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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

14. The Source for more Information
For more information, visit:

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

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

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

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