Life Cycle Costing in High Complex Industries—Developing and Applying a Life Cycle Costing Approach in the Railway Industry

  • Christian Hoffart
  • Philipp Stüer
Conference paper


In terms of sustainable thinking, life cycle costing attracts major notice among railway industries all over Europe. Europe’s railway companies reconsider several reasons for the special need of life cycle costing investigations within the railway infrastructure. Ultimately, the railway companies address the question “how can life cycle costs of a signalling system be measured, considering the special circumstances in the railway industry”. Due to the reason that railway industries are bound to various regulatory rules and because of the high complexity of a signalling system, life cycle costs cannot be evaluated by simple cost measurement approaches. To analyse life cycle costs among European railway industries and to gain cost reductions by deriving consolidated findings from a cost comparison among industries of different countries, a special methodology to analyse life cycle costs has been applied within the European funded research project Integrated European Signalling System (INESS). Both life cycle phases, the product structure of interlocking systems itself and most important cost categories have been considered. Therefore, the whole life cycle of signalling systems has been analysed with a special view on railway operators. This paper describes an approach how life cycle costs have been evaluated based on the European norm DIN EN 60300-3-3 and how other industries can learn from this application.


Product Life Cycle Life Cycle Cost Cost Driver Cost Category Cost Element 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. 1.
    Asiedu Y, Gu P (1998) Product life cycle cost analysis: state of the art review. Int J Prod Res 36(4):883–908MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Geißdörfer K (2008) Total costs of ownership (TCO) und life cycle costing (LCC). BerlinGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Barringer PH (2003) A life cycle cost summary. Perth.
  4. 4.
    Zimmermann M (2005) Life cycle costing. NorderstedtGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    DIN EN 60300-3-3 (2004) Dependability management—Part 3-3: application guide—life cycle costing (IEC 60300-3-3:2004), German version EN 60300-3-3Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Fischer M (2001) Produktlebenszyklus und Wettbewerbsdynamik. MannheimGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Ellis BA (2007) Life cycle cost. International conference of maintenance societies
  8. 8.
    Ellram L (1994) A taxonomy of total costs of ownership models. J Bus Logistics 15(1):171–191Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Christensen PN, Sparks GA, Kostuk KJ (2005) A method-based survey of life cycle costing literature pertinent to infrastructure design and renewal. Can J Civ Eng 32:250–259CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Dhillon BS (1989) Life cycle costing. Elsevier, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Backlund F, Hannu J (2002) Can we make maintenance decisions on risk analysis results? J Qual Maintenance Eng 8(1):77–91CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London Limited 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Christian Hoffart
    • 1
  • Philipp Stüer
    • 1
  1. 1.Research Institute for Operations Management at RWTH Aachen University (FIR)AachenGermany

Personalised recommendations