Post on 18-Aug-2018
transcript
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 Page 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
European Railway Agency
NOISE TSI – Final Report
IU-NOI TSI-Rep Version 1.2 Page 3/54
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
European Railway Agency
NOISE TSI – Final Report
IU-NOI TSI-Rep Version 1.2 Page 4/54
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
European Railway Agency
NOISE TSI – Final Report
IU-NOI TSI-Rep Version 1.2 Page 5/54
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)
European Railway Agency
NOISE TSI – Final Report
IU-NOI TSI-Rep Version 1.2 Page 6/54
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
European Railway Agency
NOISE TSI – Final Report
IU-NOI TSI-Rep Version 1.2 Page 7/54
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
European Railway Agency
NOISE TSI – Final Report
IU-NOI TSI-Rep Version 1.2 Page 8/54
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
European Railway Agency
NOISE TSI – Final Report
IU-NOI TSI-Rep Version 1.2 Page 9/54
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;
European Railway Agency
NOISE TSI – Final Report
IU-NOI TSI-Rep Version 1.2 Page 10/54
(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
European Railway Agency
NOISE TSI – Final Report
IU-NOI TSI-Rep Version 1.2 Page 11/54
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.
European Railway Agency
NOISE TSI – Final Report
IU-NOI TSI-Rep Version 1.2 Page 12/54
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
European Railway Agency
NOISE TSI – Final Report
IU-NOI TSI-Rep Version 1.2 Page 13/54
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.
European Railway Agency
NOISE TSI – Final Report
IU-NOI TSI-Rep Version 1.2 Page 14/54
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.
European Railway Agency
NOISE TSI – Final Report
IU-NOI TSI-Rep Version 1.2 Page 15/54
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
WP5 5 September 2012
WP6 21 November 2012
WP7 12 and 13 December 2012
WP8 19 February 2013
WP9 18 June 2013
WP10 3 September 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.
European Railway Agency
NOISE TSI – Final Report
IU-NOI TSI-Rep Version 1.2 Page 16/54
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.
European Railway Agency
NOISE TSI – Final Report
IU-NOI TSI-Rep Version 1.2 Page 17/54
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.
European Railway Agency
NOISE TSI – Final Report
IU-NOI TSI-Rep Version 1.2 Page 18/54
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).
European Railway Agency
NOISE TSI – Final Report
IU-NOI TSI-Rep Version 1.2 Page 19/54
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.”
European Railway Agency
NOISE TSI – Final Report
IU-NOI TSI-Rep Version 1.2 Page 20/54
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.
European Railway Agency
NOISE TSI – Final Report
IU-NOI TSI-Rep Version 1.2 Page 21/54
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.
European Railway Agency
NOISE TSI – Final Report
IU-NOI TSI-Rep Version 1.2 Page 22/54
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
European Railway Agency
NOISE TSI – Final Report
IU-NOI TSI-Rep Version 1.2 Page 23/54
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)
European Railway Agency
NOISE TSI – Final Report
IU-NOI TSI-Rep Version 1.2 Page 24/54
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
European Railway Agency
NOISE TSI – Final Report
IU-NOI TSI-Rep Version 1.2 Page 25/54
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
European Railway Agency
NOISE TSI – Final Report
IU-NOI TSI-Rep Version 1.2 Page 26/54
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
European Railway Agency
NOISE TSI – Final Report
IU-NOI TSI-Rep Version 1.2 Page 27/54
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
European Railway Agency
NOISE TSI – Final Report
IU-NOI TSI-Rep Version 1.2 Page 28/54
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
European Railway Agency
NOISE TSI – Final Report
IU-NOI TSI-Rep Version 1.2 Page 29/54
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
European Railway Agency
NOISE TSI – Final Report
IU-NOI TSI-Rep Version 1.2 Page 30/54
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
European Railway Agency
NOISE TSI – Final Report
IU-NOI TSI-Rep Version 1.2 Page 31/54
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.
European Railway Agency
NOISE TSI – Final Report
IU-NOI TSI-Rep Version 1.2 Page 32/54
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.
European Railway Agency
NOISE TSI – Final Report
IU-NOI TSI-Rep Version 1.2 Page 33/54
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.
European Railway Agency
NOISE TSI – Final Report
IU-NOI TSI-Rep Version 1.2 Page 34/54
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.
European Railway Agency
NOISE TSI – Final Report
IU-NOI TSI-Rep Version 1.2 Page 35/54
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.
European Railway Agency
NOISE TSI – Final Report
IU-NOI TSI-Rep Version 1.2 Page 36/54
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
European Railway Agency
NOISE TSI – Final Report
IU-NOI TSI-Rep Version 1.2 Page 37/54
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.
European Railway Agency
NOISE TSI – Final Report
IU-NOI TSI-Rep Version 1.2 Page 38/54
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.
European Railway Agency
NOISE TSI – Final Report
IU-NOI TSI-Rep Version 1.2 Page 40/54
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
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 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
after e.i.f.after e.i.f.
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
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.
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
European Railway Agency
NOISE TSI – Final Report
IU-NOI TSI-Rep Version 1.2 Page 41/54
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
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
NSA UK PROPOSAL NSA FI PROPOSAL NSA ES PROPOSAL
NSA UK PROPOSAL NSA FI PROPOSAL NSA ES PROPOSAL
General Comment General Comment General Comment
Doubts the techno-
economical feasibility of
TSI draft noise limits in
the second phase
General Comment General Comment General Comment
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-
economical
feasibility of TSI
draft noise limits in
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-
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
Notes: e.i.f. entry into force D-E: Diesel-Electric D-H: Diesel-Hydraulic
IU-NOI TSI-Rep Version 1.2 Page 43/54
European research project proposal:
Rail/Track rolling noise separation and noise
reduction design solutions
January 2013
IU-NOI TSI-Rep Version 1.2 Page 44/54
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
IU-NOI TSI-Rep Version 1.2 Page 45/54
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.
IU-NOI TSI-Rep Version 1.2 Page 46/54
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
IU-NOI TSI-Rep Version 1.2 Page 47/54
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
IU-NOI TSI-Rep Version 1.2 Page 48/54
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
Influence on total level: -1.4 dBA (75.3 dBA 73.9 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
IU-NOI TSI-Rep Version 1.2 Page 49/54
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
Influence on total level: -0.3 dBA (76.9 dBA 76.6 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.
IU-NOI TSI-Rep Version 1.2 Page 50/54
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
Simulation: contribution of wheel and rail with TWINS
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.
IU-NOI TSI-Rep Version 1.2 Page 51/54
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).
IU-NOI TSI-Rep Version 1.2 Page 52/54
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 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
IU-NOI TSI-Rep Version 1.2 Page 53/54
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
IU-NOI TSI-Rep Version 1.2 Page 54/54
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.