interoperability unit noise tsi - european …€¦ · european railway agency noise tsi – final...

EUROPEAN RAILWAY AGENCY

PAGE 1 OF 54

INTEROPERABILITY UNIT

NOISE TSI

Reference: IU-NOI TSI-Rep Document type: Final Report

Version : 1.2

Date : 15/01/2014

Edited by Reviewed by Approved by

Name

Oscar MARTOS

Andreas SCHIRMER

Ernest GODWARD

Hubert LAVOGIEZ

Denis BIASIN

Position Project Officers Head of Sector Head of Unit

Date

&

Signature.

European Railway Agency

NOISE TSI – Final Report

IU-NOI TSI-Rep Version 1.2 /54

AMENDMENT RECORD

Version Date Section

number

Modification/description Author

0.1 24/05/2013 all Preliminary report for comments OM, AS EG

1.0 10/06/2013 all Sent to MS following RIS Committee 67

OM, AS, EG

1.1 23/07/2013 all Updated with the last outcomes form the WP and comments from WP members.

OM, AS, EG

1.2 15/01/2014 All Updated with the last outcomes of WP members. Structure

improved. Economic evaluation updated and editorial review

performed

OM, AS, EG




Table of Contents

1. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................. 5

1.1 Background to the assignment .......................................................................................... 5

1.2 Scope of this document .................................................................................................... 5

2. REFERENCED DOCUMENTS AND ABBREVIATIONS ............................................................................. 6

2.1 Referenced documents ..................................................................................................... 6

2.2 Abbreviations and acronyms ............................................................................................. 7

3. THE NOI TSI REVISION PROCESS ................................................................................................. 9

3.1 Previous limited revision process (2009-2010) .................................................................. 9

3.2 Terms of reference of the full revision process ................................................................. 9

3.3 Tasks and deliverables for full revision............................................................................ 10

3.4 Work methodology .......................................................................................................... 11

3.4.1 The working party ........................................................................................................ 11

3.4.2 NOI WP members ....................................................................................................... 12

3.4.3 ERA Extranet workspaces ........................................................................................... 13

3.4.4 Economic evaluation meetings .................................................................................... 13

3.5 Work stages, time plan and deadlines ............................................................................ 13

3.5.1 Work Stages................................................................................................................ 13

3.5.2 Time plan .................................................................................................................... 15

3.5.3 Deliverables deadline .................................................................................................. 15

4. MAIN ISSUES OF THE REVISION PROCESS ..................................................................................... 16

4.1 Relevant EU Legislation .................................................................................................. 16

4.1.1 END ............................................................................................................................. 16

4.1.2 Directive 2003/10/EC ................................................................................................... 17

4.2 Consistency between relevant EU legislation, NOI TSI and ID[2] .................................... 18

4.2.1 Consistency between ID and END ............................................................................... 18

4.2.2 Consistency between ID and Directive 2003/10/EC ..................................................... 19

4.2.3 Actions performed to achieve consistency ................................................................... 19

4.3 HS and CR TSI requirements on noise merged in one NOI TSI ...................................... 20

4.4 Scope extension to off-TEN ............................................................................................ 20

4.5 1520 mm network ........................................................................................................... 20

4.6 Squeal and brake noise .................................................................................................. 21

4.6.1 Squeal noise ................................................................................................................ 21

4.6.2 Brake noise ................................................................................................................. 21

4.7 Simplified evaluation methods ......................................................................................... 22

4.8 References to EN ISO 3095 ............................................................................................ 22

4.9 Reference track .............................................................................................................. 22




4.10 Issues to be considered during the revision process (section 7.2 of the CR NOI TSI) . 23

4.10.1 Continuous curve of limiting values for pass-by noise .............................................. 23

4.10.2 Second step limit values for pass-by noise and starting noise ................................. 24

4.10.3 Inclusion of infrastructure ......................................................................................... 25

4.10.4 Monitoring scheme of wheel defects ........................................................................ 26

4.11 Basic parameters in the revised NOI TSI ..................................................................... 26

4.11.1 Pass-by noise .......................................................................................................... 26

4.11.2 Stationary noise ....................................................................................................... 30

4.11.3 Starting Noise .......................................................................................................... 31

4.11.4 Driver’s cab interior Noise ........................................................................................ 32

5. ECONOMIC EVALUATION .............................................................................................................. 33

5.1 Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 33

6. CONCLUSIONS............................................................................................................................ 36

6.1 Modification of the Essential requirement regarding noise in ID ...................................... 36

6.2 HS and CR merged in one TSI ....................................................................................... 36

6.3 Infrastructure requirements in the TSI ............................................................................. 36

6.4 Monitoring scheme of wheel defects ............................................................................... 36

6.5 Revised noise limit values ............................................................................................... 37

6.5.1 Stationary noise ........................................................................................................... 37

6.5.2 Starting noise .............................................................................................................. 37

6.5.3 Pass-by noise .............................................................................................................. 37

6.5.4 Cab noise .................................................................................................................... 38

6.6 Specific cases and open points ....................................................................................... 38

6.7 Subjects requiring additional studies in future work program .......................................... 38

Annex 1 ......................................................................................................................................... 39

Annex 2 ......................................................................................................................................... 42




1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background to the assignment

The Agency is responsible for preparing the review and updating of technical specifications for

interoperability (hereinafter referred to as the ‘TSIs’) and making appropriate recommendations to

the Commission in order to take account of developments in technology or social requirements.

The Commission Decision C(2010)2576 of 29/4/2010 mandates the Agency to carry out a

complementary study on the pertinence of merging the noise requirements for the high-speed and

conventional rolling stock (hereinafter referred to as ‘HS’ and ‘CR’ ‘RST’) and to include the

revised requirements in the "transversal" TSI relating to Rolling Stock – Noise. The outcome of this

study was that the CR NOI TSI has to be revised as a standalone TSI covering both CR and HS

RST.

Section 7.2 of the Annex of Decision 2011/229/EU concerning the technical specifications of

interoperability relating to the subsystem “rolling stock – noise” of the trans-European conventional

rail system (hereinafter referred to as the ‘CR NOI TSI’) foresees a rigorous review and update of

the noise related requirements by a dedicated Working Party. In September 2013 the Agency

submitted its recommendation ERA-REC-07-2013/REC on the adoption of the Technical

Specification for Interoperability relating to the subsystem ‘rolling stock - noise’ (‘NOI TSI’) to the

European Commission.

1.2 Scope of this document

This document is intended to provide the following information:

Objectives and working method of the NOI TSI revision process (chapter 3)

Record of the main discussions and positions of the parties involved and justification of the

decisions taken (chapters 4 and 5)

Conclusions and proposed next steps (chapter 6)




2. REFERENCED DOCUMENTS AND ABBREVIATIONS

2.1 Referenced documents

Ref. Document Reference Official Journal Last Modification Version

[1] Commission Decision C(2010)2576 final of 29.4.2010 concerning a mandate to the European Railway Agency to develop and review Technical Specifications for Interoperability with a view to extending their scope to the whole rail system in the European Union

NA

[2] Directive 2008/57/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 June 2008 on the interoperability of the rail system within the Community

L 191, 18.7.2008

[3] Corrigendum to Regulation (EC) No 881/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 establishing a European railway agency (Agency Regulation) (Official Journal of the European Union L 164 of 30 April 2004)

L 220, Volume 47

21 .6.2004

[4] Regulation (EC) No 1335/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2008 amending Regulation (EC) No 881/2004 establishing a European Railway Agency (Agency Regulation)

L 354, Volume 51

31.12.2008

[5] Directive 2002/49/EC, relating to the assessment and management of environmental noise (END)

L 189, 18.7.2002

[6] Work Program of the Agency for implementing the Commission Decision C(2010)2576 concerning a Mandate to the European Railway Agency to Develop and Review Technical Specifications for Interoperability with a View to Extending Their Scope to the Whole Rail System in the European Union

NA NA NA

[7] HS RST TSI 2008/232/EC OJ L 84, 26.03.2008, p.132




Ref. Document Reference Official Journal Last Modification Version

[8] CR LOC&PAS TSI 2011/291/EU OJ L 139, 26.05.2011, p.1

[9] CR OPE TSI 2011/314/EU OJ L 144 31.5.2011 p.1

[10] CR NOI TSI 2011/229/EU OJ L 99, 13.4.2011

[11] Directive 2003/10/EC, on the minimum health and safety requirements regarding the exposure of workers to the risks arising from physical agents (noise)

OJ L 42, 15.2.2003

[12] Merging of HS and CR TSIs. Splitting of the "Transversal" TSIs, ERA reference ERA/REP/13-2011/INT

NA

[13] CR NOI TSI 2006/66/EC OJ L 37, 8.2.2006

2.2 Abbreviations and acronyms

ABBREVIATION /

TERM

FULL TEXT / DEFINITION

APIS Authorisation for placing in service

CCS Control-Command and Signalling subsystem

CEN European Committee for Standardization

CENELEC European Committee for Electrotechnical Standardisation

CR Conventional rail system

DMU Diesel Multiple Unit

EC European Commission

ECM Entity in Charge of Maintenance

EFTA European Free Trade Association

EMU Electric Multiple Unit

END Directive 2002/49/EC, relating to the assessment and management of

environmental noise, amended by Regulation (EC) No 1137/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2008

ENE Energy subsystem

ERA / The Agency The European Railway Agency

ERTMS European Rail Traffic Management System

ETCS European Train Control System

EU European Union

HS High speed rail system

IC Interoperability Constituent

ID Interoperability Directive

IEC International Electro-technical Commission

IM Infrastructure Manager




ABBREVIATION /

TERM

FULL TEXT / DEFINITION

INF Infrastructure subsystem

ISP Interchangeable Spare Part

IU Interoperability Unit of the European Railway Agency

IA Impact Assessment

LOC & PAS Locomotives and Passenger Rolling Stock

Mandate 2010 [1] Commission Decision C(2010)2576 final concerning a mandate to the European Railway Agency to develop and review Technical Specifications for Interoperability with a view to extending their scope to the whole rail system in the European Union

MS EU and EFTA Member State

NA Not Applicable

NB-Rail Network of notified bodies

NoBo Notified Body

NOI Noise

NSA National Safety Authority

OPE Operation and Traffic Management

PIS Placing in Service

RAC Risk Acceptance Criteria

RB Representative bodies from the railway sector referred to in Article 3 paragraph 2 of [3] Regulation (EC) 881/2004, as modified by [4] Regulation (EC) 1335/2008

RFS Request for a standard issued by ERA to Standardisation bodies

RST Rolling Stock

RST TSIs For the purpose of the report, this term in plural refers to the following two TSIs: HS RST TSI and CR LOC&PAS TSI

RU Railway Undertaking

Stakeholders For the purpose of the report, stakeholders are all the bodies impacted by the study

TAF Telematic Applications - Freight

TAP Telematic Applications - Passengers

TSI Technical Specification for Interoperability

WAG Wagon

WP Working Party




3. THE NOI TSI REVISION PROCESS

3.1 Previous limited revision process (2009-2010)

During 2009, a limited revision of the Noise TSI has been carried out, at which mainly the following

urgent points have been addressed:

Reduction of assessment costs

Reference to the latest standardisation work for assessment

Replacement of the reference to Directive 2001/16/EC by Directive 2008/57/EC

Reference to the new assessment modules defined in Decision 2010/713/EC

Clarifications of definitions and the scope

The limited revision of the Noise TSI, hereinafter referred to as CR NOI TSI [10], entered into force

in April 2011.

3.2 Terms of reference of the full revision process

The conventional and high speed rail TSIs are submitted to a new revision cycle as defined in the

work programme proposed by the Agency [6], following to the mandate [1] received from the

Commission.

According to the Agency regulation, the Agency established working parties for drawing up

recommendations related to this mandate.

The NOI TSI working party is in charge of the following subjects:

Revising the CR NOI TSI in accordance with the results of the complementary study as

defined in the mandate and in accordance with section 7.2 of the CR NOI TSI:

“7.2. TSI Revision

In conformity with Article 6(2) of Directive 2008/57/EC, the Agency shall be responsible for

preparing the review and updating of TSIs and making appropriate recommendations to the

Commission in order to take account of developments in technology or social requirements. In

addition, the progressive adoption and revision of other TSIs may also impact this TSI.

Proposed changes to this TSI shall be subject to rigorous review and updated TSIs will be

published on an indicative periodic basis of three years.

In any case the Commission will deliver to the Committee referred to in Article 29 of Directive

2008/57/EC (also referred to as RIS Committee), at the latest by 23 June 2013, a report and, if

needed, a proposal for revising this TSI with regard to the following issues:

(a) an assessment of the implementation of the TSI, in particular costs and benefits;

(b) the use of a continuous curve of limiting values LpAeq,Tp for the pass-by noise of freight

wagons as a function of APL (axles per length), provided that it does not prevent technical

innovation, in particular for rakes of wagons;




(c) the second step pass-by noise limit values for wagons, locomotives, multiple units and

coaches (see point 7.2), according to the results of comparable noise measurement

campaigns, taking into account in particular technical progress and available technologies for

both track and rolling stock and cost-benefit analyses;

(d) a possible second-step starting noise limit values for diesel locomotives and multiple units;

(e) the inclusion of infrastructure into the scope of the Noise TSI in coordination with the TSI

Infrastructure;

(f) the inclusion into the TSI of a monitoring scheme for wheel defects. Wheel defects have an

impact on noise emission.”

Assisting the rolling stock working party on interfacing subjects related to noise and deal with

the issues related to noise emitted by high speed rolling stock.

Extending the scope of the CR NOI TSI, considering the complementary study launched by the

Agency on this subject.

Carrying out a cost-benefit analysis.

3.3 Tasks and deliverables for full revision

Taking into account the terms of reference above, the Agency completed the following tasks:

The use of a continuous curve of limiting values LpAeq,Tp for the pass-by noise of freight

wagons as a function of APL (axles per length).The pass-by noise level is influenced by the

number of axles per length of the unit. In general the more axles per length, the higher the

pass-by noise level.

Study the possibility of introducing a second step limit values for

o Pass-by noise

o Starting noise

o Stationary noise

Study the legal and technical possibilities of including infrastructure parameter either in the

Noise TSI, or Infrastructure TSI.

Execute a market survey on the available systems for detecting wheel defects. Study the legal

and technical possibilities of including a monitoring scheme for wheel defects in the legal

framework.

Merging the requirements for HS and CR in a single TSI.

Extending the scope to the complete European network, considering the complementary study

launched by the Agency on this subject.

A study into the costs and benefits of the Noise TSI. This will be as much as possible based on

the input received from stakeholders such as NSAs, Notified Bodies and the industry about the

costs and benefits of the Noise TSI. This study will also focus on the additional noise related




requirements specified by customers for their new passenger rolling stock over and above

those of the TSI. For wagons the study should focus on the consequences for planning and

project costs, which reportedly have been excessive when applying the (unrevised) 2005 Noise

TSI.

The Agency shall provide the Commission with the following deliverables:

Deliver an Agency recommendation to the Commission for the revision of the NOI TSI.

Deliver an economic evaluation underpinning the requirements and recommendations.

Deliver a report on the content and progress of the revision of the NOI TSI.

In addition to the deliverables for the Commission, the Agency shall prepare an Application Guide.

3.4 Work methodology

3.4.1 The working party

According to the Agency Regulation, Article 3 paragraph 1:

”For drawing up the recommendations [...] the Agency shall establish a limited number of working

parties. These working parties shall take as a basis, on the one hand, the expertise built up by

professionals from the railway sector [...] and, on the other hand, the expertise of the competent

national authorities. The Agency shall ensure that its working parties are competent and

representative and that they include adequate representation of those sectors of the industry and

of those users which will be affected by measures which might be proposed by the Commission on

the basis of the recommendations addressed to it by the Agency. The work of the working parties

shall be transparent.”

Therefore, Members of this WP should have expertise in the field of railway noise abatement or

railway noise assessment. Preferably the working party members have a thorough understanding

of EU railway policy and regulations.

According to the Agency Regulation, Article 3: “The Agency shall ensure that its working parties

[...] include adequate representation of those sectors of the industry and of those users which will

be affected by measures which might be proposed [...].“

The composition of the Working Party for the Noise TSI is based on 3 different types of

representatives:

“the representative bodies from the railway sector acting on a European level”(art 3.2)

“the national safety authorities”(art 3.3)

“independent experts” (art. 3.4).

There are a kick-off meeting and ten 1-day working party meetings foreseen. The average number

of experts to join the working parties, including NSA experts is around 17.




3.4.2 NOI WP members

NOI WP members:

organisation family name first name company

UNIFE Leth Siv Bombardier

UNIFE Schleinzer Gerald Siemens

CER Fodiman Pascal SNCF

CER Meunier Nicolas DB

UIP Beintner Markus SBB

UIP Gilliam Dietmar AAE

UITP Fillol Corinne RATP

EIM Charh Radoine Infrabel

EIM Poikolainen Erkki FTA

NSA AT Endlicher Karl-Otto BMVIT

NSA DK Øzer Ahmed Lütfi Trafikstyrelsen

NSA DE Reichart Urs UBA

NSA UK Turner Giles ORR

NSA NL Vierling Theo Ministry

NSA NL Dittrich Michael TNO

NSA FI Pulli Kari Finnish transport safety agency

NSA FI Savolainen Ville-Veikko Finnish transport safety agency

NSA SE Andersson Lina Swedish transport agency

NSA ES Muñoz Higueras Jesus Ministry

NSA ES Muñoz Vicent Alvaro Ministry

T&E Jäcker Cüppers Michael Transport and Environment (T&E)

NSA IT Cheli Riccardo ANSF

NSA IT Piovesana Eleonora ANSF

Deputies:

organisation family name first name company

UNIFE Eichenlaub Christoph Alstom

UNIFE Ferraiuolo Stefano Ansaldobreda

UIP Peterhans Gilles UIP

EIM Craven Nicholas Network Rail

CER Hlavacek Jan CD




CER Lucadamo Emilio FS

NSA AT Jaksch Martin Psiacoustic

NSA AT Helnwein Thomas BMVIT

NSA DE Weinandy Rene UBA

NSA ES Del Rio Alonso Eduardo Ministry

NSA NL Kortbeek Boudewijn Ministry

Project Officers from ERA involved in the working party are listed below:

ERA Unit / Function Name Unit

Interoperability - Project officer Schirmer, Andreas Interoperability

Interoperability - Project officer Martos, Oscar Interoperability

Interoperability – Project Officer Leermakers, Bas Interoperability

Economic Evaluation - Project Officer Godward, Ernest Economic Evaluation

3.4.3 ERA Extranet workspaces

A workspace is available on the extranet website of the Agency. This workspace gathers all

working documents issued for the task of revising the TSI and it is accessible for members and

deputy members of the WP and to all experts involved in other WPs organised by the Agency.

3.4.4 Economic evaluation meetings

In addition to the WP meetings where economic evaluation is being addressed, specific meetings

were organised with RBs or NSAs on demand to give details about data expected in order to carry

out the economic evaluation analysis of basic parameters.

Additional discussions were carried out at the meetings of the Economic Survey Group..

3.5 Work stages, time plan and deadlines

3.5.1 Work Stages

The original global time plan for revision of the TSIs is given in the work programme [6] issued by

the Agency in July 2010; it was updated in 2012 to take into account the availability of ERA staff

with the following objectives:

Preliminary draft revised TSI for consultation: February 2013.

Accompanying report: June 2013.

Final draft revised TSI: September 2013.




Final accompanying report: September 2013.

Given the schedule and limited number of WP meetings, the works has been structured in two

phases:

Phase 1 concentrates on elaborating on technical discussions on:

Scope extension (based on ERA report and study on scope)

Analysing the points as defined in section 7.2 of the NOI TSI

Analysing any other subject selected after input from the WP.

with ERA writing TSI clauses at the background as is illustrated in the picture below.

Figure 1 Work Stages for NOI TSI revision

Phase 2 (from April 2012) focusses on reviewing and refining the draft texts as proposed by ERA,

with consideration of comments from the WP members.

During this phase the accompanying report and application guide are elaborated in parallel with

the TSI.




3.5.2 Time plan

10 meetings, with 1 day and in case necessary exceptionally 2 days meetings, according to the

table below:

Kick-off 28 May 2011

WP1 28 September 2011

WP2 22 November 2011

WP3 24 January 2012

WP4 28 March 2012


WP6 21 November 2012

WP7 12 and 13 December 2012

WP8 19 February 2013

WP9 18 June 2013


Table 1: WP meetings

3.5.3 Deliverables deadline

Preliminary draft revised TSI for consultation: February 2013.

Intermediate accompanying report: June 2013.

Final draft revised TSI: September 2013.

Final accompanying report: January 2014.

Application Guide: September 2013.




4. MAIN ISSUES OF THE REVISION PROCESS

4.1 Relevant EU Legislation

The Treaty of the European Union establishes in its article 191.2:

“[...] Union policy on the environment shall aim at a high level of protection taking into account the

diversity of situations in the various regions of the Union. It shall be based on the precautionary

principle and on the principles that preventive action should be taken, that environmental damage

should as a priority be rectified at source and that the polluter should pay.”

In order to rectify the environmental damage at source, the revised TSI facilitates the retrofit of

wagons equipped with cast iron blocks through composite brake blocks, which results in less pass-

by noise emission, and limits the noise emission for new, renewed and upgraded railway vehicles.

Over and above the TSI provisions, the Commission initiated additional action in order to make sure

that the polluter should pay. This is granted by Noise differentiated infrastructure charges

introduced in the Directive 2012/34/EC ("recast of the first railway package").

Two additional European directives are specifically addressed to protect people from noise

emissions in the EU:

Directive 2002/49/EC[5], relating to the assessment and management of environmental noise

(END)

Directive 2003/10/EC[11], on the minimum health and safety requirements regarding the

exposure of workers to the risks arising from physical agents (noise)

4.1.1 END

The END applies to environmental noise to which humans are exposed. It aims at providing a basis

for developing EU measures to reduce noise emitted by major sources, in particular rail vehicles

and infrastructure. (Art. 1)

In general it sets out common assessment methods and common noise indicators at EU level. It

does not set out limit values for noise exposure.

The Member States must, for major railway lines (lines with more than 30.000 train passages per

year):

create maps of environmental noise

draw up action plans, including noise reduction measures if needed.

The measures within the plans are at the discretion of the competent authorities, but should

address priorities which may be identified by the exceeding of any relevant limit value (Art. 5).

According to the report on the implementation of the END (http://eur-

lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2011:0321:FIN:EN:PDF), 19 MS have already

defined legally binding limit values either the whole network or for new lines only, 3 MS are currently

revising these values and 4 MS have guidelines values in place.

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2011:0321:FIN:EN:PDF

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2011:0321:FIN:EN:PDF




Moreover, Member States shall ensure that the competent authorities have drawn up action plans

designed to manage noise pollution and effects, including noise reduction if necessary (Art. 8). The

measures must fulfill the minimum requirements defined in the END. These requirements include

the limit values and a summary of the results of the noise mapping.

Therefore, these limit values defined at national level may lead to action plans consisting in

restrictions of the circulation of Rolling Stock, especially in particular zones of the network where no

noise abatement measures (noise barriers, rail damping, etc.) are implemented.

4.1.2 Directive 2003/10/EC

Directive 2003/10/EC applies to activities in which workers are or likely to be exposed to risks from

noise as a result of their work.

This Directive sets out exact limit values and exposure action values for both peak sound pressure

and daily noise exposure values as summarized in table below:

Peak sound pressure

(ppeak)

Daily noise exposure level

LEX, 8h

Associated action

Lower

exposure

action values

112 Pa (135 dB(C)) 80 dB(A) the employer shall make

individual hearing

protectors available to

workers

Upper

exposure

action values

140 Pa (137 dB(C)) 85 dB(A) Individual hearing

protectors shall be used

Exposure

limit values

200 Pa (140 dB(C)) 87 dB(A) Must not be exceeded

under any circumstance

Table 2: noise limit values set out n Directive 2003/10/EC

If peak sound pressure limit values or daily noise exposure level are exceeded, the associated

action shall be put in place automatically.

The directive allows reducing daily noise levels by a suitable organisation of the work, in particular

“[...] appropriating work schedules with adequate rest periods (Art. 5)”.

Article 12 of this Directive states that:

“[...] amendments of purely technical nature shall be adopted by EC in line with the adoption of

directives in the field of technical harmonization and standardization with regard to the design,

manufacture, building or construction of work equipment and/or workplaces”

This could be understood in a way that placing on the market machines with higher limit values than

these above is allowed due to the technical constraints. The limit values in the Directive 2003/10/EC

are defined for an 8 hour shift. It is therefore possible to place in the market machines with higher

noise emissions than those of the directive 2003/10/EC while defining a suitable work schedule in

order to make sure that no worker is permanently exposed to these high emissions.

E.g., the Directive 2009/76/EC, relating to the driver-perceived noise level of wheeled agricultural or

forestry tractors, sets out higher limit values than those of the 2003/10/EC. This directive allows

limit values of up to 90 dB(A) for a particular type of tractors, thus exceeding all limits defined for

daily noise exposure level.




Last, but not least, MS are allowed to impose limit values more stringent than in those defined

above (recital 2).

4.2 Consistency between relevant EU legislation, NOI TSI and ID[2]

4.2.1 Consistency between ID and END

Total noise emission requirements depend on the location. In urban areas there is a stronger

demand for noise abatement than in remote rural areas. Total noise nuisance depends on many

factors: vehicle, track, traffic density, noise barriers, house insulation, climate, etc.

The objective of the ID is to avoid barriers to the operation of RST across the EU network, while

END action plans are focussed in attenuation measures which should not restrict the circulation of

NOI TSI compliant Rolling Stock (see figure 1).

Figure 3: simplified overview of environmental noise abatement and responsibilities

In order to keep the noise level perceived by citizens to an acceptable level, Member States have

the possibility to further reduce railway noise, for example by installing noise barriers, requiring

regular grinding of the rail head or by insulating buildings. Only if such attenuation measures are

not sufficient, operational limitations should be considered (e.g. speed limitations, heavy freight

traffic forbidden during night, etc).




4.2.2 Consistency between ID and Directive 2003/10/EC

With regards to the Directive 2003/10/EC, due to the fact that the driver cannot use hearing

protection, limit values in the revised NOI TSI shall:

Ensure that lower exposure action peak values are not exceeded in the cab.

Facilitate the RU’s compliance with the lower exposure action daily values. The noise perceived

by the driver during a working day (8 hours) does not depend just on the cab noise level, but

also on the characteristics of the line (in some lines the horn shall be operated more often, thus

increasing the driver’s noise exposure) and the driver’s working time, which is subject to

additional regulation by RU and National laws (mandatory stops, hours for checking the rolling

stock before and after the journey, etc.)

Figure 4: simplified overview of interaction between Directive 2003/10/EC and NOI TSI

4.2.3 Actions performed to achieve consistency

The possibility given to MS of defining more stringent noise limit values in END and Directive

2003/10/EC could harm interoperability, especially when taking into account that the only essential

requirement related to noise in the ID seems to mandate an absolute compliance with the existing

regulation:

“1.4.4. Operation of the rail system must respect existing regulations on noise pollution.”




The main objective of TSIs is to achieve interoperability and in particular one single vehicle

authorisation which is valid throughout Europe. Therefore it must be ensured that NOI TSI limit

values for rolling stock are the only ones and cannot be tightened by any Member State. If

additional measures are necessary to comply with the limits defined in the END and the Directive

2003/10/EC these measures shall not impact the vehicle authorisation (noise barriers, grinding of

the rail heads, speed restrictions, restriction of the working hours of drivers,…).

Therefore, ERA proposed the Commission to amend the essential requirement 1.4.4 as follows:

“The rail system must be designed and operated in a way which does not give rise to an

inadmissible level of noise emission in areas close to infrastructure, as defined in Article 3 of

Directive 2012/34/EU, and in the driver's cabin.”

What “inadmissible level of noise” eventually means is defined by the limit values set out in the NOI

TSI.

However, the Interoperability Directive under which the NOI TSI is established does not cover the

full scope of the END nor Directive 2003/10/EC, which intend to develop and implement global

environmental noise abatement strategies and reduce noise exposure in the working place.

4.3 HS and CR TSI requirements on noise merged in one NOI TSI

The study “Merging of HS and CR TSIs- Splitting of the ‘Transversal’ TSIs” [12] concluded that

there is no technical justification supporting separate TSIs for HS and CR RST regarding noise

requirements. Therefore this revision merges the noise requirements of HS RST and CR RST.

The CR NOI TSI presumes conformity for HS rolling stock tested in accordance with the HS RST

TSI without further checks. However, conventional rolling stock running on HS lines is covered

neither by CR NOI TSI nor by HS RST TSI and is subject to national rules. The revision process

closes this loophole through uniform rules governing all classes of rolling stock regardless the type

of line they are running on in a single TSI.

4.4 Scope extension to off-TEN

The scope extension has no direct impact due to the procedure used to evaluate the rolling stock

subsystem (test on a reference track) and due to the fact that no infrastructure requirements are

included in the TSI (see section 4.9 and clause 4.10.3).

4.5 1520 mm network

Rolling Stock used solely for traffic within the EU should respect the revised TSI limits regardless of

its track gauge. However, application of TSIs should not hinder the operation of 1520mm network

traffic between EU and non-EU countries.

In CR NOI TSI, specific cases were granted to countries with 1520 mm network due to

Nordic conditions, for wagons, until the functional specification and assessment method for

composite brake blocks are incorporated in the revised version of the WAG TSI and

The need to perform a measurement campaign for locomotives, coaches, EMUs and DMUs.

During the revision process, ERA contacted the concerned NSAs in order to gather information

regarding the measurement campaign. One of the concerned NSAs considers that such

measurement campaign needs a separate mandate from the Commission.




NSA LT has sent some results of a measurement campaign performed on vehicles operated in LT.

Some of these vehicles have been supplied by EU manufacturers.

ERA analysed the results of the campaign and found that vehicles manufactured in recent years in

the EU comply with the requirements of the CR NOI TSI. On the other hand, older vehicles and

vehicles manufactured outside the EU do not comply with such requirements. Therefore, a general

specific case has been granted to Estonia, Finland, Latvia and Lithuania regarding coaches,

locomotives, EMUs and DMUs only in case they are intended for operation in both EU and non-EU

countries.

In the revised TSI the scope is the same as in the LOC&PAS TSI 2014 and WAG TSI 2013.

Wagons with 1520 mm wheel set gauge are excluded from the scope of the WAG TSI 2013, thus

they are also excluded from the scope of the revised NOI TSI. Subsequently there is no need for

specific cases regarding this type of rolling stock.

4.6 Squeal and brake noise

4.6.1 Squeal noise

T&E proposed to include TSI requirements for squeal noise. UNIFE and CER expressed their

standpoint that there is currently not enough knowledge regarding this issue. Squeal noise is a

parameter which is subject to many factors (wheel/rail geometry, climatology, etc.) and there is not

enough experience in order to set out neither a limit value nor an assessment procedure.

As a rule of thumb curve squeal noise is not likely to occur with a curve radius of 100 times the

wheelbase of the bogie.

Given the fact that most bogies have a wheel base of up to 2,5m it could be assumed that curves

with a radius of >250m will not create squeal issues. In case of operation in curve radii of less than

250m,

the manufacturers (new approach) and

RUs and IMs, through their respective Safety Management System

shall take appropriate measures to meet the essential requirement and to control curve squeal

noise. This could be accompanied by national rules for infrastructure measures such as noise

barriers or fixed lubrication devices.

In addition, there are currently no national rules dealing with squeal noise.

Taking all these points into account and having in mind that the TSI is no tool to gather technical

knowledge it was decided not to include requirements on squeal noise in the TSI.

4.6.2 Brake noise

T&E proposed to introduce a new basic parameter “brake noise”. Initially the corresponding limit

value should be set rather high in order to gather knowledge for the adjustment in future revisions.

Assessment would be carried out according to the procedure defined in EN ISO 3095.

NSA DE supported this position as in Germany there is already a legislation limiting noise in

shunting yards and stations. Low brake squeal limit values would reduce the extent of possibly

needed additional non-RST-related measures.




CER and UNIFE stated that brake squeal noise is caused and influenced by many parameters,

such as the technical layout, but also climatic conditions. Currently there is not enough knowledge

to include this parameter in the NOI TSI.

Moreover, the LOC&PAS TSI allows stepping away from the traditional pneumatic UIC brake

systems, paving the way for innovative solutions which avoid braking squeal in future.

In addition, there are currently no national rules limiting brake noise.

Taking all these points into account and having in mind that the TSI is no tool to gather technical

knowledge it was decided not to include requirements on brake noise in the TSI.

4.7 Simplified evaluation methods

The simplified evaluation consists of acoustically comparing the unit under assessment with an

existing type (the reference type) with documented noise characteristics.

The simplified evaluation method already defined in the CR NOI TSI facilitates the assessment

procedure already significantly. To apply these methods, the reference type must be marked

“comparable”, that means tested on TSI compliant reference track, and the unit under assessment

must not be noisier than the reference type.

UNIFE requested to open the field for units not marked “comparable” to be used as reference

types. As there were no majority in favour or against the use of the simplified evaluation method of

the pass-by noise for units marked as non-comparable, it was decided to reject this proposal from

UNIFE.

However, the revised NOI TSI allows for the unit under assessment to be noisier than the reference

type as far as it does not trespass the limit values, thus the simplified evaluation method can be

applied to a wider range of units.

No further reduction of the verification burden by means of computer simulation is foreseen in this

TSI. The European project dealing with this (ACOUTRAIN) was not advanced enough.

4.8 References to EN ISO 3095

The last revision of the EN ISO 3095 has been voted in 2013. Therefore, the revised NOI TSI refers

to the relevant parts of the EN and it is no longer needed to include the content of a prEN in the

appendix as in the current CR NOI TSI.

4.9 Reference track

At conventional speed the pass-by noise is essentially determined by the roughness between track

and wheel (rolling noise). Therefore, in order to assess properly the pass-by noise, a tight control of

the track acoustic parameters is essential.

Since 2006, (after the drafting of the first CR NOI TSI[13]) reference track is defined by upper limits

for roughness and lower limits for the track decay rates (TDR). A track which features these limits

represents a track of good acoustic quality achievable on most modern ballasted tracks with limited

preparation (acoustic grinding and if necessary damping). Therefore, this definition provides the

necessary accessibility to test tracks in all MSs.

It is however possible and permitted to test trains on track that is even more silent, with a

roughness which is significantly lower and a decay rate which is significantly higher than the

reference limits. It is highly probable that units tested on such a “very silent track” show better




results. Moreover, as only roughness and TDR are defined, it would be allowed e.g. to place rail

dampers in order to influence the measurement in a way that noisy rolling stock would still pass the

test.

After discussion in the WP it became clear that the reference track definition is not ideal, but it is the

best available today.

Since 2011 (after the limited revision of the CR NOI TSI) it is allowed to measure the pass-by noise

on any track.. The CR NOI TSI requires in such cases to measure the track roughness and decay

rates in order to correlate the measured noise levels to the test conditions.

In future, it would be preferable to have a method available which could identify the track

contribution and the rolling stock contribution to the pass-by noise regardless the acoustical

properties of the used test track. Limits could be then defined for the rolling stock part only.

Unfortunately, nowadays there exists no reliable and harmonised method to do so.

Research projects such as STAIRRS and ACOUTRAIN have explored or will explore the possibility

of identifying the RST contribution in the pass-by noise as part of a wider scope.

UNIFE and CER propose to fund a dedicated and ambitious research project.

Therefore, in the revised NOI TSI there is no change brought regarding the reference track other

than an increase in the pass-by noise limit value of 2dB when measuring on a slab track at a speed

higher than 250 km/h. This was necessary since in some MSs tracks for higher speeds are

exclusively slab tracks. Slab track with the same roughness and decay rate characteristics as

ballasted track makes little more contribution to the pass-by noise, thus an allowance of 2dB has

been granted.

4.10 Issues to be considered during the revision process (section 7.2

of the CR NOI TSI)

4.10.1 Continuous curve of limiting values for pass-by noise

4.10.1.1 Wagons

Both the number of axles per length and the wagon speed influence the pass—by noise. The more

axles per length or the more speed, the higher the noise will be. For this reason the CR NOI TSI

defines a continuous curve of limiting values depending on the maximum speed. The measured

pass-by noise at maximum speed is normalised to a reference speed of 80 km/h.

divides wagons in three different categories, according to the number of axles per length and

defines for each category a pass by noise limit value at the normalised speed of 80 km/h. This

creates unwanted noise limit steps between different categories (see figure 5)

During the revision process, these noise limit steps have been eliminated. The measured pass-by

noise at maximum speed is normalised both to a reference APLref, set at 0,225 [m-1] and to a

reference speed of 80 km/h. The obtained valued must be lower than the limit value defined in the

NOI TSI (see figure 5)




4.10.1.2 Multiple units, locomotives, coaches and OTMs

For these rolling stock categories, the CR NOI TSI defines a continuous curve of limiting values

depending on the maximum speed of the vehicle.

Nevertheless, HS RST TSI does not define a continuous curve, but punctual pass-by noise limit

values at

200 km/h, for coaches and locomotives

200, 250, 300 and 320 km/h for the full train

Such distribution of limit values causes discontinuities without technical justification. Therefore, the

revised NOI TSI defines a continuous curve of limiting values for pass-by noise covering both high

speed and conventional rail.

This continuous curve is defined as follows:

LpAeq,Tp(v) = LpAeq,Tp (80 km/h) +30*log (v/80 km/h), for vehicles with speed lower than or equal

to 250 km/h, and

LpAeq,Tp(v) = LpAeq,Tp (250 km/h) +50*log (v/250 km/h), for vehicles with speed higher than 250

km/h

The 50log curve is used for speeds equal or higher than 250 km/h as experience shows that it is a

good compromise to model the influence of the aerodynamic plus rolling noise. However, there

must be an upper speed limit which is set out at 320 km/h.

4.10.2 Second step limit values for pass-by noise and starting noise

Section 7.2 of the CR NOI TSI recommends a two-step approach in the next revision process for

the pass-by noise limit values. Section 7.3 of CR NOI TSI recommends a reduction of the initial

values in the second step of:

2 dB for DMUs and EMUs

5 dB for locomotives, coaches, wagons and OTMs

for vehicles ordered after 23/6/2016 or authorised after 23/6/2018.

During the revision process, most of the WP members rejected this recommendation.

ERA suggested an alternative two-step approach, with 2nd

step limit values:

agreed by the WP

adopted 6 to 8 years after entry into force of the revised TSI

UNIFE supported this approach, with the precondition that all second step limit values must be

revised before entering into force. T&E and NSA DE proposed binding 2nd

step limit values with the

possibility of an optional review or a derogation. NSA UK proposed a second step with the

possibility of refusing the values. Other NSAs (ES, FI) feared the unforeseeable economic impact of

a mandatory 2nd

step. CER strictly refused a second step without a clear political statement for a

reduction in noise levels.

Most organisations proposed concrete limit values for 1st step. Only some organisations proposed

limit values for the 2nd

step. All proposals are summarised in Annex 1.

Further analysis revealed that a programmed review prior to the entry into force makes the 2nd

step

limit value negotiable, thus there would be no real requirement at all. Moreover, it leads to lack of




legal certainty due to risks derived from a programmed review process. On the other hand, without

the review, the lack of currently industrially available technology compliant with 2nd

step limit values

could lead to unpredictable costs for the railway sector.

Moreover, as outlined in section 4.9 the current procedure for measuring pass-by noise leads to

measurements containing RST and track contributions. The technical progress does not allow

achieving significant reductions of pass-by noise limit values by reducing the Rolling Stock

contribution. Moreover, the track contribution is normalised by means of a reference track, which is

defined in a way that it only sets out upper limits of track contribution in pass-by noise. Therefore, a

sharp reduction of pass-by noise limit values as defined in the current TSI would lead to

the use of more silent thus more expensive test tracks which might not be available in all MSs

which would again discriminatorily increase the costs for some players

more expensive Rolling Stock with no or just very small positive impact on people living along

the track.

Additionally, retrofit programs based on current pass-by limits (in particular for freight wagons) are

not yet implemented and should get priority in investment plans.

Subsequently ERA, in agreement with the WP, concluded that adopting the 2nd

step pass-by limit

values is not meaningful at this stage and no second step limit values are proposed in the revised

TSI.

In future revisions of the NOI TSI, the pass-by noise may consider only the RST contribution. This

would need a research project as proposed by CER and UNIFE in order to gather the necessary

knowledge (see the complete proposal submitted by UNIFE in annex 2).

The target of the project is to define a method to separate and quantify the RST contribution and

the track contribution in the pass-by noise. The separation method should:

show up silent vehicle design

be better than the existing ones

be less expensive/complicated than the existing ones

have a well-defined limits and conditions for use (range of speeds and type of vehicles)

provide a better basis for defining pass-by noise limit values to be considered in the TSI during

future revisions.

Such research project would involve RST manufacturers, RUs, Universities and research institutes.

4.10.3 Inclusion of infrastructure

The CR NOI TSI in its section 7.2 requires studying the inclusion of infrastructure into the scope of

the revised Noise TSI. This study should be conducted in two layers: first the legal feasibility and

secondly and depending on the outcome of the first part: the technical feasibility.

An efficient reduction of railway noise nuisance depends on local circumstances such as traffic

type, traffic density and population density. Infrastructure measures come in different forms; like

specific maintenance to control track roughness, installing barriers, fixed greasing devices or

installing rail dampers. Since TSIs define parameters in a generic way and for new or upgraded

installations only, some of the possible measures would not fit in a TSI format. Infrastructure

Managers in many Member Sates deploy noise abatement measures as part of their tasks and




responsibilities. This takes place without the existence of TSI requirements in this field. T&E and

NSA DE proposed to include infrastructure requirements in the TSI.

In particular, infrastructure requirements to limit squeal noise and brake noise were proposed by

NSA DE and T&E. The inclusion of both parameters was finally dismissed (see section 4.6 for a

complete explanation).

ERA considers that the TSIs should not contain any requirement which is not needed to achieve

interoperability. Beyond this, in order to make the TSI economically justified, there should be a

sophisticated line dependant categorisation of noise levels to make sure that lines in densely

populated areas are kept very silent, with plenty of noise barriers, while lines in remote non-

populated areas remain economically viable. In fact, the requirements should be customised to be

fit for purpose in every location. Otherwise, the cost/benefit ratio of generic solutions would be

either too high for remote areas or too low for densely populated areas. The TSI is not the right

legal instrument to manage this. National/local rules are better instruments to address the

infrastructure component.

MSs should ensure that the infrastructure is properly equipped to accept TSI-compliant RST. That

way Member states can impose stricter rules in densely populated areas, and apply more flexible,

cost-efficient rules in less populated areas.

4.10.4 Monitoring scheme of wheel defects

ERA does not see the point in the introduction of a monitoring scheme of wheel defects, bearing in

mind that

monitoring the wheel defects is interfaced with infrastructure, rolling stock and maintenance and

goes therefore beyond the scope of the NOI TSI.

the RUs have already the obligation to keep the vehicle parameters inside the limits defined in

the applicable TSIs (including the NOI TSI). According to section 4.4 and 4.5 of the RST TSIs

(WAG and LOC&PAS), the applicant has to define the initial operating rules and maintenance

rules in order to maintain the compliance with all applicable TSIs.

A UIC study (B169- RP28) carried out in 2006 showed that some types of wheel defects have an

influence on the noise emission of rolling stock. Nevertheless, the impact of these wheel defects on

the total railway noise based on a statistical analysis and the occurrence of acoustic relevant

defects is not yet performed.

Therefore no cost-benefit analysis of such a monitoring scheme can be done at this time.

4.11 Basic parameters in the revised NOI TSI

4.11.1 Pass-by noise

The harmonisation of the HS and CR pass-by noise limit values is not evident because different

measuring positions are used:

7,5 m from the track centre, 1,2 m high in CR NOI TSI

25 m from the track centre, 3,5 m high in the HS RST TSI

The WP agreed to use the position defined in the CR NOI TSI and place the measuring position at

7,5 m distance and 1,2 m high for all speeds because it is a shorter distance and makes it easier to




find suitable measuring locations. Moreover, no human presence is required at the measuring

position. Therefore, even at speeds of 320 km/h there is no risk for the personnel in charge of

measuring the pass-by noise.

An additional measuring point at has been added at 7,5 m distance and 3,5 m above track level for

very high speed measurements. The reason for this additional measuring point is that the

pantograph noise may become dominant at high speeds and this is best detected with a higher

measuring point.

The working party discussed thoroughly different proposals for limit values. Some members

advocated very ambitious reduction of limit values and showed some technological improvements

(wheel absorbers, hubcap absorbers, anti-corrosion coatings with a secondary positive effect

regarding noise reduction,...) in order to support them.

The rest of the WP did not agree with these proposals. A really good wheel absorber installed on

wheel with very bad acoustical behaviour can only achieve a maximum reduction of 2 dB. Wheel

hubcaps were already introduced 30 years ago. The return of experience with such hubcaps

showed that hot brakes and cracks in the wheel web/hub can remain unnoticed, and the inspection

windows become covered by dust. Therefore there is a safety problem when using this product.

Anti-corrosion coating of wheels and axles will not reduce noise significantly.

Moreover, the retrofitting of the existing fleet of freight wagons with composite brake blocks is

already under process. It may be beneficial to wait for the feedback before defining more ambitious

noise limits for freight wagons. Ambitious noise limits will even hinder this retrofit at the moment.

Therefore, it is agreed not to push for a huge reduction of pass-by noise in wagons.

Nevertheless some reduction has been achieved for wagons with low APL as a secondary effect of

evolving to a continuous curve of limiting values. The noise limit is generally more stringent

according to the APL. The graphic below shows how the limit values change according to the APL

for a speed of 80 km/h.

Figure 5: Pass-by noise limits in current and revised TSIs for wagons vs. Axles per length




Figure 5 shows that for APLs lower than 0,225 there is a reduction of the limit values, which grows

as APL decreases. Nevertheless, wagons with an APL higher than 0,35 are allowed higher pass-by

noise limit values, but such wagons are not frequent (6 axle wagons with a distance between

buffers of 17 meters or less). The CR NOI TSI defined a pass-by noise limit value which was 2 dB

higher in case of renewal of upgrade. This allowance is no longer valid.

A reduction of 1 dB has been agreed for EMUs, OTMs, locomotives and coaches with maximum

speed up to 190 km/h. At higher speeds, an additional reduction of 4 dB has been agreed for a

maximum speed of 200 km/h.

In DMUs, reductions have been achieved of up to 3 dB (at 200 km/h). Nevertheless, for 250 km/h

and more, there is an increase of 1 dB. There are no DMUs with maximum operational speed

higher than 200 km/h in Europe due to their huge operational cost (fuel consumption,

maintenance...), so this increase does not correspond to a real case (dark grey zone in the graph).

The figures 6 to 9 below compare the agreed continuous curve of limiting values with the previous

situation in CR NOI TSI and HS RST TSI. The limit values of the HS RST TSI (speeds>200 km/h)

have been extrapolated to values measured at the same distance as the CR NOI TSI using a

conversion factor of 7 dB in order to make the comparison possible.

Figure 6: Pass-by noise limit value in current and revised TSIs for locomotives vs. speed.

No operational

vehicles in this range

of speed




Figure 7: Pass-by noise limit value in current and revised TSIs for EMUs vs. speed

Figure 8: Pass-by noise limit value in current and revised TSIs for DMUs vs. speed

No operational

vehicles in this range

of speed




Figure 9: Pass-by noise limit value in current and revised TSIs for coaches vs. speed

4.11.2 Stationary noise

The agreed limit values compared to the limit values set out in the TSIs in force are given in the

table below. The limit values are reduced from 1 up to 5 dB, except in the case of wagons:

LpAeq,T [unit] [dB] CR NOI TSI 2011 HS RST TSI 2008 revised NOI TSI Reduction

Electric locomotives 75 75 70 5

Diesel locomotives 75 75 71 4

EMU 68 68 65 3

DMU 73 73 72 1

Wagons 65 n.a. 65 0

Coaches 65 65 64 1

Limit values for stationary noise

Table 3: Limit values for Stationary noise in current TSIs and revised TSI

4.11.2.1 Intermittent noise sources and peak noise

The CR NOI TSI does not properly take consideration of intermittent noise sources. Therefore, a

maximum noise level for intermittent sources was proposed by NSA DE. The compressor has been

identified as the main intermittent noise source.

Moreover, when processing the measurement results an average noise level is created and this

average is compared with the limit values defined in the TSI. In case of one local very loud noise

No operational

vehicles in this

range of speed




source on a long unit, this loud noise source may be averaged out over the length of the unit, thus

the unit will be NOI TSI compliant, and still create a lot of annoyance. Therefore, NSA DE proposed

to introduce a maximum noise level for peak sources. The blow-off valves have been identified as

the main peak noise source.

In order to solve both issues, the WP agreed to introduce two additional limit values for stationary

noise in the TSI:

A-weighted equivalent continuous sound pressure level at nearest measured position

considering the main air-compressor(LipAeq,T), with the following limit values:

Category of the rolling stock subsystem LipAeq,T [dB]

Electric locomotives and OTMs with electric traction 75

Diesel locomotives and OTMs with diesel traction 78

EMUs 68

DMUs 76

Coaches 68

Table 4: • A-weighted equivalent continuous sound pressure level at nearest measured position

considering the main air-compressor (LipAeq,T)

AF-weighted sound pressure level at the nearest measured position considering impulsive noise

sources (LipAFmax): limit values are set out at 85 dB.

4.11.3 Starting Noise

The agreed limit values compared to the limit values set out in the TSIs in force is given in the table

below. The limit values are reduced up to 4 dB:

LpAF,max [dB] CR NOI TSI 2011 HS RST TSI 2008 revised NOI TSI Reduction

Electric locomotives P ≥ 4500 kW 85 85 84 1

Electric locomotives P < 4500 kW 82 82 81 1

Diesel Locomotives P ≥ 2000 kW 89 87 2

Diesel Locomotives P < 2000 kW 86 85 1 and 4

EMUs 82 82 80 2

EMUswith a maximum speed vmax ≥ 250km/h 85 83 2

DMUs P ≥ 560 kW 85 83 2

DMUs P < 560 kW 83 82 1 and 3

89

85

Limit values for starting noise

Table 5: Limit values for starting noise in current TSIs and revised TSI

In both the CR NOI TSI and the revised NOI TSI the starting noise is measured with the vehicle

accelerating from standstill to 30 km/h and then process it according to the “maximum level

method” defined in the EN ISO 3095:2013. The result must not exceed the limit value set out in the

TSI.




For the next revision it is recommended to measure the starting noise from standstill to 40 km/h,

and then process it according to both the “maximum level method” and the “averaged level method”

defined in the EN ISO 3095:2013. New limit values must be set out for this new procedure in the

next revision.

In order to be able to define such limit values, the revised TSI already mandates to measure the

starting noise according to the new procedure. NSAs shall submit these measurements to the

Agency. The Agency shall gather these data and make them available in an anonymised way

during the next revision process.

This new procedure will provide a more stable indicator and a more relevant maximum speed better

aligned with the EN ISO 3095:2013.

4.11.4 Driver’s cab interior Noise

The cab interior noise is measured in CR NOI TSI and the revised TSI NOI under two different

conditions:

At standstill with horns sounding

At maximum speed

Limit values are defined for both conditions.

Both values will be used by the RU to estimate the lower exposure action daily value as defined in

Directive 2003/10/EC. This value depends on the type of line (speed, level crossings, etc.)

The agreed limit values compared to the limit values set out in the TSIs in force are given in the

table below. The limit values for all vehicles with maximum speed lower than 250 km/h is reduced

by 2 dB, thus further facilitating the compliance of the RU with the Directive 2003/10/EC with no

need of additional measures.

However, NSA UK is concerned that the more demanding levels of noise insulation to meet the

revised TSI requirements may compromise the audibility of detonators, pyrotechnic devices

attached to the rail and exploded by the passage of the train in order to alert the driver to an

emergency situation.

ERA considers that the reduction in the cab is quite moderate (2 dB). Moreover, alternative means

of warning the driver of an emergency situation or more powerful detonators could be used.

LpAeq,T [dB] CR NOI TSI 2011 HS RST TSI 2008 revised NOI TSI Reduction

At standstill with horns sounding (interval 3s) 95 95 95 0

At vmax if vmax < 190km/h (interval 60s) 78 78 0

At vmax if 190km/h ≤ vmax < 250km/h (interval 60s) 80 78 2

At vmax if 250km/h ≤ vmax < 350km/h (interval 60s) 80 80 0

Limit values for the driver´s cab interior noise

Table 6: Limit values for driver’s cab interior noise in current TSIs and revised TSI

The lower exposure action peak values as defined in the Directive 2003/10/EC are too high for

railway vehicles. These values are designed for impact tools. Therefore, no specific cab interior

noise peak limit values are defined in the TSI.




5. ECONOMIC EVALUATION

5.1 Introduction

The fundamental difficulty in developing the Impact Assessment relating to the revision of the TSI

Noise has been to find an economic rationale for lower noise emissions from new rolling stock. The

use of the Early Assessment methodology was useful in showing where it would be suitable to

direct the limited resources of the Economic Evaluation unit for the development of the Impact

Assessment, i.e. towards reductions in limit values for freight wagons.

5.2 Proportionality

The Impact Assessment Report1 highlighted that the most obvious, proportionate, cost-efficient,

way to reduce railway noise in the short-term would be to decrease wagon noise through retro-

fitting the existing wagon fleet with quieter brake blocks. The following table highlights the situation

regarding the rolling stock fleet in Europe (EU25 + NO + CH) in 2012 :

Table 7: European Rolling Stock fleet by categories

The rate of compliance with the TSI Noise has been low as new wagons were not being purchased

and this trend was further exacerbated by the onset of the economic crisis in 2008. In 2012 we

estimated the number of TSI Noise compliant wagons that were in service across the EU building

on the earlier work shown in the table above. This also produced some projections of the actual

(2004 – 2010 data) and estimates (2011 and 2012 data) out to 2015.

1 European Railway Agency. Economic Evaluation Unit. Economic impact assessment for the revision of the

Noise TSI. Version 0.2, 29/11/2013.




Figure 10: Evolution of TSI Noise compliant wagons (does not assume retrofitting).

The view of the representative bodies was that imposing new limit values on wagons would impose

a significant cost burden on the railway freight sector. In the Early Assessment the alternative of

retrofitting existing wagons with K or LL brake blocks in place of cast-iron brake blocks was

examined. Retrofitting with K brake blocks would offer reductions in the range of 8 – 10 dB (A) for

wagons with a 4 – 5 dB (A) reduction in mixed traffic operation (Shulte-Werning et al 2012)2.

ERA’s Impact Assessment report indicated that estimates, from UIP, for retrofitting added between

3% and 8% to the costs of transport without necessarily being able to recover this cost from

customers. While noise discriminating track access charges (NDTAC) would assist with the

retrofitting they did not necessarily fully cover the increased life cycle costs incurred by retrofitting.

Previous work by PwC in 2007 also indicated costs associated with retrofitting.

The critical issue was therefore - how the retrofitting would be paid for. Analysed separate study

was commissioned by the Commission for the EU3. The various schemes, e.g. in the Netherlands

had a limited take up rate, while the scheme in Germany has only just started in 2013. It was too

2 Shulte-Werning. B, Asmussen. B, Behr. W, Degen. K G and Garburg. R. Advancements in Noise and

Vibration Abatement to Support the Noise Reduction Strategy of Deutsche Bahn. In Maeda. T, et al (Eds)

Noise and Vibration Mitigation for Rail Transport Systems. Springer, 2012. 3 PROGTRANS/COWI. Effective reduction of noise generated by rail freight wagons in the Europan Union

(2014) forthcoming.




early to be able to draw any firm conclusions regarding these schemes. However, the scheme in

Switzerland has seen more than 90% of the wagon fleet retrofitted. During the working party

agreement could not be reached with regard to reducing the current limit values for wagons.

5.3 Impact Assessment

The WP, while not rejecting the early assessment approach, requested that a full impact

assessment be carried out on the new limit values. The report assessed alternative approaches

that were being put in place by railway undertakings and infrastructure managers to mitigate the

worst effects of railway noise. In addition to the retrofitting of composite brake blocks the

approaches included:

Improving train maintenance procedures;

Adopting new track forms, e.g. slab track;

Adapting the technology within the track form, e.g. noise reducing track pads and dampers, and

Construction of noise bunds, shields and walls.

The report illustrated various different approaches taken by a number of European member states

for the latter point. The report also addressed the reduction of train speeds. This was protested by

a number of the sector representatives sitting on the working party. Clearly, there were economic

and social trade-off’s that had to be considered regarding this issue.

The report used a simple model to assess the effects of the proposed changes using Belgium as a

case example using 2008 data. Based upon the changes in the proposed TSI limit values and

grossed up to the EU level some 300,000 citizens living within 100 metres of railway tracks would

benefit from lower noise levels and noise exposure. Within 500 metres it was estimated that just

under 2,4 million citizens would benefit. . Based upon the current research this would have an

economic value of between €0,523 million per year and €59,439 million per year depending on

which research value is used.

Overall the impact assessment report concluded that the revision of the TSI was expected to have a

positive impact on the railway sector and to some of the population affected by railway noise.




6. CONCLUSIONS

6.1 Modification of the Essential requirement regarding noise in ID

Interoperability Directive under which the NOI TSI is established does not cover the full scope of the

Environmental Noise Directive (END) nor Directive 2003/10/EC, which objectives are respectively to

develop and implement global environmental noise abatement strategies and reduce noise

exposure in the working place.

The objective of the ID and NOI TSI is to achieve interoperability and to avoid that this is hampered

by national rules limiting noise emission on vehicles.

In order to better reflect this objective, it is proposed to amend the essential requirement 1.4.4 of ID

as follows:

“The rail system must be designed and operated in a way which does not give rise to an

inadmissible level of noise emission in areas close to infrastructure, as defined in Article 3 of

Directive 2012/34/EU, and in the driver's cabin”

Where “inadmissible level of noise” is a noise above the levels defined in the NOI TSI.

6.2 HS and CR merged in one TSI

The CR NOI TSI presumes conformity for HS rolling stock tested in accordance with the HS RST

TSI without further checks. However, conventional rolling stock running on HS lines is covered

neither by CR NOI TSI nor by HS RST TSI and is therefore subject to national rules. The revised

TSI NOI closes this gap as all noise requirements shall be covered by this TSI regardless the

maximum speed of the vehicle or the type of line they are running on.

6.3 Infrastructure requirements in the TSI

ERA considers that the TSIs should not contain any requirement which is not needed to achieve

interoperability. Beyond this, in order to make the TSI economically justified, there should be a

sophisticated line dependant categorisation of noise levels to make sure that lines in densely

populated areas are kept very silent, with plenty of noise barriers, while lines in remote non-

populated areas remain economically viable. In fact, the requirements should be customised to be

fit for purpose in every location. Otherwise, the cost/benefit ratio of generic solutions would be

either too high for remote areas or too low for densely populated areas. The TSI is not the right

legal instrument to manage this. National/local rules are better instruments to address the

infrastructure component. Therefore, no infrastructure requirements are included in the revised NOI

TSI.

6.4 Monitoring scheme of wheel defects

ERA does not deem necessary to harmonise the monitoring of wheel defects, bearing in mind that

the RUs has already the obligation to keep the vehicle parameters inside the limits defined in

the applicable TSIs




the wheel defects monitoring has several interfaces with infrastructure, rolling stock and

maintenance and goes therefore beyond the scope of only the NOI TSI.

According to sections 4.4 and 4.5 of the RST TSIs (WAG and LOC&PAS), the applicant already

has to define the initial operating rules and maintenance rules in order to maintain the

compliance with all applicable TSIs.

6.5 Revised noise limit values

6.5.1 Stationary noise

The agreed limit values have been reduced from 1 up to 5 dB. Two additional requirements for

stationary noise have been included:

A limitation for the maximum noise level of intermittent sources. The main air compressor is

identified as the main intermittent source. Exact limit values have been defined in the revised

TSI for all vehicle categories.

A limitation for the maximum noise level for peak sources. The exhaust valve of the air dryer

identified as the main peak source. Limit values are set out at 85 dB for all units.

6.5.2 Starting noise

The agreed limit values are reduced up to 4 dB.

For the next revision it is recommended to change the measurement procedure in order to align it

with the new EN ISO 3095:2013.

In order to define limit values for the new measurement method, the revised TSI already mandates

to measure the starting noise according to the new procedure. NSAs shall submit these

measurements to the Agency. The Agency shall make them available in an anonymised way during

the next revision process.

6.5.3 Pass-by noise

Reductions from 1 dB up to 4 dB have been agreed in EMUs, OTMs, locomotives and coaches.

In DMUs, reductions of up to 3 dB have been agreed from 0 to 250 km/h. For speed higher than

250 km/h, there is an increase of 1 dB. However, this is not considered a realistic case in Europe

since there are currently no DMUs with maximum operational speed higher than 200 km/h.

Some reduction has been achieved for wagons with low APL as a secondary effect of evolving to a

continuous curve of limiting values.

In return, wagons with an APL higher than 0,35 are allowed higher pass-by noise limit values. Such

wagons (mainly 6 axle wagons), however, are not frequent.

An reduction of 2 dB has been agreed for renewed or upgraded vehicles.




6.5.4 Cab noise

The cab noise limit values have been slightly reduced in order to further facilitate the compliance with the Directive 2003/10/EC.

6.6 Specific cases and open points

Some less restrictive Specific Cases have been accepted and included in the NOI TSI. All these

specific cases are linked with domestic traffic and do therefore not have any negative impact on

interoperability.

This TSI contains no open points.

6.7 Subjects requiring additional studies in future work program

In future revisions of the NOI TSI, the pass-by noise may consider only the RST contribution. This

would need a research project in order to gather the necessary knowledge. As there are already

separation methods (e.g. the one defined in STAIRRS research project), such project should take

into account the existing knowledge in this field.

In a second stage, the research project should carry out the following activities:

Development and trial of effective noise reduction measures in combination with innovative

rolling stock concepts, in order to define an advanced state of the art.

Testing separation method with different noise control measures and defining set of new,

ambitious limit values.

Different noise control measures for pass-by noise should be developed, validated and

quantified. They should be technically and operationally feasible. The development will include

the application of simulation solutions to verify the impact in vehicle contribution of noise control

measurements.

The project covers all types of Rolling Stock, pass-by reduction in freight wagons should be the

priority.

Such research project would involve RST manufacturers, RUs, Universities and research institutes.

The outcome of this project shall be considered in the next revision of the NOI TSI.




Annex 1




Stationary noiseLpAeq,T [dB]

after

e.i.f.

6 years

after e.i.f.after e.i.f.

6 years

after e.i.f.

after

e.i.f.

6 years

after e.i.f.

after

e.i.f.

6 years

after e.i.f.

Electric locomotives and OTMs with electric traction 70 67 70 63 59 63 59

Diesel locomotives and OTMs with diesel traction 71 68 71 68 66 68 67

EMUs * 65 61 65 57 53 57 53

DMUs ** 72 70 72 65 63 65 63

Coaches 65 61 63 57 53 57 53

Wagons 65 61 65 57 53

Starting noiseLpAF,max [dB]

after

e.i.f.

6 years


6 years

after e.i.f.

after

e.i.f.

6 years

after e.i.f.

after

e.i.f.

6 years

after e.i.f.

Electric locomotives P < 4500 kW at the rail wheel 81 80 83 81 76 81 81

Electric locomotives P ≥ 4500 kW at the rail wheel 85 83 83 83 78 83 82

OTMs with electric traction 83 83 78

Diesel locomotives P < 2000 kW at the engine output shaft 85 83 85

Diesel locomotives P ≥ 2000 kW at the engine output shaft 87 85 87

OTMs with diesel traction 87 84 82

EMUs80 78

82 (up to 40

km/h) 73 71 73 73

EMUs with a top speed higher than 250km/h 83 80 83 83 78 73 73

DMUs P < 500 kW/engine 82 82 82 79 76 79 79

DMUs P ≥ 500 kW/engine 84 82 83 79 78 79 79

Pass-by noiseLpAeq,Tp (80 km/h) [dB]

after

e.i.f.

6 years


6 years

after e.i.f.

after

e.i.f.+2

years

after

1/7/2018

after

e.i.f.

6 years

after e.i.f.

Electric locomotives and OTMs with electric traction* 85 83 84 82 78 85 83

Diesel locomotives P < 2000 kW at the engine output shaft* 85 83 8582 78 85 83

Diesel locomotives P ≥ 2000 kW at the engine output shaft*85 83 85 82 78 85 83

OTMs with diesel traction* 85 83 85 82 78

EMUs* 80 80 80 78 76 77 77

EMUs* with top speed > 250 km/h 95

DMUs* 81 80 81 78 76 80 77

DMUs* with top speed > 250 km/h 96

Coaches* 80 80 79 75 73 77 76

Wagons* 83 83 83 79 75 80 78

Noise within the driver's cabLpAeq,T [dB]

after

e.i.f.

6 years


6 years

after e.i.f.

after

e.i.f.

6 years

after e.i.f.

after

e.i.f.

6 years

after e.i.f.

At standstill 95 93 95

At the maximum speed if this is lower than 250km/h 78 78 78

At the maximum speed if this is 250km/h or higher 80-82 80-82

80 with max.

speed of 320

km/h

T&E PROPOSAL NSA DE PROPOSAL

UNIFE PROPOSAL CER PROPOSAL T&E PROPOSAL NSA DE PROPOSAL

UNIFE PROPOSAL CER PROPOSAL

UNIFE PROPOSAL CER PROPOSAL

Do not

agree with

mandatory

second

step limit

values

Do not

agree with

mandatory

second

step limit

values

Do not

agree with

mandatory

second

step limit

values

UNIFE PROPOSAL

Do not

agree with

mandatory

second

step limit

values

T&E PROPOSAL NSA DE PROPOSAL

CER PROPOSAL T&E PROPOSAL NSA DE PROPOSAL

80 if D-E

84 if D-H

80 if D-E 82

if D-H

No values proposed No values proposed

80 if D-E

84 if D-H

80 if D-E

84 if D-H

Notes: e.i.f. entry into force D-E: Diesel-Electric D-H: Diesel-Hydraulic




Stationary noiseLpAeq,T [dB]

Electric locomotives and OTMs with electric traction

Diesel locomotives and OTMs with diesel traction

EMUs *

DMUs **

Coaches

Wagons

Starting noiseLpAF,max [dB]

Electric locomotives P < 4500 kW at the rail wheel

Electric locomotives P ≥ 4500 kW at the rail wheel

OTMs with electric traction

Diesel locomotives P < 2000 kW at the engine output shaft

Diesel locomotives P ≥ 2000 kW at the engine output shaft

OTMs with diesel traction

EMUs

EMUs with a top speed higher than 250km/h

DMUs P < 500 kW/engine

DMUs P ≥ 500 kW/engine

Pass-by noiseLpAeq,Tp (80 km/h) [dB]

Electric locomotives and OTMs with electric traction*

Diesel locomotives P < 2000 kW at the engine output shaft*

Diesel locomotives P ≥ 2000 kW at the engine output shaft*

OTMs with diesel traction*

EMUs*

EMUs* with top speed > 250 km/h

DMUs*

DMUs* with top speed > 250 km/h

Coaches*

Wagons*

Noise within the driver's cabLpAeq,T [dB]

At standstill

At the maximum speed if this is lower than 250km/h

At the maximum speed if this is 250km/h or higher

NSA UK PROPOSAL NSA FI PROPOSAL NSA ES PROPOSAL


General Comment General Comment General Comment

Do not agree with

mandatory second

step limit values

Doubts the techno-

economical feasibility of

TSI draft noise limits in

the second phase

Doubts the techno-

economical

feasibility of TSI

draft noise limits in

the second phase




Doubts the techno-



the second phase


Doubts the techno-



the second phase

Doubts the techno-

economical

feasibility of TSI


the second phase

Doubts the techno-

economical

feasibility of TSI


the second phase

General Comment General Comment

Do not agree with

mandatory second

step limit values

General Comment

Do not agree with

mandatory second

step limit values

Do not agree with

mandatory second

step limit values

Doubts the techno-



the second phase

Doubts the techno-

economical

feasibility of TSI


the second phase

Notes: e.i.f. entry into force D-E: Diesel-Electric D-H: Diesel-Hydraulic




Annex 2


European research project proposal:

Rail/Track rolling noise separation and noise

reduction design solutions

January 2013


Index Introduction ...................................................................................................................... 45

1. Objective ................................................................................................................... 46

2. Background and justification ................................................................................... 46

3. Project set-up ............................................................................................................ 51

4. Part 1 - Track-vehicle rolling noise separation ....................................................... 51

5. Part 2 – Develop, validate and quantify the effect of different noise control measures by full scale testing and in simulations .......................................................... 53

6. Time Schedule ........................................................................................................... 54

7. Budget ....................................................................................................................... 54


Introduction

During ERA Noise Working Party (WP) meeting that took place on 12 and 13 December 2012 in Lille, it was concluded that if today the pass-by noise limit values would be reduced, this would primarily lead to a migration towards better test tracks with increased costs for the test approvals while the same Rolling Stock (RST) operates on the networks. Only in some exceptional cases e.g. where RST would fail even on best test tracks a redesign would be enforced. Therefore further reductions of the limit values are not meaningful at this stage. The members of the ERA Noise WP agree with this analysis (please refer to Draft MoM - NOI TSI WP N°7). UNIFE propose with this background a project for development and trial of effective noise control measures and more specifically in a first step to evaluate the measured pass-by noise in a way which allows the separation of the contribution of the rolling stock from those of the track. Such an evaluation procedure for separation that is good enough for certification purposes does not yet exist. Therefore a research project would be necessary. If this is successful, the limit values could focus on the rolling stock contribution alone and the rolling stock could be measured on any track Please find below a first project proposal defining the scope of the research proposed.


1. Objective The project will have 2 objectives:

1. Firstly, to develop and validate a practical method for separation of rolling stock noise from track noise during pass-by. Such a method should be suitable for regulatory purposes. Moreover this method is required if further steps in noise level reductions introduced in the Noise TSI should have the desired effect.

2. Secondly, the development and trial of effective noise reduction measures.

2. Background and justification Noise limits for pass-by are an essential part of the Noise TSI with the purpose of assuring interoperability. Hence a vehicle cannot be refused by a Member State because of its noise performances. This must be compatible with maintaining the competiveness of the railway sector and with improving the environmental protection. However, the present Noise TSI test procedures for pass-by noise is not well related to traffic noise emission in Europe because of the definition of the reference track. Furthermore neither acoustical aspects of the infrastructure nor maintenance or retrofit of cast iron block brakes can be included in the Noise TSI. The pass-by rolling noise emission from a train has contributions from both vehicle and track as depicted in Figure 1 below. This is an unwanted complication when it comes to noise limit setting since there is a split responsibility between rolling stock and infrastructure. If Europe wants to have more quiet rolling stock than the current Noise TSI can assure, there is a need to further develop an assessment procedure that can separate track noise from vehicle noise.

Figure 1: Wheel noise and track noise


The original purpose of the reference track was to define it so that vehicle noise and not track noise was measured. A reference track should however also be easily accessible in all member states and not too different from standard track design. The final reference track definition was a compromise meaning the track noise contribution compared to the vehicle noise contribution was higher than desired and this is today the fact that restricts further progress. The definition of the reference track as set out in ISO 3095:2011 is a spectral definition of an envelope curve with maximal rail roughness and minimal track decay rate. Any track with a lower roughness and/or a higher decay rate than the limit curve is an accepted reference track. With the current reference track definition, reductions of Noise TSI limits for pass-by will have small or no impact on noise exposure of people for several cases as explained by the example hereafter. For vehicles at 80 km/h where rolling noise is dominating, the contribution from the track is often higher than the contribution from the vehicle (Figure 2).

6

Rolling noise simulation results 80 km/h: spectra

Simulation: contribution of wheel and rail with TWINS

Roughness very low (5-6 dB lower than limit curve in relevant wavelengths)

RailWheel

13 November 2012

Figure 2: Example for wheel noise and rail noise at 80 km/h. Rail = 74 dBA, wheel = 69 dBA, rail + wheel = 75 dBA


Reducing the noise from the vehicle will on such a track have very little effect; only -0,4 dBA (Figure 3).

5

Effect of reducing wheel noise by 2 dBA on this

TSI reference track = - 0.4 dBA

Wheel contribution: -2 dBA

Influence on total level: -0.4 dBA (75.3 dBA 74.9 dBA)

Figure 3: Effect of wheel noise change when running on TSI reference track.

Wheel noise reduction 2 dBA leads to total reduction 0,4 dBA. On the other hand it will be relatively easy to reduce the measure pass-by limits by changing to a better track; reduction 1,4 dBA (Figure 4).

6

Effect of reducing rail noise by 2 dBA on

this TSI reference track = - 1,4 dBA

Rail contribution: -2 dBA


Figure 4: Effect of track noise change when running on TSI reference track.

Track noise reduction 2 dBA leads to total reduction 1,4 dBA


In reality a normal operational track in many countries in Europe has lower damping and hence higher radiation than a reference track (Figure 5).

7

Going from a TSI track to a normal operation track the

rail contribtion will often be more than 2dBA higher

than on a TSI reference track

If rail is increased 2dBA the total levels = +1,6 dBA

Rail contribution: +2 dBA

Influence on total level: +1.6 dBA (75.3 dBA 76.9 dBA)

Figure 5: From reference track to operational track. It is typical that the track noise increase by at

least 2 dBA. The resulting increase in total noise is then 1,6 dBA This means that the effect of reducing the rolling stock part of the rolling noise may be even lower on a normal operational track (Figure 6); reduction 0,3 dBA instead of 0,4 dBA as in Figure 3.

8

If on this type of normal operation track the

wheel part is reduced by 2dBA the effect on the

total level= -0,3 dBA

Rail contribution: +2 dBA and Wheel contribution: -2 dBA


NOTE: Measurement accuracy is typically 1-2 dBA Figure 6: Effect of wheel noise change on normal operational track.

Wheel noise reduction 2 dBA leads to total reduction 0,3 dBA.


For some vehicles, traction equipments are also an important contribution to pass-by levels. Therefore, the separation technique should also be able to identify noise contributions for the main contributing noise sources, not only track and wheels. Also, for vehicles at high speed, the relative importance of the vehicle is greater than in the examples shown above. Typically, there is equal contribution of rolling noise from track and vehicle for high speeds (Figure 7).

High Speed Example

13 November 2012

HS train @ 300 km/h


Equipments data: Measured sound power level in test lab

Roughness of the track set to TSI limits

Aeroacoustic contribution from simulation model.

Figure 7: Example for wheel noise and rail noise at 300 km/h, Wheel =92dBA, Track 92 dBA, Equipment= 90 dBA, Aeroacoustics = 92 dBA, Total for all sources= 98 dBA

One option would be to reduce the track noise by tightening the reference track definition. However this option is not acceptable as it would lead to even lower accessibility to test track and increases the complexity and cost of today, while already today time and cost for certify rolling stocks according to Noise TSI is big issue for the sector as a whole. Another option would be to get a vehicle-track separation technique. It is important to have a consensus around such a method. Taking into account the cost aspect, this separation technique shall be simple to not lead to a more complicated procedure than today. As this method is not yet standardised, the first part of this project would be to define such a method. For next steps towards more quiet European rolling stock, the second part would be to define effective noise control designs.


3. Project set-up A European-wide Field Test Program is recommended in combination with further developing calculation methods. It shall cover the typical cases among the different types of vehicle defined in the TSI, primarily Multiple Units, locomotives and freight wagons of conventional speed. A number of field tests shall hence take place combining different tracks and vehicle types. In a first step, data for high speed rolling stock from a former field test program could maybe be used since high-seed testing is very costly and this is the only type of rolling stock where a part of the necessary data may be available. This is thanks to the former project called NOEMIE (NOise Emission Measurements for high speed Interoperability in Europe), carried out to support the development of the high-speed part of TSI HS. It was a program launched by the commission to provide track quality and trackside noise emission values of several high-speed trains at speeds up to 320 km/h. To make the size of the present project reasonable, non typical vehicles and future higher speeds as 360 km/h should be excluded until progress is assured for the most common types of vehicles. Rolling stock manufacturers as well as component suppliers, railway operators and other relevant stakeholders involved in the ERA Noise TSI WP together with universities and institutes should participate since consensus should be reached around the new methods. 4. Part 1 - Track-vehicle rolling noise separation Different approaches of track-vehicle noise separation methods of different complexity have been presented in the past. The problem is that most of these methods are relatively complicated in their present forms and do either not fulfil the demand to give a clear enough separation or complicate the current procedures. A desktop study shall identity the state-of-the-art of the existing separation methods. The main strategy should be to combine the best of all existing methods into a hybrid method that can create typical “vehicle filters” and/or “track filters” to be applied during TSI testing. Vehicle filters: Different vehicle filters may have to be defined for different types of vehicle e.g. one for EMU-s and another for locomotives but could be based on the fact that track noise is typically more low frequency than vehicle noise (see an example in Figure 8).


6

Rolling noise simulation results 80 km/h: spectra


Roughness very low (5-6 dB lower than limit curve in relevant wavelengths)

RailWheel

13 November 2012

Figure 8: Proposal of a vehicle filter The different vehicle filters could be applied during Noise TSI testing to separate most of the rolling stock part of the rolling noise and compare it with new limit values created for this specific purpose. The test could hence be carried out on a track with any damping but the level of excitation of the rail and wheel roughness must be specified. As for vehicles not only rolling noise but also traction noise is contributing to the pass-by levels, special considerations have to be taken. For instance a track filter could be part of a solution together with other separation methods. Track filter: For a situation with a defined test tack (type of rail, type of sleepers, type of rail pad and rail pad stiffness) the radiation from the track is evaluated and track filter can be designed. This filter will take away most of the noise originating from the track and leave the rolling stock part of the noise, including all sources on the vehicle not only the wheels but also for instance propulsion noise or aero-acoustic sources.

Proposal, Simplification pass-by Measurement by ‚Vehicle-Filter’

Knowing that rolling noise of the vehicle only becomes dominant beginning with

the 2 kHz Band, we propose to introduce a high-pass filter. + Only the rolling

noise of the

vehicle (wheels)

is being

determined.

+ No big care

about TDR and

rail radiation is

necessary

- Other noise

sources which

may effect lower

frequencies are

suppressed.

High-Pass-Filter


Desired characterises of a separation method:

where silent vehicle design shows up

which is better than the actual one without the demand of being perfect or exact

which is not more expensive or complicated than the actual one

where it will be clear for which vehicles and which speeds it should be applied

where the assessed values can give a much better basis for track access charges

where new limit values exclude acoustically bad wheel designs

where the new method avoids competition moving to low noise reference test tracks for certification

The first part of the project treating separation methods would in principle follow the steps below:

Desktop study to establish state of the art of existing methods and applying them to existing data, as far as complete enough data sets are available

Develop and apply different test and calculation methods for track/vehicle separation. This will require new field test data and include e,g, pass-by noise levels, track/wheel roughness, rail vibration, wheel vibration, microphones close to the vehicle, microphone antennas in combination with calculation techniques for rolling noise, source separation techniques and special post processing.

Iterate the point above. Apply best combination of methods to define vehicle/track filters for different type of vehicle/track combinations.

Validate the filters in field tests 5. Part 2 – Develop, validate and quantify the effect of different noise control measures by full

scale testing and in simulations The Part 2 of the project should include the following activities:

Development and trial of effective noise reduction measures in combination with innovative rolling stock concepts, in order to define an advanced state of the art.

Testing separation method with different noise control measures and defining set of new limit values.

To focus on the technical and operational feasibility.

To evaluate the economic impact with LCC analysis.

Different noise control measures for pass-by noise should be developed, validated and quantified. The development will include the application of simulation solutions to verify the impact in vehicle contribution of noise control measurements


6. Time Schedule The duration of the project shall be aligned with the schedule for future TSI Noise revisions. If the 2nd Noise TSI step limit values are based on the findings from this project, it should run during 2014-2018 or earlier. 7. Budget A detailed budget will be built in a later stage. Indeed the project proposal should be discussed and precisely defined with railway stakeholders. However the budget of such a project including field testing for different type of vehicles for validation should be around 2 - 3 Million Euros distributed over 2 – 3 years and could be split in different phases depending on the extension of the second part.

interoperability unit noise tsi - european …€¦ · european railway agency noise tsi – final...

Documents