Switches and crossings (S&Cs) are an important component of Banverket's (the Swedish National Rail Administration's) infrastructure and are associated with 13 per cent of the…
Abstract
Purpose
Switches and crossings (S&Cs) are an important component of Banverket's (the Swedish National Rail Administration's) infrastructure and are associated with 13 per cent of the total maintenance cost. Therefore, it is important that a detailed study of different aspects of the costs of S&Cs should be undertaken to analyze individual maintenance costs. This will in the future give the possibility of enhancing the management of infrastructure.
Design/methodology/approach
A case study is undertaken to study, identify and classify the costs of S&Cs for Banverket. Data are taken from Banverket's maintenance information systems and accounting system.
Findings
A rough estimation of the cost for individual S&Cs can be identified in this way. The cost varies very much and a more detailed study is needed to validate the cost on this level. The average cost of a group of S&Cs varies less and is therefore more likely to reflect the true cost. The cost varies depending on the amount and type of traffic. Moreover, the type of S&C seems to reflect the cost variation, but further investigation is needed to verify this conclusion.
Research limitations/implications
The accounting system does not store data for individual assets, and further research would be more fruitful if individual costs could be recorded by the entrepreneur. Larger repairs should be separated from annual maintenance tasks in a future study. Data from this study could be used to build a life cycle cost model for S&Cs.
Practical implications
Cost identification is a first step in finding a way to organize maintenance in a more cost‐effective way.
Originality/value
The paper shows a way to distribute costs (in the accounting system) down to individual subsystems of the infrastructure. This enables analysts to find cost drivers and plan for modification of or reinvestment in the asset.
Details
Keywords
Introduction Hastily, I beat the editor to it by writing “These are the personal views of the author, and do not necessarily represent the views of the editor of this journal.”…
Abstract
Introduction Hastily, I beat the editor to it by writing “These are the personal views of the author, and do not necessarily represent the views of the editor of this journal.” Indeed, I take it further. The article does not necessarily, in general manner or particular phrase, represent the views of the National Committee of National Library Week. It's a great disappointment to me that to date neither the National Committee nor myself has had to disown the other. Our opinions, to date, coincide on all salient points. No blows have been exchanged between Committee and Organiser. Since concord should often be more rightly spelt “c‐o‐m‐p‐l‐a‐c‐e‐n‐c‐y”, I regret this. All, however, may yet be well. My full views as Organiser of NLW 1969 follow: I shall state them with the most forthright candour and the most furious conviction; and the fisticuffs may well follow, as sure as Library fines. If the editor considers this preamble, too … well, too ambling … I proffer one excuse. As organiser, I'm as over‐worked and time‐pressed as any librarian, and my defence is therefore borrowed from Flaubert: “Forgive a long letter—I had no time to write a short one.” (Reference librarians, please check this quotation. I'm too busy.) Finally, there are those who write very lightly when they wish to state their most serious belief. Into this maladjusted and misjudged fraternity, I was myself born.