Developments in the Netherlands The Dutch Whispering Train programme Workshop on noise differentiated track access charges and other rail noise developments at the EU level Brussels - 27 April 2010 Jasper Peen [03-398516]

Content The Whispering Train Program Goal and approach Results until now – equivalent conicity Outlook

The Whispering Train Program Whispering Trains Program aims to contribute to a quick development and implementation of LL-blocks in Europe Subsidized by Ministry of Transport In cooperation with ProRail, DB Schenker NL, AAE and other operators and wagon owners Project management, engineering, monitoring and analysis by Lloyd’s Register Rail

The Whispering Train Program Program Goal LL-blocks Determine Noise effect Determine LCC Optimise Maintainability Contribute to homologation Approach In service tests started in 2006 200 wagons with LL blocks 4 different types of LL blocks 6 different types of wagons Several fleetowners and operators, including transalpine Extensive monitoring

The Whispering Train Program Results Noise effect: LL-blocks reduce noise satisfactorily Wagons comply to TSI Noise levels (though testing not needed) Durable noise reduction LCC: many insights in wear and degradation patterns, no final conclusions Equivalent Conicity issue Focus activities in 2009 Determine influence blocks on Equivalent Conicity Determine influence of Equivalent Conicity on: Running stability LCC Reports are expected to be available end of May

Influence composite blocks on EC Conclusions from analysis of more than 10.000 wheel profiles of 130 wagons With composite-blocks increase of EC, with GG more/less stable Huge differences Type LL-block Type of wagon/application Especially the organic IB116* block has less influence on the EC, behaves comparable to other homologated organic brake blocks Currently wagons with LL-blocks need to be inspected after 50.000 km Results from in-service test throughout Europe will be collected and analyzed to extend current short inspection intervals of IB116*

Influence EC on running stability Measurements: Find relation equivalent conicity  running stability Are the wagons within the pilots behaving within the applicable limit values? Acceleration measurements 20 wagons, 7 wagontypes Wheelset equivalent conicities: between 0.2 and 0.8

Influence EC on running stability Current UIC statement Based on limited insights, max EC of 0.23 (unknown track quality) or 0.4 (known track quality) allowed Results of measurements Whispering Train Up to EC of 0.6 no inadmissible running behaviour has been detected: On wagon types considered On track sections considered (mainly in NL, but also other countries) With speeds considered (max 100 km/h!) For these applications 0.6 could be used as limit

Influence Equivalent Conicity on LCC Scenario for equivalent conicity limit Block type ECmax = 0.23 ECmax = 0.6 A 50.000 – 100.000 170.000 – 250.000 B C 150.000 – 200.000 > 250.000 Mileage before reprofiling is needed: Cast iron: 300.000 – 350.000 km LL-blocks in these applications: Blocktype Retrofitting costs Additional LCC costs per 1000 km Min (2x Bg) Max (2x Bgu) Min (ECmax = 0.6) Max (ECmax = 0.23) A € 1,200.00 € 2,160.00 € 3 € 31 B € 10 € 53 C € 800.00 € 1,360.00 € 4 € 17 Costs for homologation/brake tests excluded Inspection costs wheelsets excluded

Influence Equivalent Conicity on LCC Max funding € 4800 Fits within Dutch funding system Sgns Container wagon 2x Bgu, 100.000 km/yr, Block type C 10% interest rate Excluded extra costs for launch tests and special wheel monitoring

Outlook further activities Whispering Train Program Support UIC in solving technical issues Practical maintenance limits for the wheel profile to ensure safe running against lowest costs Extend inspection intervalls for wheels Optimize brake block contour Use of LL-blocks Based on the latest insights, some Dutch wagonkeepers are willing to apply LL-blocks on freight wagons structurally This decision has been supported by the Dutch NDTAC system No final homologation: Temporarily needed measures (slip brake tests, wheel monitoring) will probably be funded by the Whispering Train Programme Obstacle: how to get the bonus from the RU to the WK?

.…Solution needed on how to get the funding to the wagonkeeper Conclusions Positive experiences with LL-blocks, but influence on equivalent conicity Equivalent conicity issue is hindering homologation and final LCC estimation of LL-blocks Influence on safety limited in service for considered applications Cost efficient use of LL-blocks is possible for considered applications The Dutch cases show that LL blocks can be a safe and economical feasible solution. Wagonkeepers are willing to apply them, but… ……Equivalent conicity issue need to be solved; important is to investigate positive results further on the European scale .…Solution needed on how to get the funding to the wagonkeeper

The Source for more Information For more information, visit: www.whisperingtrain.eu

Development of Equivalent Conicity Conclusions from analysis of more than 10.000 wheel profiles of 130 wagons With LL/K-blocks increase of EC, with GG more/less stable LL block type GG block type Huge differences Type LL-block: Sinter vs Organic Type of wagon

Wheelset equivalent conicity Stability measurement results Laeks/Laaers (Cobelfret) Maximum wheelset RMS acceleration level vs. equivalent conicity Laeks: Vlissingen (NL) – Dillingen (D) Laaers: Vlissingen (NL) – Genk (B) Maximum speed: 80 - 100 km/h Wheelset equivalent conicity Stable running behaviour No dependency on equivalent conicity

Stability measurement results Sgns (DB Schenker) Bogie frame acceleration levels vs. equivalent conicity Rotterdam (NL) – Geleen (NL) Maximum speed: 70 – 90 km/h Limit value allowable range Stable running behaviour up to 0.6

The Whispering Train Program EC (no limit values) track properties wagon properties speed Running Stability (limit values UIC 518) cast iron Composite km EC Limit; depending on wagontype, track, speed