likelihood of wasting any materials that had been ordered for projects that were\n subsequently canceled due to lack of capital funding.\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Depriving the Procurement Department the advantage of negotiating contracts for\n materials that have quantity discounts.\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Inhibiting the investment in the most productive technology and machinery to\n complete major capital projects. These types of major investments can not be\n justified unless it is known that there will be sufficient capital funds available to\n complete the projects that will utilize the new technology and equipment.\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Preventing labor from maintaining their skills when projects are prematurely\n terminated due to capital funding shortages. Mr. Denio pointed out that the\n maintenance gangs with the highest productivity on freight railroads stay together as\n a team from year to year because multi-year funding has been committed for the\n work.\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Preventing Engineering from obtaining the best contractor rates and skill sets. Better\n contracts can be negotiated when it is possible to offer longer-term agreements that\n have certain funding authority. Contractors are reluctant to invest in the hiring and\n training of employees if there is a lot of risk associated with the proposed agreement.\n\n In contrast to the situation Amtrak faces regarding capital funding uncertainties, every\nEuropean Railroad that we visited had some form of a multi-year capital funding source. The\nmajority of the railroads had five year capital funding commitments, with some having a\nrolling five year commitment and others with five year commitment blocks. In either case,\nthese railroads were able to optimize the scheduling of their projects, develop productive\nrelationships with their contractors, and assemble the labor and materials for the timely and\n\n\n 55\n\x0cefficient completion of their projects. The majority of these railroads provided their funding\nsources with some measures (i.e. On-Time Performance, average speed, average age of\nassets, etc.) of the benefits to be derived from the capital investments. For example, ProRail\nnot only measures the relationship between their capital investments and their operating\nperformance, but they also program their asset maintenance based upon their asset age and\ncondition, which is related to asset investment.\n\nRecommendation 6 a \xe2\x80\x93 That the Chief Engineer develop the operating and\nfinancial benefits that would be derived from a consistent multi-year capital\nfunding program.\n\nRecommendation 6 b - That the Vice President for Government Affairs &\nCorporate Communications consult with the Congressional appropriation\ncommittees in an attempt to obtain multi-year commitments of capital funds from\nthe Federal Government.\n\n\n\n\n 56\n\x0cLABOR\n\n Our evaluation of Amtrak\xe2\x80\x99s infrastructure maintenance program also revealed that\nopportunities exist to improve Amtrak\xe2\x80\x99s labor production rate. 7 Skilled labor is a major driver\nof productivity rates and consequently, the overall cost of performing infrastructure\nmaintenance. For example, a well trained, highly motivated labor force will have a higher\nproductivity rate than one that is not. Additionally, labor should be the primary focus for\nimproving the overall cost efficiency of infrastructure maintenance since direct labor costs\naccount for 80% of infrastructure core operating expenses and 50% of infrastructure capital\nexpenses. The combination of our interviews with Engineering Department staff, field\nobservations, and visits to the European railroads revealed numerous opportunities that exist\nfor improvements in this area. Listed below are three labor related findings and\nrecommendations on Amtrak\xe2\x80\x99s opportunities to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of its\ninfrastructure maintenance program.\n\n\n\n\nFinding No. 7 \xe2\x80\x93 Some of Amtrak\xe2\x80\x99s labor compensation policies are not competitive\nwith other employers in certain areas of the country and, therefore, they hamper\nthe Engineering Department\xe2\x80\x99s ability to attract and retain a skilled work force.\n\nDiscussion\n\n A theme that repeated itself during our interviews with the Engineering staff is\nAmtrak\xe2\x80\x99s difficulty in attracting and retaining employees in certain crafts and job markets.\nAlthough the recent signing of new labor agreements has ameliorated some of the related\nproblems, it has not solved them all. The attraction and retention issue is a pressing one for\nAmtrak because a large portion of its labor force is approaching their retirement age and\nthere will soon be a critical exodus of these individuals from the labor force. In addition to\nthis factor, certain labor crafts are being hired away from Amtrak by Commuter Railroads or\nCommercial Industries that are able to offer better wage and/or benefit packages. Amtrak\xe2\x80\x99s\nDeputy Chief Engineer\xe2\x80\x93 Electric Traction, stated that he has had a very difficult time keeping\na sufficient number of qualified electricians in his work force since, as soon as he hires and\ntrains them, they leave to work for a Commuter Agency that pays better.\n\n The issue of attracting and retaining qualified employees was a major topic that was\naddressed in the OIG Evaluation of Human Capital Management (E-09-03) of all Amtrak\nemployees. On page 22 of this report, it was concluded that \xe2\x80\x9cthe current total compensation\nsystem still does not appear to address all of Amtrak\xe2\x80\x99s needs in attracting, motivating and\nretaining Amtrak\xe2\x80\x99s agreement covered and non-agreement covered employees.\xe2\x80\x9d The report\nalso stated, to address this labor issue, Amtrak needs to develop an overall compensation\nphilosophy and strategy that will be incorporated into a labor contract negotiating strategy.\n\n7\n Reference flow chart on page 34 of this report.\n\n\n 57\n\x0cThe Engineering Department labor issues are an important part of Amtrak\xe2\x80\x99s overall labor\nissues and should be included in the development of the overall compensation strategy that\nwill help to solve the problems related to attracting and retaining qualified employees.\n\nRecommendation 7 a \xe2\x80\x93 In support of the actions recommended to develop a\ncomprehensive Amtrak compensation strategy (reference page 22 of the OIG\nReport E-09-03), that the Chief Engineer identify the critical near-term and\nprojected staffing shortfalls that need to be addressed by the comprehensive\ncompensation strategy.\n\nRecommendation 7 b - That the Vice President for Human Resources & Diversity\nInitiatives develop a comprehensive compensation strategy that will help attract\nand retain the skilled labor required by the Engineering Department to efficiently\nand effectively complete its infrastructure maintenance programs.\n\n\n\n\n 58\n\x0cFinding No. 8 \xe2\x80\x93 Certain FRA regulations that mandate type and frequency of\ninfrastructure inspection may be excessive and negatively impact the efficiency of\nAmtrak\xe2\x80\x99s infrastructure maintenance programs.\n\nDiscussion\n\n Our interviews with the Deputy Chief-Engineers of Track and C & S revealed that there\nis a significant difference between the inspection procedures (i.e. frequency of visual\ninspections) used by Amtrak and that used by the majority of the European Railroads that\nhad been visited during this evaluation. Amtrak\xe2\x80\x99s inspection procedures are those that have\nbeen mandated by the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) while those of the European\nRailroads are primarily those that have been established by the individual railroads to insure\nthat the infrastructure is safe, reliable, and fully functional. The European Railroads have\ntaken advantage of the latest technology to improve both the efficiency and effectiveness of\ntheir infrastructure inspections. Our review of the European Railroad infrastructure\nmaintenance practices revealed their use of the following procedures/technologies that have\nhelped them to improve the way they complete their infrastructure inspections.\n\nTrack Inspection Frequencies With the exception of NetWork Rail, European infrastructure\nmaintainers perform visual inspections of their track systems much less frequently than\nAmtrak. For example, some of these infrastructure maintainers visually inspect their tracks\nevery 3 months when Amtrak would be inspecting the same classification of track twice a\nweek. It should be noted that NetWork Rail considers their visual track inspection program\n(i.e. once per week) to be more aggressive than necessary, but the frequency and scope of\nthe inspections are dictated by their federal safety regulator. ProRail determines its\ninspection frequencies using a grading system (1 to 8) taking into consideration asset\ncondition, type of rail line, and asset utilization level. The European infrastructure\nmaintainers have also utilized a combination of modern asset inspection technology (e.g.\npattern recognition, track inspection trains, remote asset monitoring/diagnostics systems\nsuch as the POSS switch monitoring system in the Netherlands) and a robust asset\nmanagement system to measure, record, and assess the condition of their infrastructure\nassets. They have been able to use this combination of modern technology and a robust\nasset management system to optimize their track inspection/maintenance programs, while at\nthe same time insuring that their safety and ride quality standards are properly maintained.\n\nPattern Recognition\n\n Pattern recognition is the use of an automated visual inspection system that records\nthe condition of the track system and identifies any structural defects. This concept is well\nknown at Amtrak since its own engineers applied for a patent in August 1996 for an\nAutomated Track Inspection Vehicle and Method that uses this technology. It is also a\ntechnology that is used by some of the European Peer RRs to inspect their track system and\nprovide a \xe2\x80\x9creal time\xe2\x80\x9d record of its condition. This information is used for decisions on slow\norders and track maintenance programs, both near term and long range. Both Switzerland\n\n\n 59\n\x0cand the United Kingdom have versions of the pattern recognition systems included as part of\nthe equipment used to inspect their track system. The Swiss have included the pattern\nrecognition system in the self-propelled track inspection vehicle shown in the following\npicture that was taken while the inspection vehicle was in their maintenance shop. It should\nbe pointed out that, in addition to the pattern recognition data, this vehicle also collects a full\narray of track and catenary related data, such as, track alignment, cross level, gage, super-\nelevation, twist, rail profile, and contact wire position and wear.\n\n\n\n\n Picture of self-propelled Swiss track\n inspection vehicle that includes pattern\n recognition system, in addition to a full\n array of track and catenary related\n inspection technology.\n\n\n\n\nUnattended Geometry Measuring Systems\n\n The overall infrastructure maintenance philosophy of NetWork Rail, the infrastructure\nmaintenance company for British Rail, has shifted from \xe2\x80\x9cfind and fix\xe2\x80\x9d philosophy to \xe2\x80\x9cpredict\nand prevent\xe2\x80\x9d philosophy. To be able to predict when asset failures will occur, NetWork Rail\nhas developed a comprehensive set of tools to measure and report upon the condition of\ntheir infrastructure assets. One of the tools used to measure asset condition is the\nunattended track geometry measuring systems installed on revenue trains. These\nunattended geometry measuring systems complement, not replace, the other NetWork Rail\ntrack measuring vehicles and provide a vast array of up-to-date information on asset\ncondition at a relatively low cost. This data is then used by NetWork Rail to quantify the\ncausal factors of asset degradation and improve their ability to predict failures and optimize\ntheir operating and capital maintenance programs. The \xe2\x80\x9cpredict and prevent\xe2\x80\x9d maintenance\nphilosophy is directed towards providing a safer, more reliable, and more cost effective\nrailroad infrastructure.\n\nVideo Recording of Turnouts\n\n Similar to NetWork Rail, ProRail (infrastructure maintenance company in the\nNetherlands) uses modern inspection technology to help them monitor the condition of their\nrailroad and plan for the efficient maintenance of their infrastructure assets. ProRail has the\n\n\n 60\n\x0csame requirement to have up-to-date and accurate data on the condition of their\ninfrastructure assets. Since the Netherlands has one of the busiest rail systems in the world,\nProRail has a challenge acquiring the data they require without impacting the performance of\ntrain operations or risking the safety of its front line employees. ProRail has therefore\nsuccessfully employed the use of video recorders to monitor and report upon the condition of\ntheir turnouts (i.e. switches on main line tracks). This technology has enabled ProRail to\nobtain the information they require without having to take the tracks out of service for\ninspection or place their employees on the track and in harms way.\n\n\nRemote Monitoring/Diagnostics\n\n Remote monitoring of asset conditions, which is a technology that is actively used in\nthe US trucking industry, has been applied on many European railroads to provide real-time\nassessments of their infrastructure condition. The benefits of this technology include\nimproved timeliness and quality of data and reduced operating expenses. This technology\nenables the condition of the assets to be continuously monitored and diagnosed without\nrequiring maintenance crews being sent to remote locations to complete similar tasks. One\nexample of this technology is the POSS system used in the Netherlands to monitor the\ncondition of turnouts. The POSS system measures and records the current used to drive the\nswitch motors in the turnout. High current readings are an indication that the switch is not\noperating properly and requires a physical inspection and possible repair/maintenance.\n\nRecommendation 8 a \xe2\x80\x93 That the Chief Engineer identify the alternative\nsurveillance and inspections technologies that Amtrak can use to more efficiently\ncomplete the current asset inspection procedures.\n\nRecommendation 8 b \xe2\x80\x93 That the Chief Engineer identify the FRA regulations that\nare the greatest impediment to efficiency, develop the operating and financial\nbenefits that would justify their modification, and then work with FRA\nadministrators in an attempt to update FRA regulations so they align with current\ninspection technology and information systems used throughout Europe.\n\n\n\n\n 61\n\x0cFinding No. 9 - Amtrak\xe2\x80\x99s current labor agreements hamper management\xe2\x80\x99s ability\nto optimize the efficiency of its labor force.\n\nDiscussion\n\n During our review, we learned that other Class I railroads in the United States,\ncontrary to Amtrak, require their union employees to bid on the highest class of job they are\nqualified to perform. Amtrak allows its union employees to bid on the jobs they want,\nirrespective of whether or not it represents the highest class of job they are qualified to\nperform. This situation has the potential to cause work inefficiencies since less qualified\nindividuals may end up performing critical tasks and the potential benefits from the\ninvestment in the training of the more qualified individual are not realized. The efficiency of\nAmtrak\xe2\x80\x99s infrastructure maintenance programs would increase by insuring that the most\nqualified individuals perform the critical maintenance functions.\n\n\nRecommendation 9 a -That the Chief Engineer identify the labor agreement\nprovisions that are the greatest impediments to efficiency and then develop the\noperating and financial data to justify modifying these agreements.\n\nRecommendation 9 b \xe2\x80\x93 That the Vice President for Labor Relations attempt to\nnegotiate modifications to current labor agreements that support the assignment\nof employees to their highest qualified job category.\n\n\n\n\n 62\n\x0cTECHNOLOGY\n\n As illustrated in the flow chart on page 35, equipment technology is the third major\nAmtrak-controlled production driver that impacts the production rate of labor forces. The\ndirect causal relationship between technology and labor productivity has been well known\nsince the days of the Industrial Revolution and has been the driving force behind many of the\nmajor industries reinventing themselves. A prime example of the use of modern technology\nto improve both productivity and product quality is the almost exclusive use of robots in the\nauto industry to perform repetitive manual tasks such as welding and painting.\n\n Our review of the practices used by the European infrastructure maintainers\nrevealed that they have effectively incorporated the use of modern technology to help their\nlabor forces work productively and to provide a high quality end product.\n\n\nFinding No. 10 - Amtrak may be able to benefit by using some or all of the\nfollowing technologies that are currently being used in Europe.\n\n\nPortable Track Geometry Gage\n\n During our visit to Austria, the infrastructure maintenance company for OBB identified\na portable system they use to measure and record data on track geometry. This system is\n far superior to Amtrak\xe2\x80\x99s current system since it\n is more efficient to use and it provides\n enhanced and more reliable information. As\n illustrated in the picture to the left, the\n traditional track gage tool is a manual tool that\n measures only the distance between the track\n (i.e. track gage). The traditional process then\n requires the track gage and its mile post\n location be recorded manually at the work site\n and then subsequently manually input into the\n infrastructure data base at the railroad\xe2\x80\x99s data\n center. The OBB portable track geometry gage\n is a digital system that automatically measures\nand records track gage, rail cross level, and the GPS coordinates. The data, which is digitally\ntransferred to the computer infrastructure data base at the end of an inspection shift, can\nthen be used to calculate other track parameters, such as track spiral, and to plan track\nmaintenance and renewal programs.\n\n\n\n\n 63\n\x0cFlash Butt Welding\n\n Flash butt welding is a technique used by railroads for joining segments of metal rail,\ntypically performed in continuous rail territory where there are no rail joints. As illustrated in\n the following diagram, flash butt welding of rail occurs when the\n segments of rail are aligned with each other and electronically charged,\n producing an electric art that melts and welds the ends of the rail\n segments, yielding an exceptionally strong and smooth joint. The flash\n butt welding process utilizes a relatively low electric voltage, a high\n electric current, and high pressure applied between the rail segments.\n Flash butt welding is the preferred method of welding rail in the \xe2\x80\x9cfield\xe2\x80\x9d\n (i.e. along the right-of-way). The alternative method is thermite\n welding, which is a manual process requiring a chemical reaction in a\n field formed crucible to produce molten iron. Thermite welds of rail\n segments are considered to be less reliable and more prone to fracture\n or break.\n\n Although Amtrak currently uses a flash butt\nwelding process, an improved system was observed\nduring the visit to the European railroads. The flash\nbutt welding system, which is used by Sersa in\nSwitzerland and shown in the picture to the right, is a\nportable system that allows access to field locations\nand is computer controlled, providing improved\nalignment of rail sections and higher quality welds. The\nnew system will decrease the amount of time required\nto complete each weld while improving weld quality,\nwhich will increase train ride quality and decrease rail wear.\n\n\nHollow Switch Ties\n\n As shown in the following picture, Amtrak\xe2\x80\x99s switch machines are designed with solid\n switch ties that require the switch tie rods\n to be located between the switch ties. This\n system exposes the tie rods to potential\n damage from moving equipment and also\n prevents the use of high speed mechanized\n tamping machines to level and align the\n switches.\n Tie Rods\n Switch Tie\n\n\n\n 64\n\x0cIn contrast to the solid switch ties used by Amtrak, Austria uses a hollow switch tie in its\n switch machines. The hollow switch ties are used to house\n the tie rods and thereby protect them from potential\n damage from moving equipment and it also allows the use\n of high speed tamping machines.\n\n Switch Ties\n\n\n\n\nSafety Clearance Handrail\n\n One of Amtrak\xe2\x80\x99s primary goals is the safety of its personnel and customers and\n protecting them from hazards related to the movement of\n trains. As shown in the picture to the left, the Netherlands\xe2\x80\x99\n infrastructure maintenance company uses a safety clearance\n handrail to physically separate a worksite from an active\n station track. The hand rail attaches to the track structure\n and clearly defines the safe working zone for the\n infrastructure workers. In this particular situation, a safety\n fence is used to define the work area in addition to the\n safety handrail.\n\n\nTrain Approaching Warning Device\n\n The train approaching warning device provides both a visual and an audible alarm at\nleast 20 seconds before an approaching train arrives at the location along the right of way\nthat is being protected. The train approaching warning device is used in Europe to help\nprotect infrastructure maintenance employees who work on the right of way. The purpose of\nthese devices is to reduce the risks related to working in the vicinity of live tracks and to help\nreduce the labor hours that otherwise would be required to provide flagging of the railroad.\nBased upon concepts seen in Europe, Amtrak plans to install the warning devices at its\ninterlockings and moveable bridges since these locations have the highest safety related risk\nfactor.\n\nDual Wire Catenary Change Out System\n\n As described on page 15 of this evaluation, a significant portion (i.e. 52%) of Amtrak\xe2\x80\x99s\nelectric traction system is not in a state of good repair and consequently requires\nrehabilitation or total replacement. One of the most critical components of the catenary\n\n\n 65\n\x0csystem is the contact wire that transmits the electric traction power to the train\xe2\x80\x99s locomotives\nvia the pantographs fixed to the roof of each locomotive. Of equal importance to the\ncatenary system is the cable that properly aligns and supports the contact wire.\n\n As illustrated in the following picture, a dual wire centenary change out system is\n available that installs both the contact wire and its\n supporting auxiliary wire in a single working pass at the\n proper final operating tension and correct stagger.\n Compared to the use of conventional technology, this\n system installs these wires with a significant reduction in\n track possession time and, just as importantly, a reduction\n in man hours and capital expense. It is anticipated that the\n new system will support the replacement of 1 mile of\n contact and auxiliary wire during a single shift compared to\nthe current process that requires 15 shifts to complete. This system is currently being used\nby OBB in Austria for the renewal of its overhead electric catenary wires.\n\n\nCopper Magnesium Catenary Contact Wire\n\n Amtrak uses a copper cadmium contact wire in its catenary system south of New York\nCity and a copper silver contact wire north of New Haven. It has been reported that the\ncopper magnesium contact wire is the preferred type of contact wire for high-speed railroads\nbecause it offers high tensile strength, good creep resistance, and high conductivity, which is\nexpected to provide higher current levels for given levels of voltage along the catenary. The\nnew contact wire purportedly has a longer useful service life and consequently is friendlier to\nthe environment. Amtrak plans to install a section of the copper magnesium contact wire\ninto the NEC catenary system and then evaluate its performance.\n\nTrack Measurement Vehicle\n\n The European railroads have numerous types of track inspection and measurement\nvehicles that they use to measure and report upon the condition of their railroad\xe2\x80\x99s\n Video inspection: Position: infrastructure. As illustrated in the\n following picture, NetWork Rail\n Track, surroundings, signal visibility D-GPS, automatic adjustment to objects\n vegetation check, contact wire (Indusi/ATB, magnets, masts), manual setting\n\n utilizes a self-propelled train (New\n Rail cross Measurement Train) to complete the\n section:\n Profile, railtype, inspections of their railroad\xe2\x80\x99s\n rail height &\n head width, infrastructure. NetWork Rail did not\n Overhead line construction:\n wear, gauge\n have all of the inspections systems on\n Contact wire position: height & stagger\n Mast position\n the New Measurement Train (NMT)\n fully functional, but they did have\n Track geometry: plans to have them operating as\n Rail surface:\n Rail crack, rail joint, burns, wear,\n deformation, corrugation, missing\n Gauge, level, alignment,\n superelevation, twist designed in the near future. The\n fasteners\n\n\n\n\n 66\n\x0cNMT also provides a full array of track and catenary related data that is critical to making\ninformed management decisions on track speeds and required maintenance programs. The\nbenefits provided by these inspection vehicles include:\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Efficient inspection of railroad infrastructure \xe2\x80\x93 does not rely on the costly use of\n staff to perform frequent visual inspections.\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Objective results \xe2\x80\x93 conditions are measured and compared to acceptable standards.\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Timely information \xe2\x80\x93 exceptions to accepted minimal criteria are known immediately\n so that actions can be taken.\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Comprehensive record \xe2\x80\x93 a comprehensive record is maintained of the infrastructure\n that can be used to measure system degradation and establish the optimal\n maintenance and renewal programs.\n\nHydraulic Switch Machines\n\n In contrast to the current switch machines used by Amtrak (see picture on Page 44),\nthe Austrians use a hydraulic switch machine that lies within the track profile. The following\n picture illustrates a pre-fabricated crossover that incorporates a\n hydraulic switch machine to move the switch points. This\n crossover was to be cut into a section of the railroad that was\n undergoing a complete renovation from sub-ballast to track\n structure. Compared to the conventional Amtrak switch machine,\n it can be seen that this type of switch eliminates many of the\n moving parts that are maintenance intensive and a potential\n cause of switch operating failures. If applicable to Amtrak\xe2\x80\x99s\n operating environment, the hydraulic switches may be able to\n improve the reliability of these critical track systems, while\n reducing their maintenance requirements and operating\n expenses.\n\n\nSwitch Point Rollers\n\n Switch point rollers are used to reduce the amount of friction between the switch\npoints and the plates that support the rail. The switch point roller system shown in the\nfollowing picture is a SAFEROLL system. This switch point roller system facilitates the\nmovement of the switch rail by lifting the\nswitchblade from the tie plates during the\nsetting movement and enabling it to move\nwithout creating sliding friction on the rollers.\nThe advantages of this system are:\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Rolling friction instead of higher sliding\n friction\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Lifting of the switchblade during the\n movement\n\n\n 67\n\x0c \xe2\x80\xa2 Setting of movement is performed uniformly and without power peaks\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Requires no lubrication of the slide-chair plates\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Rollers have maintenance free bearings.\n\n\n\nHand Held Switch Point Gage\n\n The infrastructure maintenance department for the Austrian national railroad (OBB)\nhas a portable hand held device that quickly and\naccurately measures the track gage at switch points.\nThis system, which is shown in the picture to the left,\nappears to be more efficient and accurate to use than\nthe one that Amtrak currently uses.\n\n\n\n\nFixed Point Track Alignment\n\n Both Switzerland and Austria use a fixed point reference system to insure that their\nrailroad is maintained within very close tolerances to its original design parameters. This is\n accomplished by using the catenary poles along the right of way\n as the fixed points for aligning the railroad. The following picture\n illustrates how the catenary poles on Austria\xe2\x80\x99s Vienna to St.\n Polten high speed rail line include a point to attach a mirror that\n will be used to reflect laser beams during the track alignment\n process. The track tamping machines that align the tracks use a\n combination of video cameras, lasers, GPS systems, and\n computers to quickly and accurately return the railroad to its\n original design. This results in a railroad that has the proper\ntrack geometry and has each of its infrastructure elements (e.g. individual main line tracks)\nin the proper location in reference to each other. It is anticipated that the use of this system\nwould improve the ride quality of Amtrak trains on the NEC, especially when they pass over\ncrossovers between the main line tracks.\n\n\nUnder Tie (Sleeper) Pads\n\n Austria is installing elastomeric pads under their concrete ties (sleepers) to improve\nthe ride quality of their railroad and/or reduce their infrastructure maintenance costs. The\nobjective of this program is to eliminate the hard contact area that exists between the\n\n\n 68\n\x0cconcrete tie and the stone ballast. The hard contact area increases the pressure points\n between the concrete tie and the\n stone ballast, which accelerates\n the failure of the ballast and\n concrete ties. OBB, Austria\xe2\x80\x99s\n infrastructure maintenance\n company, made an informed\n management decision to install\n the elastomeric pads based upon\n tests (see graphs on left) that\n demonstrate the ability of the\n pads to improve track alignment\n and reduce the deterioration of\n track geometry over time.\n\n\nSlab Track\n\n Slab track is a relatively new technology that uses a ballast-less track bed to support\nthe tie and rail system. Although there are numerous types of slab track, they all use a\nconcrete base to support the railroad\xe2\x80\x99s tie and rail system. A good comparison of slab track\nversus ballasted track can been seen in the adjacent\npicture where the slab track for the Frankfurt to Cologne\nICE train runs parallel to the ballasted track used for\nregional train service. While slab tracks are used in the\nUnited States primarily in tunnels, they have become\ncommon place in Europe on their high-speed passenger\nrail systems.\n\n Like most new technologies, there are both\nadvantages and disadvantages to the slab track system.\nThe primary disadvantages of the system are its higher initial cost, uncertain useful service\nlife and unknown replacement cost. The advantages are many:\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Allow higher train operating speeds\n \xe2\x80\xa2 The higher values for cant and cant deficiency allows small horizontal radii, which\n may significantly reduce construction costs in hilly territory\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Requires no track maintenance for tamping and aligning\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Reduces rail wear\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Provides constant elasticity\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Provides excellent ride comfort at high speed\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Reduces vibration and secondary airborne noises\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Improved load distribution reduces dynamic load of subsoil\n \xe2\x80\xa2 No flying or swirling ballast at high train speeds.\n\n\n 69\n\x0cWork Area Fencing\n\n To help reduce the risks associated with working in the vicinity of live tracks, many of\nthe European infrastructure maintainers erected barriers that clearly defined the safe work\nzone for its employees. In Switzerland, the safe work zone was defined by red and white\nsafety tape and actual fences were used to define the safe work zone at projects is Austria.\n\nTurnout Design\n\n Amtrak\xe2\x80\x99s NEC is one of the busiest, if not the busiest, rail networks in the United\nStates and is used by a wide range of train services that vary from the high-speed Acela train\nservice, to Commuter train services, and even to freight train service. To be able to\naccommodate the various types of train services that have dissimilar operating characteristics\n(i.e. train speed, train length, station stops, etc.), the NEC uses a high density of turnouts.\nFor example, the density of turnouts along the NEC Spine exceeds that of over 50% of the\n15 European Railroads included in the Benchmarking Study.\n\n European turnouts are designed for higher train speeds than the maximum allowable\nspeeds through Amtrak\xe2\x80\x99s NEC turnouts. The higher permissible speeds results from the\nturnouts being built with higher cant, smaller turn radii, and higher tolerance standards. As\nwitnessed by the Amtrak benchmarking team, the European railroads have been able to\noperate their trains through these turnouts at higher speeds and maintain a very high ride\nquality on the train. The design of turnouts is a very critical factor in the NEC since it\nimpacts train on-time-performance, train schedules, and customer satisfaction. It is\nanticipated that Amtrak would experience significant operating and financial benefits if it is\nfeasible to utilize some of these turnout design concepts on the NEC.\n\nSofter Rail Pads\n\n Amtrak and other rail infrastructure owners/maintainers place an elastomeric pad\nbetween the rail and the concrete sleeper, as illustrated in the following diagram, for\nimproved train ride quality and infrastructure performance. The European Railroads have\nbeen using a softer rail pad than the one\nthat Amtrak has been using and may\nprovide superior performance. The rail\npads will: Rail pad\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Reduce train noise and vibration\n to improve ride quality\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Provide resilience and impact\n attenuation to increase concrete\n tie (sleeper) service life\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Reduce the possibility of rail foot corrosion and concrete tie erosion\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Provide resistance to rail creep\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Provide electrical insulation.\n\n\n 70\n\x0cSubgrade Replacement Machine\n\n The long term performance and reliability of a track structure is only as good as the\nsubgrade that supports the primary track structure, which includes the sub-ballast, ballast,\nties, rail, and rail fastening system. The purpose of the\nsubgrade is to provide sufficient support to the track\nstructure so that the deflections from train operations are\nminimized, preventing any significant horizontal or vertical\ndisplacements from being transmitted to the track\nstructure. As illustrated in the following diagram, the\nsubgrade includes both the natural ground and the placed\nsoil that lie directly beneath the track structure\xe2\x80\x99s sub-\nballast. If a track structure has a poor sub-grade, then it\nis possible that the upper components of the track structure will not be properly supported,\nthat the ballast could migrate into the sub-grade, or that fine particles in the sub-grade could\nmigrate into the ballast causing mud spots. In any case, these conditions could impact the\nstability of the track and its ability to hold horizontal and lateral alignment.\n\n The infrastructure maintenance company for OBB, Austria\xe2\x80\x99s national rail system, uses\na system (similar to that of Amtrak\xe2\x80\x99s track laying system) to replace the sub-grade of its track\nstructure on a production line basis. The following picture illustrates one portion of the\n system when the geotechnical fabric is being laid\n down and the sub-grade stone is spread over the\n fabric. This function is being performed after the\n system has lifted the rails and ties and removed\n both the ballast and sub-grade, but before the sub-\n grade is tamped, the ties and rail put in place and\n ballast added to the track structure. When this\n operation is completed, the track structure has a\n completely renewed sub-grade and the track\n structure is ready for tamping to insure the rails\n have been properly aligned. Amtrak has never\n attempted to renew the sub-grade of its track\nstructure on such a grand scale and has only completed spot renewals when the conditions\nwarranted the investment of time and money.\n\n There are major one-time costs associated with the total replacement of the sub-\ngrade of a railroad\xe2\x80\x99s track structure. There are also major operating and financial benefits\nthat would be derived from this type of program. The operating benefits include improved\nride quality and train reliability and the financial benefits would include improved\nridership/revenue and reduced operating expenses resulting from the reduced amount of\neffort required to maintain the track\xe2\x80\x99s design geometry. Although the benefits may be\nsignificant, Amtrak should attempt to quantify both the costs and benefits of this type of\nprogram before it invests in the required equipment, manpower, and materials.\n\n\n 71\n\x0cBridge Painting\n\n Amtrak owns and maintains 1,327 undergrade bridges that are constructed from steel,\nconcrete, or masonary and have build dates ranging from about 1890 to the present. In\naddition, Amtrak owns and maintains thirteen moveable bridges that are constructed\nprimarily from steel and have build dates ranging from 1901 to 1984. Similar to Amtrak, the\nEuropean Railroads have railway bridges built from a variety of materials over a wide span of\ntime. As an example, the number of railroad owned and maintained bridges in Switzerland\n are plotted by\n construction type and\n age category in the\n following bar graph. This\n graph illustrates that the\n oldest bridges are\n masonry bridges and that\n the primary type of\n bridge construction is\n concrete. The European\n railway maintainers\n stated that, in spite of\n their relatively lower age\n and population size, steel\nbridges were their greatest maintenance challenge because of corrosion and rust, which is\nintensified wherever the steel bridges are located near bodies of salt water.\n\n Our visits to the European Railroads revealed that there was not a common, unified\napproach to maintaining steel railroad bridges. Some of the European railroad infrastructure\nmaintenance companies do not have a scheduled maintenance program to paint their steel\nbridges to protect them from corrosion. Most of these infrastructure maintainers understood\nthe importance of painting their steel bridges, but due to budget constraints, chose to defer\nthis type of maintenance.\n\n In contrast, the Swiss infrastructure maintainer had a defined maintenance program to\npaint their steel bridges. The strategy of the Swiss program was to use state-of-the-art\ncorrosion protection technology to produce an economical steel bridge maintenance program.\nTo implement this strategy, the Swiss analyzed the available corrosion protection\ntechnologies and maintenance schedules to provide:\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Durable and robust bridges\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Low operating maintenance expenses\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Minimal life cycle costs (LCC)\n\nThe analysis took into consideration asset service life, renewal expenses (i.e. labor cost,\nmaterial cost, set-up cost), consequences to train operations, and environmental impact.\n\n\n 72\n\x0cBridge Reinforcement\n\n As previously stated, Amtrak owns and maintains 1,327 undergrade railroad bridges,\nwhich include concrete bridges that cumulatively span almost four linear miles. When\nexposed to sufficiently aggressive environmental conditions, the structural concrete in these\nbridges will eventually deteriorate and lose strength. Aggressive environmental conditions\nfor bridges involve cycles of freezing and thawing, and cycles of wetting and drying that is\ncommon to the northeast portion of the US. Banverket, the infrastructure maintainer in\nSweden, utilizes carbon fiber technology to reinforce its bridges because of the high strength\nto weight ratio of carbon fiber. This technology may provide significant operating and\nfinancial benefits since reinforcing concrete bridges with carbon fiber may extend the service\nlife of these bridges and reduce their overall life cycle costs.\n\n Concrete Catenary Structures\n\n OBB, the national passenger railway system in Austria, utilized a comprehensive 15\nyear process to plan and initiate the construction of their high speed rail line between Vienna\nand St. Polten, Austria. This process analyzed traffic, technology and alignment alternatives\ntrying to optimize the balance between environmental, operating, and financial factors. One\nof the many design concepts utilized in the Vienna to St. Polten rail line is the concrete\ncatenary pole. The picture to the right shows a partially\ncompleted portion of the rail line that has an asphalt sub-\ngrade, concrete catenary poles, and cable box raceway. OBB\nhas chosen to use concrete catenary poles because, in Austria,\nthey cost less than steel poles, they require less maintenance,\nand they are more aesthetically appealing. Amtrak should\ninvestigate if the same factors would apply for the use of\nconcrete catenary poles in newly electrified rail lines in the\nUnited States.\n\n\nPrefabricated Temporary Bridges During major bridge rehabilitation and replacement\nprojects, OBB diverts the rail traffic to off-the shelf type prefabricated bridges that have been\ntemporarily put in place\nduring the construction\nprojects. The use of the\ntemporary railway bridge\n(see adjacent picture)\nenables the construction\nproject to proceed efficiently\nwhile minimizing the impact\nto train operations over this\nportion of the rail line.\nWhen required, Amtrak\n\n\n 73\n\x0ccurrently designs and then has built temporary bridges for each specific bridge project.\nThere may be some time related and cost related benefits to using an off-the-shelf type\nprefabricated bridge compared to a design-build type prefab bridge.\n\nAdvanced Radio Systems The European infrastructure operators are in the process of\ninstalling an advanced radio system (GSM-R) on their rail lines as one part of a suite of\nprograms supporting the UIC goal to operate trains seamlessly between European countries\nand across the continent. This system is being installed in combination with the European\nRail Traffic Management System (ERTMS) and the European Train Control System (ETCS),\nwhich are also required to support the UIC inter-operability goal. In addition to improving\nthe reliability of the train radio system, GSM-R will also:\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Allow the train controller to not only speak directly with the train engineer, but\n also to the passengers on the train via the train intercom.\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Allow the train engineer to contact the train controller with one push of a button.\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Allow the train controller to call multiple trains at one time.\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Allow the train controller to make a railway wide emergency call using the red\n emergency button.\n\nAmtrak may be able to benefit from the increased reliability and functionality of these\nadvanced radio systems.\n\nSafety Inspection Platform As described on page iii of this evaluation\xe2\x80\x99s introduction, the\nNetherlands was identified as the country to visit regarding the best practices related to\nbridge maintenance programs because of their high density of both fixed and moveable\nbridges. Their railroad system has a total of\n4,880 bridges, overpasses, and tunnels, which\namounts to almost 3 of these major\ninfrastructure assets per network mile. To\nimprove the safety and efficiency of the bridge\ninspections, the railroad infrastructure\nmaintainer (ProRail) uses permanently installed\nplatforms (see picture to right of moveable\nplatform beneath the lift bridge at Dordrecht) to\ninspect the support structure of bridges. The\ninspection platform enables the ProRail\nemployees to safely inspect the supporting\nstructure of this lift bridge without impacting\nthe rail operations of this key rail line.\n\n\nOutput Based Contracts Most of the European infrastructure maintainers rely heavily on\nthe use of outside contractors (i.e. non-railroad employees) to complete their major capital\nimprovement projects and consequently have extensive experience contracting out this work.\n\n\n 74\n\x0cBanverket, Sweden, has determined that the use of \xe2\x80\x9coutput based\xe2\x80\x9d contracts offers the\ngreatest opportunities for them to obtain the infrastructure improvements they have paid for.\nCoincidentally, a 2007 survey conducted in the United States by the International Association\nfor Contract and Commercial Management revealed that over 50% of the respondents were\nusing output based contracts. The unique aspect of this type of contract is that it focuses on\nwhat the deliverables are rather than how they should be delivered, and consequently allows\nthe contractor to utilize the most cost effective technologies and processes to deliver the\nproduct/services. ProRail has also begun to use performance (i.e. output) based contracts\nand has gained valuable experience in how best to define performance indices and to\nincorporate performance incentives/penalties.\n\n For a railroad infrastructure company, examples of deliverables from an output based\ncontract are track speed, track geometry, ride quality, and system reliability. To help insure\nthat their contracts are successful, Banverket specifies standardized components to be used\nin the maintenance projects, establishes meaningful and measurable performance indices,\nand works very closely with the contractors to eliminate any avoidable barriers to their\nsuccess. Banverket wants these contracts to be a win-win relationship and is willing to\naccept some near term risk to develop contracts that will provide the best infrastructure and\nthe best price.\n\n\nRecommendation 10 - That the Chief Engineer prepare and implement a plan to\ninvestigate the feasibility and benefits that would be derived by utilizing each of\nthe technologies currently being employed by European railroads as discussed in\nthis section and summarized in Appendix I.\n\n\n\n\n 75\n\x0cSUMMARY - RECOMMENDATIONS\n\nProcess\n\nRecommendation 1 \xe2\x80\x93 That the Chief Engineer continue to develop and implement an asset\nmanagement process that will provide the appropriate data and business decision processes\nrequired to optimize Amtrak\xe2\x80\x99s infrastructure maintenance and renewal programs.\n\nRecommendation 2 \xe2\x80\x93 That the Chief Engineer expand the Industrial Engineering expertise\nwithin Amtrak\xe2\x80\x99s Engineering Department so that it can regularly develop infrastructure\nmaintenance programs that optimize the use of manpower, materials, and technology.\n\nRecommendation 3 \xe2\x80\x93 That the Chief Engineer develop and use a comprehensive set of\nmetrics that monitor infrastructure maintenance performance to support effective decision-\nmaking.\n\nRecommendation 4 a \xe2\x80\x93 That the Chief Engineer investigate the feasibility of implementing\nthe European practices used to optimize the productivity of its infrastructure maintenance\ncrews.\n\nRecommendation 4 b \xe2\x80\x93 That the Chief Engineer identify the civil noise and other restrictions\nthat are the greatest impediment to efficiency and develop the operating and financial\nbenefits that would justify their modification.\n\nRecommendation 4 c \xe2\x80\x93 That the Vice President for Government Affairs & Corporate\nCommunications work with local government jurisdictions in an attempt to modify civil\nrestrictions that the Chief Engineer identified as hindering the efficiency of infrastructure\nmaintenance.\n\nRecommendation 5 \xe2\x80\x93 That the Chief Engineer establishes a long-term planning process that\noptimizes the investment of capital and operating funds for infrastructure maintenance by\ntaking into consideration the timing of asset renewals and related asset reliability and\nperformance.\n\nRecommendation 6 a \xe2\x80\x93 That the Chief Engineer develop the operating and financial benefits\nthat would be derived from a consistent multi-year capital funding program.\n\nRecommendation 6 b \xe2\x80\x93 That the Vice President for Government Affairs & Corporate\nCommunications consult with the Congressional appropriation committees in an attempt to\nobtain multi-year commitments of capital funds from the Federal Government.\n\n\n\n\n 76\n\x0cLabor\n\nRecommendation 7 a \xe2\x80\x93 In support of the actions recommended to develop a comprehensive\nAmtrak compensation strategy (reference page 22 of the OIG Report E-09-03), that the Chief\nEngineer identify the critical near-term and projected staffing shortfalls that need to be\naddressed by the comprehensive compensation strategy.\n\nRecommendation 7 b \xe2\x80\x93 That the Vice President for Human Resources & Diversity Initiatives\ndevelop a comprehensive compensation strategy that will help attract and retain the skilled\nlabor required by the Engineering Department to efficiently and effectively complete its\ninfrastructure maintenance programs.\n\nRecommendation 8 a \xe2\x80\x93 That the Chief Engineer identify the alternative surveillance and\ninspection technologies that Amtrak can use to more efficiently complete the current asset\ninspection procedures.\n\nRecommendation 8 b \xe2\x80\x93 That the Chief Engineer identify the FRA regulations that are the\ngreatest impediment to efficiency, develop the operating and financial benefits that would\njustify their modification and then work with the FRA administrators to update FRA\nregulations so they align with current inspection technology and information systems.\n\nRecommendation 9 a \xe2\x80\x93 That the Chief Engineer identify the labor agreement provisions that\nare the greatest impediments to efficiency and then develop the operating and financial data\nto justify modifying these agreements.\n\nRecommendation 9 b \xe2\x80\x93 That the Vice President for Labor Relations attempt to negotiate\nmodifications to the current labor agreement that support the assignment of employees to\ntheir highest qualified job category.\n\nTechnology\n\nRecommendation 10 \xe2\x80\x93 That the Chief Engineer prepare and implement a plan to investigate\nthe feasibility and benefits that would be derived by utilizing each of the 32 technologies\ncurrently being employed by European railroads as discussed in this section and summarized\nin Appendix I.\n\n\n\n\n 77\n\x0c APPENDIX I\n SUMMARY OF EUROPEAN BEST TECHNOLOGY PRACTICES\n\n Best Practice\n\n\nMagnesium-copper contact wire\nDual wire catenary change out machine\nRemote monitoring/diagnostics\nUse of concrete catenary structures\nPattern recognition\nTrack measurement vehicle\nUnattended geometry measuring systems on revenue trains\nVideo recording of turnouts, visual inspections of the recordings as a result of safety regulations ("nobody in the\ntrack")\nSwitch monitoring system (POSS)\nPortable track geometry gauge\nHand held switch point gauge\nHollow switch tie\nHydraulic switch machines\nSwitch point rollers\nIncrease turnout efficiency\nPad under concrete tie\nSofter pads between rails and ties\nSubgrade replacement machine\nAsphalt subgrade layer\nFlash butt welding\nFixed point surfacing\nTotal track renewal\nExpanded use of work area fencing\nSelf contained mobile workstation (Volker Rail)\nSafety clearance handrail\nPrefab temporary bridges\nSafety platform for under-bridge-inspections, permanent inspection scaffolding\nBridge painting\nWeb based asset register and maintenance program for bridges, also used by road administrations\nCambridge Systematics\nBridge reinforcement\nTrain approaching warning devices at the movable bridge in Dordrecht\nAdvanced radio-system: office to train PA (public address) system\n\n\n\n\n 78\n\x0c APPENDIX II\n\n Contributors to Report E-09-05\n\nName__________________________Title/ Function___________________\n\n\nAmtak OIG\n\nPrimary Author:\nJim Simpson Chief, Inspections & Evaluations\n\nOther Contributors:\nCalvin Evans Deputy IG, Inspect. & Evaluations\nPhilip Ong Director, Inspections & Evaluations\nNico Lindenau Director, Inspections & Evaluations\n\nAmtrak Engineering\n\nFrank Vacca Chief Engineer\nSteven Falkenstein Deputy Chief Engineer Maintenance\nDavid Staplin Deputy Chief Engineer Track\nJames Richter Deputy Chief Engineer Structures\nKeith Holt Deputy Chief Engineer Communications & Signals\nRobert Verhelle Deputy Chief Engineer Electric Traction\nWilliam Bates Sr. Director Business Improvement\nTom Denio Superintendent Engineering Production\nEd Simons Sr. Director Planning & Budgeting\nReuven Shiloh Sr. Director Operation Improvement\nBruce Willbrant Former Deputy Chief Engineer Maintenance\nJohn Pielli Director Track Maintenance & Compliance\nBernie Pattay Director Program Planning\nJim Buechler Director, Planning & Integration\nGeorge Fritter Deputy Division Engineer New England\n\n\nBSL Management Consultants\n\nDr. Heiner Bente Managing Director\nKlaus Wittmeier Senior Consultant\nFrank Zschoche Director\n\n\n\n 79\n\x0c Contributors to Report E-09-05 (cont.)\nName__________________________Title/ Function___________________\n\nSBB\n\nMartin Aeberhard Head of System Design-ET\nMarkus Barth Head of Interaction Infrastructure/Rail\nJean-Michel Devaud Head of Products and Systems\nKarin Frey Project Engineer \xe2\x80\x93 Asset Management\nDaniel Gerber Head of Interlocking Block\nPeter Guldenapfel Senior Engineer, Products and Systems\nXaver Imwinkelried Area Manager, Maintenance & Construction\nThomas Peter Lang Senior Engineer, Products and Systems\nBeat Pfyl Senior Controller, Finance \xe2\x80\x93 Track System\nHeinz Rickli Senior Eningeer, Program Manager\nPeter Walchli Head of Measuring Train\nJurg Widmer Senior Engineer, Asset Management\nDaniel Wyder Head of Asset Management\n\nOBB\n\nFriedrich Cerny Engineering \xe2\x80\x93 Train Control & Signalling\nThomas Simandl Infrastructure Service\nRoman Fila Engineering \xe2\x80\x93 Bridges & Civil Engineering\nJurgen Stern Engineering \xe2\x80\x93 Geotechnics\nFranz Stelzer Engineering \xe2\x80\x93 Permanent Way\n\nOBB (continued)\n\nDietmar Zieri Director Layout of Lines & Stations\nKlaus Leithner Engineering \xe2\x80\x93 Standardization Energy\nBernhard Knoll Director \xe2\x80\x93 Permanent Way\n\nNetwork Rail\n\nJerry England Director \xe2\x80\x93 Civil Engineering\nAndy Kirwan Head of Asset Management Development\nDarren Wells Standards and Assurance Engineer\nCharles Hervy Business Planning Engineer\nPeter Lander Track and Geometry Gauging Engineer\nAlan Dray Head of Structures Engineering\nDavid Wynne Head of Maintenance Improvement\nJonathan Ellis Interoperability Engineer\n\n\n 80\n\x0c Contributors to Report E-09-05 (cont.)\nName__________________________Title/ Function___________________\n\nSimon Broomhead Infrastructure Measurement Engineer\nEddie Locke Examination Resource Manager\nMark Dembrosky Vehicle Track Dynamics Expert\nTez McCall Engineering Development Manager\nRichard Owens Area Track Engineer\n\nDeutsche Bahn\n\nAndreas Beck Technology Management\nKnut Maisch Head of Maintenance and Operations\nJorg Schurig Asset Planning\nAlexandra Vogl Head of Central Asset Planning\nJens Muller Head of Civil Engineering\n\n\nBanverket\n\nTorbjorn Bodin Project Leader\nValle Janssen Bridge Engineering\nBjorn Ostlund Division Chief\nHelena Andersson\nFredrik Markgren Engineer Interlocking\nPer-Eric Metso Project Leader \xe2\x80\x93 Consultant\nLars Lagestam Chief of Signaling\n\nBanverket\n\nJohan Oberg Civil Engineering\nRoberth Eriksson Manager in Stockholm\nBjorn Kufver Track Engineer\nSven Leijonhufvud Coordinator-technology\nJenny Holm Informant\nStephan Larsson Project Manager, Telelbacken\nEnsio Taivalkoski Track Engineer\nTerje Johnsson\nMaria Blanche Administrator\n\n\n\n\n 81\n\x0c Contributors to Report E-09-05 (cont.)\nName__________________________Title/ Function___________________\n\nProRail\n\nTed Luiten Head Infrastructure Planning\nDr. Ivan Shevtsov Specialist Rail Systems\nTaco Sysling System Manager, Track\nFrits Verheij Manager Asset Management\nAndre Broersen System Specialist\n\n\n\n\n 82\n\x0c'