nzb 2011
DESCRIPTION
nzb 2011 magazinTRANSCRIPT
Network Status Report 2011. SBB Infrastructure.
Authors Steffen Schmidt, Jürg SchneiderCopyright This document is protected by copyright. Express prior authorisation is required for any form of commercial use whatsoever.
Contents.
1. Management summary. 4
1.1. Network status 41.2. Financial trends, asset maintenance 4
2. Aim of this report. 6
3. Network condition 2011. 73.1. The situation 73.2. Average residual life span 83.3. Availability 93.4. Safety 103.5. Critical physical assets 103.6. Inventory and replacement value 13
4. Financial trends. 144.1. The backlog 154.2. Structural deficiencies 174.3. Unfinanced implementation of technical regulations 18
5. Methodology used for the 2011 status report. 205.1. Presenting the condition of the infrastructure
physical assets 205.2. Expenditure based on planned maintenance work 215.3. Backlog (always shown as the total as at
the end of 2011) 215.4. Unfinanced structural deficiencies (shown over
the 2012–2017 time horizon) 225.5. Unfinanced implementation of technical regulations
(shown over the 2012–2017 time horizon) 225.6. Critical physical assets (as at the end of 2011) 225.7. Accuracy of the figures 23
4
1. Management Summary.
1.1. Network conditionOverall, most physical assets are in good condition and there has been a very slight improvement compared with the previous year. The condition of SBB Infrastructure’s rail, energy and telecom networks is evaluated on the basis of the average residual life span, availability and safety of its physical assets. 74 percent of the physical assets (measured by their replacement value) are in either good or very good condition, 20 percent in moderate condition and only just six percent in poor or critical condition. Those physical assets currently assessed as critical will be gradually up-graded by 2022. 2011 saw an improvement in availability and safety levels. At current unit costs, the replacement value of the physical assets inspected is estimated at CHF 80.2 billion. The increase of some CHF 3 billion compared with the previous year is due to additional physical assets and types of physical asset being included in this year’s report. Over the time horizon considered here, the inventory of noise control structures will increase by 100 percent by 2017, while the tunnel inventory will grow by 64 percent and electrical physical assets 1 by 17 percent.
In SBB Infrastructure’s opinion, there are no acutely safety-critical physical assets. However, the condition of the fuel tank physical assets is not sufficiently well known. Initial spot checks indicate that there could be an acutely safety-criti-cal situation. An analysis will follow in due course, but it is very likely that immediate action will need to be taken. Various other types of physical asset have individual elements which do not adequately meet safety, availability and/or compliance requirements. However, the risks posed by these physical assets currently lie within an acceptable range. The necessary action has been initiated and financed.
The exceptions to this are four stations with potentially dangerous “rail access” bottlenecks plus the obsolescent interlocking in the former Biel marshalling yard. Financing for the action required to rectify these critical conditions has not yet been obtained, but work is currently being carried out in preparation for the decisions to be taken. As part of the 2013–2016 Performance Agreement negotiations, however, a further seven capacity-critical stations have been included in the list of expansion investments requiring urgent implementation.
1.2. Financial trends, asset maintenanceThe increased finance available for asset maintenance set out in the 2013–2016 Performance Agreement between SBB and the federal government will make it possible to stabilise the condition of the physical assets. The resources available for asset maintenance correspond to the maximum number of measures which can be implemented within this timeframe (a consolidated average of CHF 2.1 billion. p. a. in the 2012–2017 medium-term corporate plan-ning period).
It will not be possible to completely eradicate the backlog or implement certain pending rail access measures (increasing capacity for passengers and other station users, implementation of the Swiss Federal Act on Equal Rights for People with Disabilities) by 2016. A stepped-up implementation programme is being prepared for 2017 onwards.
Compared with the previous year, the backlog has increased slightly to CHF 1.78 billion (2009: CHF 1.35 billion; 2010: CHF 1.74 billion). This equates, as before, to around two percent of the replacement value.
Compared with last year’s network status report, there have been considerable reductions in the non-financed medi-um-term funding requirement for structural deficiencies (–61 percent to CHF 334 million) and in the non-financed tech-nical regulations (–42 percent to CHF 286 million). However, both these effects are primarily attributable to these
1 As regards electrical physical assets, the quantity schedules for 2012–2017 quoted in the 2011 Network Status Report exclude the Gotthard Base Line so as to ensure
comparability with medium-term corporate planning for 2012–2017.
5measures being extended to time horizons beyond the 2012–2017 period reported here. The funding requirement for implementing the Swiss Federal Act on Equal Rights for People with Disabilities by 2023 and for adapting passenger capacities in stations remains very high as before. The latter will require expenditure of over CHF 200 million in the me-dium term and CHF 2–3.5 billion in the longer term.
6
2. Aim of this report.
Under the terms of the Performance Agreement, SBB has to submit an annual network status report to the federal government. The report is to give “comprehensive information about the development of the condition of the infrastruc-ture physical assets”.
SBB Infrastructure goes beyond this requirement by also indicating the funding requirements. This report describes the status of the SBB network as at the end of 2011. It is based on the 2009 external network audit and on the 2010 network status report. On the one hand, the report provides information on the condition of SBB Infrastructure’s rail, energy and telecom networks, and on the other, it covers the future funding requirement for asset maintenance and, in particular, the backlog, the structural deficiencies and the non-financed technical regulations.
7
3. Network condition, 2011.
3.1. The situationBecause of the very large number of mostly very long-lived physical assets (some 1.5 million listed components), a short-term comparison of the 2009, 2010 and 2011 network status reports shows no visible change in the overall condition. Changes are only visible in individual areas such as critical physical assets or in individual key technical parameters such as immediate intervention thresholds, which explains why these are explicitly highlighted in this re-port and its Annex.
The report uses a scale of 1 (acutely critical) to 6 (very good) to assess the condition of the physical assets in terms of their availability, safety and average residual life span. This appraisal shows that 73.9 percent of the physical assets (measured by their replacement value 2) are in good or very good condition, while 20.3 percent are in moderate condi-tion and only 5.8 percent are in poor or critical condition 3. The number of unplanned line speed restrictions dropped from 60 in 2010 to 36 in the year under review. The distribution of marks varies between the different physical asset categories. This reflects the different characteristics of the physical assets; factors which can affect their condition include technology, the physical and technological ageing process, the loading to which they are subject, functional and legal requirements and the expenditure and other measures invested in asset maintenance.
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Rail ac
cess
, Stat
ions
Production eq
uipment
Electric
al insta
llatio
ns
and eq
uipment
Energy
Track
Catenary
Civil E
ngineerin
g IT
Nature
and natu
ral haz
ards
Signalling
Telec
om
Train co
ntrol s
ystem
s
critical
acutely critical
poor
average
good
very good
Figure 1: Distribution of marks awarded to the condition of each physical asset category.
In this report, the condition of the physical assets is essentially assessed on the following three criteria 4. The sub-criteria shown in brackets vary between the individual infrastructure categories and types. • Average residual life span (e. g. remaining service life, residual usage period, condition evaluations)• Availability (e. g. deficiencies, malfunctions, delay minutes, non-operational periods)• Safety (e. g. incidents, compliance)
2 Previous reports showed the distribution of marks over the number of physical assets, but this produced a less accurate representation.
3 The data on condition, average residual life span, availability and safety contained in this report is weighted according to the replacement value of the physical assets.
Because of the small number involved, the few critical physical assets are inconspicuous in this chart.
4 The only exception is the “rail access” (stations) physical asset category, where functionality is measured instead of availability and compliance instead of safety.
8 Network capacity or the functionality of the physical assets is not assessed. The “train control system” physical as-set category includes a considerable proportion of physical assets in a poor condition. The reasons for this is their low average residual life span.
Physical assets reaching the end of their service life is the main reason for most poor or critical marks. This mainly affects infrastructure categories such as “energy”, “permanent way”, “safety physical assets”, “engineering”, “electri-cal physical assets” and to an extent “rail access”, all of which have long-lived physical assets. In the case of the latter, the reduced functionality of some physical assets is a second factor that pushes down their condition rating.
In the “energy” category, the delay in investing in replacement power stations while awaiting decisions on concessions and occasional poor marks awarded for average residual life span, availability and safety have resulted in poor marks for condition. The obsolescent interlocking in the former marshalling yard in Biel is the reason why a proportion of the safety physical assets is shown as critical. In the “permanent way” category, a small number of kilometres of track on which the track geometry immediate intervention threshold values had been exceeded resulted in critical marks. “Production equipment” was marked down in some areas for two reasons: first, the vehicle fleet is ageing, which has an adverse effect on availability; and second, insufficient information is available about the condition of the storage tanks (fuel tank physical assets) 5. Spot checks in this area point to an acutely safety-critical situation. An analysis will follow in due course.
3.2. Average residual life spanThe average residual life span of an physical asset describes the “residual depreciable life” of an physical asset. As a general rule, it equates to the remaining period of use until the physical asset has to be replaced. The average resid-ual life span of 88.6 percent of the physical assets is assessed as moderate to very good; 11.0 percent as poor and 0.4 percent as critical.
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Rail ac
cess
, Stat
ions
Production eq
uipment
Electric
al insta
llatio
ns
and eq
uipment
Energy
Track
Catenary
Civil E
ngineerin
g IT
Nature
and natu
ral haz
ards
Signalling
Telec
om
Train co
ntrol s
ystem
s
critical
acutely critical
poor
average
good
very good
Figure 2: Distribution of marks awarded to the average residual life span of each physical asset category.
5 Part of the “production equipment” physical asset category.
9The average residual life span of the “train control systems” physical asset category is poor because the ZUB and SIGNUM systems have reached the end of their service life. SBB Infrastructure will replace the systems with the “ETCS network” programme by the end of 2017. Safe operation will remain assured. There are some obsolescent physical assets in the portfolios of the “energy”, “production equipment” (certain types of shunting locomotives, coaches, cate-nary test car), “engineering” and “rail access” categories. As regards “traction current physical assets”, there is evi-dence of too little asset maintenance work having been carried out in past years. This explains why the average residual life span of the overhead contact line and the switching points in particular has been assessed as poor. The service life of the “electrical physical assets and equipment” is being stretched out as far as possible in order to optimise life cycle costs.
3.3. AvailabilityThe availability of 93.4 percent of the physical assets is good to very good. Only 6.6 percent of physical assets were categorised as having poor or critical availability.
100%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
Rail ac
cess
, Stat
ions
Production eq
uipment
Electric
al insta
llatio
ns
and eq
uipment
Energy
Track
Catenary
Civil E
ngineerin
g IT
Nature
and natu
ral haz
ards
Signalling
Telec
om
Train co
ntrol s
ystem
s
critical
acutely critical
poor
average
good
very good
Figure 3: Distribution of marks awarded to the availability of each physical asset category.
The availability of the “energy” physical asset category is partly assessed as poor, mainly due to major power station overhauls. As regards “rail access”(stations), capacity is severely restricted at five stations (cf. critical physical assets, Section 3.5) and this has had a corresponding effect on the mark awarded for functionality. The risk of some types of shunting locomotives failing has increased and therefore “production equipment” availability is assessed as unsatis-factory. The fact that some of the immediate intervention threshold values in the “permanent way” category had been exceeded explains the critical mark awarded to this physical asset category.
10 3.4. SafetyThe safety of 90.2 percent of physical assets is assessed as average to very good. 9.5 percent of physical assets received a poor safety mark and 0.3 percent a critical safety mark.
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Rail ac
cess
, Stat
ions
Production eq
uipment
Electric
al insta
llatio
ns
and eq
uipment
Energy
Track
Catenary
Civil E
ngineerin
g IT
Nature
and natu
ral haz
ards
Signalling
Telec
om
Train co
ntrol s
ystem
s
critical
acutely critical
poor
average
good
very good
Figure 4: Distribution of marks awarded to safety in each physical asset category.
The condition of the fuel tank physical assets is not sufficiently well known. Initial spot checks indicate that there could be an acutely safety-critical situation. An analysis will follow in due course.
In the “energy” physical asset category, the substations were given a poor safety mark because of gaps in the docu-mentation of operating regulations. The condition of a certain proportion of the “engineering” category’s water networks, culverts and to some extent its bridges has not yet been surveyed. Because there is a lack of knowledge about their status, this proportion of the physical assets has been marked down as poor. Some “rail access” physical assets received poor marks because the safety distances are insufficiently compliant in some stations.
3.5. Critical physical assetsAccording to the physical asset managers, there were no acutely critical physical assets as at the reporting date at the end of 2011 (just as in 2010). In particular, no physical asset posed a direct risk to operational or workplace safety. Accordingly, there is no immediate requirement for action. The only exception are the storage tanks mentioned above.
In line with our commitment to transparency, this network status report is the first to list critical physical assets where there is no acute need for action. Only three of the critical physical assets shown in the tables below are the result of new findings:• Five stations with potentially dangerous passenger flow bottlenecks were analysed in recent months in accordance
with a new evaluation methodology agreed with the Swiss Federal Office of Transport (BAV), and have now been assessed as critical (Stadelhofen, Museumstrasse, Lenzburg, Stettbach and Glanzenberg). The seven stations al-ready known to suffer from passenger flow bottlenecks (Zurich Hardbrücke, Rolle, Basel SBB, Zurich Altstetten, Olten, Bellinzona, Morges) were added to the list of expansion investments requiring urgent implementation last year, as part of the 2013–2016 Performance Agreement negotiations between the federal government and SBB. The financing for these upgrades has yet to be secured, although it may be included in a supplementary agreement with the BAV stemming from an underspend of resources in the current year.
• The situation regarding the storage tanks has become transpareent as a result of the newly begun condition analysis.• The track gauge error compliance problem is identified here for the first time.
11The physical assets listed in the table below are, however, critical as regards their availability, safety and/or compli-ance 6. The risks in these instances currently lie within an acceptable range. In the medium term, however, appropriate action needs to be taken to reduce the risks posed by these physical assets.
Physical asset category
Physical assets Type of risk Reason Rectified by
Rail access Lenzburg station Safety Passenger flow capacities (safety risks or delays due to longer stop times)
2017
Energy 9 substations (Biel/Bienne, Burgdorf, Bussigny, Châtelard-Barberine, Gossau, Muttenz, Rapperswil, Ritom, Wimmis) 3 power plants (Massaboden, Ritom, Vernayaz)
Availability Obsolescence 2012–2020
Permanent way
115 km of tracks and pointwork Compliance Track gauge error 20137
Traction current
4 physical assets (Hinwil–Bäretswil, Rapperswil, Schlieren, Zurich Altstetten)
Availability Obsolescence, technical deficiencies
2012–15
Vehicles 3 classes of shunting locomotive Availability Obsolescence 2018
Engineering 7 tunnels (La Chaux-de-Fonds– Neuchâtel line) Water supply networks Water disposal/drainage
Compliance Safety Availability
To comply with clearance gauge Implementation delay Implementation delay
20228 2018 2018
IT 1 system (SIP) Availability Obsolescence 2014
Nature and Natural Hazards
10 protective structures – (Flamatt, Bôle Boveresse, Court–Moutier, Delémont–Delle, Couvet–Les Verrières, Amsteg-S) 4 line sections (Bôle Boveresse, Court–Moutier, Delémont–Delle, Couvet–Les Verrières) 2 protective forest plantations/safety strips (Magadino–Ranzo) 1 safety strip (Coppet–Geneva)
Safety and availability
Condition Protection deficiencies New incidents Condition
2012–2016
6 “Compliance” relates here to satisfying requirements set out in technical standards, technical regulations, technical implementing provisions following on from legislation or to
conditions imposed on individual physical assets.
7 The risk of derailment is very slight (not one incident yet) and any measures would be disproportionate because of the poor cost-benefit ratio. Likely to be solved from 2013
due to new TSI directives.
8 Implementation only necessary during next repair/renewal work.
12 Physical asset category
Physical assets Type of risk Reason Rectified by
Safety physi-cal assets
11 interlockings (Baden, Brig, Siggen-thal-W., Simplon tunnel, Hard, Vevey, Sion, Bad Zurzach, Basel RB I, Bern GB Weyermannshaus, Olten ex RB) Interlocking power supply Remote transmission
Safety and availability
Condition, functionality 2012–2017
Storage tanks Facility fuel points Safety, com-pliance, avail-ability
Ongoing renewal pro-gramme: condition of the physical assets currently being surveyed.
Open
Train control systems
ZUB and SIGNUM systems Availability Obsolescence 2017
Table 1: Plans and finance are in place to rectify the critical condition of these physical assets.
Action to rectify the critical condition of the physical assets listed above has been planned and financing is in place. Financing for the physical assets in Table 2 is still under discussion.
Physical asset category
Facilities Background, implications
Rail access Stadelhofen station Museumstrasse station Stettbach station Glanzenberg station
Studies are being prepared. They will indicate any rapid improvements which can be carried out plus the viable future target status for restoring the full functionality and safety of the rail access points and the fi-nancing required to achieve this. However, financing for any projects identified by the studies is not yet assured.
Hardbrücke, Rolle, Basel SBB, Altstetten, Olten, Bellinzona, Morges
Have been included in the prioritised list of urgent expansion invest-ments in the 2013–2016 Performance Agreement. Project planning is to be driven forward as agreed at the meeting between BAV and SBB on 4 April 2012. Financing for the projects has not yet been se-cured.
Safety physical assets
Interlocking at the former Biel marshal-ling yard
The cost estimate study will run until the end of 2012. Financing for the replacement Interlocking has not yet been secured. Exceptional measures (involving high costs) will be needed to maintain operations after 2017. Restrictions on system capacity cannot be ruled out at pres-ent.
Table 2: The plans and finance to rectify the critical condition of these physical assets are still under discussion.
12 stations currently require rail access imporovements to alleviate passenger capacity bottlenecks. A stepped-up im-plementation programme for 2017 and beyond will be ready by mid-2013. In the medium and long term, it is as-sumed that the need for improvements will continuously increase, with costs rising to a total of CHF 2–3.5 billion.
Physical assets, which have reached the end of their service life and which are therefore approaching the status of “critical physical assets”, are not shown in the above tables if the process of replacing them is proceeding on schedule
13(for example, Renens station). The SBB network includes bridges in a very poor condition, e. g. the “Pont de Massongex” between Bex and Les Paluds. This bridge should have been replaced by 2015. Its condition will be monitored by frequent interim inspections. Immediate action will be initiated if its condition deteriorates.
3.6. Inventory and replacement value.This report identifies twelve asset categories with their approximately 50 types of physical assetassets.
The total replacement value of the physical assets is esti-mated at CHF 80.2 billion. “civil engineering”, “track”, “signalling” and “catenary” make up the greatest propor-tion of this. These four categories together equate to three quarters of the entire replacement value. The in-crease in the total replacement value of some CHF 3 bil-lion compared with the previous year is due to additional physical assets and types of physical asset being in-cluded in this year’s report.
The commissioning of new structures (the Zurich cross-city link, CEVA Geneva to Annemasse line and the Gotthard base tunnel) and ongoing programmes (noise control measures, train monitoring systems) have re-sulted in considerable inventory increases in certain infra-structure categories and types in the time horizon up to 2017 considered here. The asset maintenance and funding re-quirements have risen significantly as a consequence.
Physical asset category/type
Inventory change, 2011-2017
Reason
Structural noise control +100 % “FinöV” noise control programme
Wayside train monitoring systems
+86 % Programme implementation
Tunnels +64 % Commissioning of new structures (Zurich cross-city link, “CEVA”, etc.)Electrical physical assets9 +17 %
Substations +10 %
Permanent way +2.6 %
Tableau 3: modifications d’inventaire de séries et types choisis d’installations 2011–2017.
Figure 5:
The proportion of the total replacement
value represented by each
physical asset category.
9 To maintain comparability with 2012–2017 medium-term corporate planning, the increase in the physical asset inventory due to the Gotthard and Ceneri Base Tunnels has not
been included.
Civil Engineering33.5%
Telecom1.2%
Track23.4%
Signalling9.8%
Catenary7.7%
Energy7.6%
Electrical installations and equipment5.8%
Rail access, Stations 5.3%
Nature and natural hazards3.8%
Train control systems0.6%
Production equipment1.4%
14
4. Financial trends.
The 2013–2016 Performance Agreement between the federal government and SBB has, from the financial aspect, largely resolved the substantial problems highlighted by the 2009 network audit and the 2010 network status report. As a consequence, over the next few years, the Infrastructure Division and its suppliers will be working to the limits of their capacity in order to carry out a complete asset maintenance programme and partly reduce the backlog.
The 2011 network status report identified virtually the same funding requirements for asset maintenance as the 2009 network audit. Figure 7 illustrates that, compared with the low asset maintenance budget for 2009, the medium-term funding required just to maintain assets in their present condition has increased by CHF 477 million p. a. This figure is greater than that shown in the 2009 network audit since it reflects an average for the subsequent 2012–17 period (different price basis and larger inventory).
In order to reduce the backlog, which now amounts to CHF 1.78 billion, at the best possible speed, an additional CHF 274 million p. a. would be needed compared with 2009. The 2011 network status report puts average expenditure for as-yet unfinanced technical regulations and legislation and for structural deficiencies at a lower figure than that shown in the 2009 network audit, because the requirements have now been adjusted and it has been possible to op-timise the speed at which these programmes are being implemented.
Second opinion 2009
Network condition report 2011
2009 network audit
2009
1,48
0
Up
to 8
50
Up
to 7
64
Up
to 4
46
Annual gross
shortfall
144
255
229
SBB efficiency potential*
Up
to 7
06
Up
to 5
09
Annual net
shortfall
217
Can
not
beim
plem
ente
d
2,11
8
Funding availabilityper year acc. to
2012–2017 medium-termcorporate planning
Total funding requirement per year 2010–2016 (network condition report 2011: 2012–2017)
2,33
0
2,24
4 2,33
5
CHF millionper year(average p. a.)
*The 2009 second opinion assumed a CHF 255 million efficiency improvement potential, fully attainable within two years. The actual optimisation curve now starting to emerge rises to CHF 276 million by 2017. The average for 2012–2017 is CHF 229 million.
2009
1,48
0
Maintain aconstant condition
430
422 47
7522
Reduce the backlog
130
117 20
5 274
Structural deficiencies
140
56
142
140
Constraints, laws
Total funding requirement per year(network audit 2010–2016
NZB 2010: 2011–2016NZB 2011: 2012–2017)
85 82 48
150
2,33
0
2,24
4
2,43
1
2,33
5
CHF millionper year(average p. a.)
Second opinion 2009
NZB 2010
NZB 2011
2009 network audit
Figure 7: Comparison of funding requirements according to the
2009 network audit, the 2009 second opinion and the 2011
network status report, with the 2009 asset maintenance budget
and 2012–17 medium-term corporate planning.
Figure 6: Aggregation of the additional average expenditure necessary for asset mainte-
nance according to the 2009 network audit, the 2009 second opinion and 2011 network
status report, compared with 2009.
15The difference in financing requirement has fallen to an average of CHF 217 million p.a. However, this difference has deliberately not been adjusted in the 2013–16 Performance Agreement since the average available resources of CHF 2,118 million p. a. represent the limit of the measures which can be implemented given the resources available.
4.1. The backlogCompared with the previous year, the backlog has risen from CHF 1,740 to 1,780 million (+2.3 %). This growth has mainly occurred in the “engineering” and “rail access” infrastructure categories.
As before, the backlog represents some two percent of the total CHF 80.2 billion replacement value of all physical assets.
The cost of reducing the backlog reflects the fact that each category plans to reduce its backlog at a different rate. This takes into account whether the backlog in-volves economic follow-up costs or availability risks for example. In those categories where such effects are minor (some electrical physical assets, for example), there are no plans to reduce the backlog for the time being.
2009 2010 2011
Mio
. CH
F
2,000
1,500
1,000
500
0
1,363
1,740 1,780
Figure 8: Backlog trends.
16 Category (CHF millions) 2009 2010 2011 Notes
Rail access 0 0 32 Pedestrian underpass and platform access maintenance back-log under “Overall Responsibility for Stations”, as identified in 2011.
Permanent way 825 969 872 427 km backlog (specific deficiency list). Decrease in 2010–2011 due to the fall in the running metre price, not to any significant reduction in volume.
Traction current 60 64 64 Traction current physical assets becoming obsolete due to resource bottlenecks and too few resources for renewals in past years. Consequence: more malfunctions.
Engineering 34 0 136 A theoretical increase was calculated for 2011 since the neces-sary replacement rates for past and future years were always significantly below target. According to financial planning trends, the backlog in the “bridges”, “tunnels”, “culverts” and “struc-tural noise control” physical asset types will rise from CHF 143 million today to CHF 428 million in 2017. One reason for this is that the SE 2 scenario envisages no reduction in the engineer-ing backlog. Another is that it is not possible to plan for a suf-ficient number of investment projects because resources have been shifted from asset maintenance to asset expansion.
(+ water networks) 143 143 143
Nature, natural risks 33 33 33 Backlog due to protective structures being too small and tech-nically outdated, plus failure to achieve protection targets.
Safety physical assets 18 99 99 Former Olten and Biel marshalling yards/critical interlockings at Hard and Siggenthal-Würenlingen/point heating systems and power supplies need refurbishment throughout the network
Electrical physical assets
210 238 235 A backlog of renewals, mostly dating from the period prior to 2007 (a theoretically calculated figure, severely outdated physi-cal asset stocks).
Energy 34 77 50 Nine substations classed as critical require renewal.
Rail vehicles 0 113 108 The Am 6/6, Ee 6/6II and Bm 4/4 classes of shunting loco-motives have exceeded their physical end-of-life and require re-newal.
Measurement and diagnostic technology
0 4 7 The catenary test car (coach, measuring physical assets and auxiliary systems) is obsolescent.
Storage tanks 0 No info.
2 Estimated costs for the current refurbishment programme
Total 1363 1740 1780
Proportion of the replace-ment value
1.8 % 2.3 % 2.2 %
Table 4: Backlog trend to date.
174.2. Structural deficienciesTotal non-financed structural deficiencies 10 decreased by almost two thirds between 2010 and 2011. The reduc-tion in the total is due to the “rail access” (stations), “catenary” and “nature/natural risks” categories.
The reduction is mainly attributable to the period for im-plementing “rail access” measures being extended to be-yond the 2012–2017 timeframe under consideration. The funding required to adjust passenger flow capacities in stations to meet the growth in traffic in the period up to 2040 remains as high as before.
Category (CHF millions) 2009 2010 2011 Notes
Rail access 637 612 222 Requirements postponed to later timeframes due to limited resources, with sensible run-up and coordination with the plan for implementing the Swiss Federal Act on Equal Rights for People with Disabilities
Traction current 56 98 98 The train speed envisaged on 400 km of track is greater than the planning guidelines for this type of overhead contact line. Consequence: increased expenditure on maintenance
Nature, natural risks 0 12 14 Theoretically calculated natural risks on certain routes which do not correspond to the prescribed official risk level.
Safety physical assets 28 0 0
Energy 266 132 0 Rectification of redundancy deficiencies in transmission lines. Since they are now deemed to be financed, they are no longer shown in 2011.
Total 987 854 334
Table 5: Structural deficiency trends to date (total annual investment 2012–2017).
10 Total annual investment for each six year period under review. The 2011 figure relates to the 2012–2017 period.
2009 2010 2011M
io. C
HF
1,200
1,000
200
400
600
800
0
987
854
334
Illustration 9: évolution actuelle des déficits structurels (somme annuelle
2012–2017).
18 4.3. Unfinanced implementation of technical regulationsTotal 11 unfinanced “technical regulations” 12 fell by CHF 206 million (-42 %) compared with the previous year and by as much as CHF 750 million (-72 %) compared with the 2009 network audit. The remaining CHF 286 mil-lion is accounted for by just the “rail access” physical asset category. Most of it is due to the Swiss Federal Act on Equal Rights for People with Disabilities.
As with the structural deficiencies, the reduction is at-tributable to by the period for implementing measures being extended to beyond 2017. The total funding re-quirement for implementing the Act on Equal Rights for People with Disabilities by 2023 remains the same.
Category (CHF millions) 2009 2010 2011 Notes
Rail access(stations) 273 360 286 Act on Equal Rights for People with Disabilities: these meas-ures will be partly implemented as part of a stepped-up programme from 2017; consequently, they lie outside the pe-riod under review.
Track 245 90 0 Some of the water protection obligations have been financed since 2011.
Civil Engineering 378 24 0 An agreement on tunnels was reached with the Federal Office of Transport in 2010. This involves very little additional expenditure.
Nature, natural risks 7 0 0
Telecom 42 18 0 The cost of the conditions imposed in respect of POLYCOM has now been financed.
Train control systems 91 0 0
Total 1036 492 286
Table 6: Trends in unfinanced technical regulations (total annual investment, 2012–2017).
A substantial rise in the financing requirement for technical regulations can be expected in the medium-term. The “Technical Specifications for Interoperability” (TSI) are European regulations which will be incorporated into Swiss law. This will result in an additional financial requirement for SBB Infrastructure, which has not been quantified as yet and is therefore not shown in this report. Any capital investments due to TSI are not currently financed.
11 Total annual investment for each six year period under review. The 2011 figure relates to the 2012–2017 period.
12 In this report, the term “Technical Regulations” is used as an umbrella term for all legal and official directives and standards which are binding on SBB Infrastructure. Examples
are implementing provisions, ordinances or exemptions issued by the Swiss Federal Office of Transport.
2009 2010 2011
Mio
. CH
F
1,200
1,000
200
400
600
800
0
1,036
492
286
Figure 10: Trends in unfinanced
technical regulations (total annual investment, 2012–2017).
19
20
5. Methodology used for the 2011 network status report.
5.1. Presenting the condition of the infrastructure physical assetsThe condition of the physical assets is shown as at the end of 2011 and was calculated using a variety of technical parameters on the basis of the data available in the physical asset management systems. The technical parameters were aggregated in a weighted assessment system so as to produce marks that provide a traffic-light system for the life cycle of the physical assets:
Figure 11: The generally applicable system of marks awarded to all aspects of an physical asset’s condition.
The average residual life span, availability and safety of every physical asset were determined using a standardised mark on a scale of 1 to 6 and then aggregated with a specific weighting code to produce a mark for the physical as-set’s condition. By employing a clearly defined yardstick in each case, the technical parameters were converted into “actual” marks (so, for example, zero malfunctions would result in an physical asset being awarded a 6; one to three malfunctions would produce a 5, four to ten malfunctions a 4, etc.).
As illustrated below, this procedure makes it possible to perform a relative comparison of the current and target situation (“target/actual” mark):
Figure 12: Calculating condition marks using points as an example (target/actual per topic).
MarkMarkMark 666 555 444 333 222 111 very goodvery goodvery good goodgoodgood averageaverageaverage poorpoorpoor criticalcriticalcritical acutely criticalacutely criticalacutely critical
Life cycle of an installation
Expected end of life Obsolescent
(“Backlog”)
Condition
4,56/4,56
TARGET/ACTUAL
Residual service life
4/4,7
Weighting 50%
Weighting 50%
Incidents
5/4,42
Weighting 8%
Weighting 14%
Immediate intervention thresholds
5,8/5,36
Weighting 6%
Track geometry
4,78/3,11
Weighting 2%
Delay-related disruptions per km
4,5/4,66
Weighting 8%
Delay in minutes
4,5/1,5
Weighting 8%
Track defects
5,7/4,41
Weighting 2%
Deficiencies
5,21/4,21
Weighting 2%
Weighting 2%
Track deformation
5,85/6
Speed restriction sections
4,56/4,56
Weighting 2%
Weighting 36%
Net asset value
4/4,7
SafetyAvailability
5,05/4,25 5,34/4,82
21The most important aspect to observe when studying the condition marks is the differentiated actual/target compari-son and not the absolute value of a mark or its trend over time. Because of the very large number of physical assets and their long life cycles, the aggregated marks remain virtually constant from year to year. Any meaningful trends in the marks awarded to condition could only be depicted over a range of five to seven years. Since no such time series exist because the methodology is new, annual comparisons of marks awarded to condition have not been presented in most cases. Furthermore, the methodology had to be slightly corrected in its first two years of use, which means that annual comparisons are not possible in some cases.
Even though an average target mark should generally be around 4.5 to 5, the actual absolute value of the average mark is not critical as long as it lies between 3 and 6. In individual cases, it may be perfectly appropriate and correct to define the average marks as being close to 3. This would be the case, for example, with a type of physical asset which is soon to be completely replaced (e.g. the ZUB/SIGNUM train control physical assets). The mark for new types of physical assets, such as the wayside train monitoring systems that are currently being rolled out, may come close to 6.
The marks and the technical parameters illustrated are average values. Although the average marks for some types of physical asset – safety physical assets, for example – may be good, there may nonetheless be a maintenance back-log or some critical physical assets. Such apparently contradictory phenomena will occur if, for example, a large number of new structures and upgrades have produced a good average average residual life span, but a few obsolescent physical assets have resulted either in a backlog of intensive maintenance work or critical availability due to a lack of previous asset maintenance. A maintenance backlog and critical physical assets are, therefore, shown in addition to the mark awarded.
5.2. Expenditure based on planned maintenance workThe network status report covers only the funds to be expended on maintaining the physical assets owned by SBB Infrastructure over the medium-term planning horizon (2012–17). This extract from the medium-term corporate planning 13 only includes ongoing maintenance and investments in replacing infrastructure physical assets plus the cost of physical asset management and monitoring. The funding requirement is shown as a grand total of the cost per physical asset category, irrespective of the nature of the financing in each case (subsidies, full interest-earning finance, contributions from third parties, etc.).
5.3. Backlog (always shown as the total as at the end of 2011) The backlog expresses in Swiss Francs the total expenditure necessary to bring physical assets up to their average target condition. Specifically, the backlog is the cost of replacing all physical assets which have to remain in operation “after the end of their expected service life”. Their expected service life is determined using the following criteria:• Excessive maintenance costs for an obsolescent physical asset• Non-fulfilment of requirements (e.g. availability) or of technical regulations (e.g. safety)• Defects discovered during inspections which cannot be cost-efficiently rectified• Incompatibility with new physical assets in the same environment (applicable to technological systems)• Maintainability subject to severe limitations (spare parts, know-how, suppliers)
13 This report has used the most recently approved medium-term corporate planning, i. e. planning for 2012–17, and the NWA 163fixed capital investment budget.
22 In this context, the word “expected” indicates that some of these criteria are risk assessments and not always meas-urable facts.
Depending on the data basis that is available, the backlog is calculated either by electronic inspections (defect lists and physical asset assessments) or by comparing target and planned asset maintenance or by a simple mathematical assessment of age structure.
5.4. Unfinanced structural deficiencies (shown over the 2012–2017 time horizon)Structural deficiencies refer to widespread defects in physical asset structure or functionality. They only arise if the physical assets have been wrongly designed for some considerable time or if there is a sudden change in an impor-tant requirement for all physical assets of one type. Structural deficiencies are part of asset maintenance costs but are identified explicitly. Those elements of structural deficiencies which should be regarded as upgrading have not been included in the asset maintenance costs.
5.5. Unfinanced implementation of technical regulations (shown over the 2012–2017 time horizon)These “unfinanced technical regulations” include requirements whose implementation was not fully covered by the most recent medium-term corporate planning. They form part of asset maintenance costs.
5.6. Critical physical assets (as at the end of 2011)Physical assets that are subject to a backlog are said to be critical if they no longer meet availability or safety require-ments (main criteria). In such cases, appropriate action must be immediately planned (Mark 2 “critical”) or the prob-lems must be rectified as quickly as possible (Mark 1 “acutely critical”). Physical asset managers will also rate physical assets as critical if the condition of operationally critical physical assets is not sufficiently well-known or if other risk categories (e.g. customer satisfaction) reach an unusually high level.
235.7. Accuracy of the figuresDrawing up a network status report involves producing a large number of statistics for each of about 50 types of physical assets. This is done manually by bringing together numerous data sources of varying completeness and reliability. Consequently, the statistics can be interpreted differently depending on the data source and type of physical asset. In some cases, the accuracy of the figures is above 5 percent, in others it is just 20 percent. Depending on the type of physical asset, the following accuracy may be assumed:• Condition
— Key technical figures (actual) 5–10 percent— Marks awarded to condition 5–10 percent— Residual life span data 5–20 percent
• Funds employed— Actual/planned figures Correspond 1:1 with 2012–2017 medium-term corporate planning
