Performance comparison workstream
Publication details: uo European Rail Infrastructure Managers, 2016Description: 39 sSubject(s): Online resources: Abstract: Report targets is to: - Provide a synthetic view of data provided by members and initial findings from results observed - Provide set of standards for data definition and production for the selected KPIs. This report includes data provided by the following members of EIM Asset Management workgroup from July 2014 to December 2015: Banedanmark, Finnish Transport Agency, Infraestructuras de Portugal, Jernbaneverket, Network Rail, ProRail, SNCF Reseau, Trafikverket. As performance differences observed can be explained not only by IM enablers but also by many other causes, it is not possible to draw up any recommendations related to IM enablers at this stage. Nevertheless, EIM elaborated together with each member some “working hypotheses” that could explain part of IM position within the benchmark. A good use of these working hypotheses could be to carry out further investigations in order to assess more precisely the impact of IM enablers in the differences observed. These further investigations could be carried out either internally or through bilateral discussion or within EIM’s AM working group. Regarding group work, it has been decided to extend existing benchmark to performance comparison at network segment level in order to mitigate the impact of traffic density and line speed.Report targets is to: - Provide a synthetic view of data provided by members and initial findings from results observed - Provide set of standards for data definition and production for the selected KPIs. This report includes data provided by the following members of EIM Asset Management workgroup from July 2014 to December 2015: Banedanmark, Finnish Transport Agency, Infraestructuras de Portugal, Jernbaneverket, Network Rail, ProRail, SNCF Reseau, Trafikverket. As performance differences observed can be explained not only by IM enablers but also by many other causes, it is not possible to draw up any recommendations related to IM enablers at this stage. Nevertheless, EIM elaborated together with each member some “working hypotheses” that could explain part of IM position within the benchmark. A good use of these working hypotheses could be to carry out further investigations in order to assess more precisely the impact of IM enablers in the differences observed. These further investigations could be carried out either internally or through bilateral discussion or within EIM’s AM working group. Regarding group work, it has been decided to extend existing benchmark to performance comparison at network segment level in order to mitigate the impact of traffic density and line speed.