Maintenance & RenewalS p e c i a l

Issue July 2007Euro 25,–

ISB

N 9

78

-3-7

77

1-0

36

7-9

Special (2007)3

the tracks are the indispensable basis of any railway system. They have to bear the loads of the trains which roll over them in lasting and safe way.

The forces at the contact point between wheel and rail are composed of static loads (weight), quasi-static forces (in curves) and a number of additional dynamic forces. These last forces are the result of traction and braking forces in conjunction with the wheel-rail dynamics arising from rolling stock in motion on track capable of vibration together with the irregularities of track geometry.

Any engineer would very quickly surmise that the dynamic stress of this complex vehicle/track/infrastructure entity is bound to be the direct cause of wear.

As a consequence, the track undergoes certain maintenance measures at specific intervals; this is unavoidable. What is to be done and how this work can be completed very economically is the subject of this RTR Special that you have in your hands right now.

In addition to maintenance in the more narrow sense, there is also track renewal work, i.e. track refurbishment measures on a larger scale. You will also find some articles on this subject in this RTR Special.

Maintenance and track renewal technology is highly dynamic itself: a field with an exceptionally high level of innovative capability. The contributions to this issue provide a platform for those driving this progress.

We hope their contributions will act as a stimulus for you, dear readers, in your own sphere of professional activity.

Dr. Eberhard Jänsch, Doctor of Engineering, Editor-in-chief, DB Netz AGWilly Waßmuth, Projectmanager, Eurailpress

Dear Readers,

Dr.-Ing. Eberhard Jänsch

Willy Waßmuth

(Willy Waßmuth)(Eberhard Jänsch)

Content

Special (2007)4

EDITORIAL3 Dr.-Ing. Eberhard Jänsch, Editor-in-Chief, DB Netz AG and Willy Waßmuth, Projectmanager, Eurailpress

INTRODUCTIONProf. Dipl.-Ing. Dr. Peter Veit

8 Track Quality – Luxury or Necessity?

ARTICLESDr. Bernhard Lichtberger

14 The Track System and Its Maintenance

Dipl.-Ing. Hans Bachmann, Dipl.-Ing. Ekkehard Lay, Dipl.-Ing. Heiner Huesmann

23 Requirements met by Advanced Railway Track Systems: Maintenance and Cost Effectiveness

Dipl.-Ing. Klaus Riebold29 Heavy-duty Track Machines – an Overview

Ing. Rainer Wenty37 Latest Developments in Track Rehabilitation

and Maintenance

Peter Ziegler44 New Paths in Rail Maintenance

Klaus Stahl, Jochen Kabisch48 Sustainable Quality on the Track Network by Planned

Rail Head Treatment

Dipl.-Ing. MBA Stefan Knittel, Ing. Christian Schreiber51 Renovation of Railway Tunnels under Operation

Dr.-Ing. Stephan Freudenstein, Thomas Silbermann57 Renewal of the Brandleite tunnel with GETRAC®

Ballastless Track System on Asphalt

Dipl.-Math. Ulrich Völter jun.62 Automatic Geomonitoring: Realtime-Monitoring of

the Lainzer Tunnel

FOREWORDProf. Dr.-Ing. Jürgen Siegmann

7 Maintenance and Renewal of Track

57

37

44

Content

Special (2007)5

Imprint

RTR – Specials will publish from time to time important developments and technologies for modern railway business.

Publishers:Dipl.-Ing. Roland Heinisch, Board member Deutsche Bahn AG, Berlin/FrankfurtDipl-Ing. Armin Keppel, President Federal Railway Authority of Germany, BonnDr.-Ing. Dieter Klumpp, Board member Association of Railway Industries in Germany (VDB), BerlinProf. Dr.-Ing. habil. Jürgen Siegmann, Technical University, Berlin

Editor-in-chief:Dr.-Ing. Eberhard Jänsch, German Railways (DB Netz AG) Tel.: +49 (0) 69 265 31899, Email: eberhard.jaensch@bahn.de

Projectmanager:Willy Waßmuth, DarmstadtTel.: +49 (0) 61 62 - 91 35 00, Email: willy.wassmuth@t-online.de

Publishing house:DVV Media Group GmbHDVV Rail Global | EurailpressNordkanalstrasse 36, D-20097 HamburgP.O. Box 101609, D-20010 HamburgTelephone: +49 40 23714- 03Telefax: +49 40 23714- 259info@eurailpress.comwww.eurailpress.com

CEO DVV Media Group:Dr. Dieter Flechsenberger

Publishing Director DVV Rail Global:Detlev K. SuchanekE-Mail: suchanek@eurailpress.com

Advertising Director:Silke Härtel (resp.)Tel.: +49 40 23714-227, E-Mail: haertel@eurailpress.com

Subscription and distribution:Riccardo di Stefano (resp.), Tel.: +49 40 23714-101, E-Mail: distefano@eurailpress.com

Reader and subscriber service:Tel: +49 40 23714-260, Fax: +49 40 23714-243E-Mail: service@eurailpress.com

The regular Journal Railway Technical Review (RTR) is published four times a year, with one edition per quarter.

The publication dates for 2007 are:March, May, September and October

Subscription rates:Germany: € 48,– incl. postage, plus VAT;Europe: € 48, – plus € 4,50 Postage; World: € 48,– plus € 8,50 Postage.Single copy price: € 12,50 (incl. VAT).

Subscription terms: the minimum subscription period is one year. Sub-scriptions may be terminated at the end of any subscription period by giving six weeks' notice. The publishers accept no liability if it is impos-sible to publish the magazine on account of force majored or any other cause beyond their control.Copyright: the magazine and all the individual articles and illustrations contained in it are protected by copyright. It is not permitted to reproduce or distribute any part of this magazine without the publishers' prior written permission. This prohibition extends, in particular, to any form of commercial copying, inclusion in electronic databases or distribution on CD-ROMs or DVDs.

Layout and Production:Axel Pfeiffer, E-Mail: pfeiffer@eurailpress.com

Print:TZ-Verlag & Print GmbH, Roßdorf

Prof. Dr.-Ing. Ulrike Weisemann, Em. Prof. Dr. Klaus Lieberenz

67 Track Formation and Earthworks – Geotechnical Problems and Solutions in Route Upgrade Works

Dipl.-Ing. (FH) Reinhold Rensing72 BWG's System Turnout as Part of a Trackway

Managed under LCC Aspects

Dipl.-Ing. Dr. Rudolf Schilder, Dipl.-Ing. Dirk Diederich 76 Installation Quality of Slab Track –

A Decisive Factor for Maintenance

Dipl.-Ing. Gerd LeDosquet, Dipl.-Ing. Frank Pawellek, Dr.-Ing. Frank Müller-Boruttau

79 Monitoring of the Running Quality: the Lasca® System

67

72

RTR – Railway Technical Review was etablished in 1960 and is published in 2007 in Volume 47.ISSN 0079-9548

Copyprice for the Special: € 25,-- incl. VAT plus postage

ISBN for the Special: 978-3-7771-0367-9

Internet: www.eurailpress.com/rtr

Member:

Deutsche Fachpresse

Audited Circulation

Maintenance & RenewalRTR – Special

Advertisers' Index

BWG GmbH & Co. KG, Butzbach ........................................................................71

DVV Media Group I Eurailpress, Hamburg ........................................... 6, 21, 35, 49, 56, U3

Huesker Synthetic GmbH, Gescher ...................................69

Innotec GmbH Europe, Worms ..........................................81

Intermetric GmbH, Stuttgart .............................................65

Plasser + Theurer GmbH, Wien .........................................13

Rail.One GmbH, Neumarkt .............................................. U2

Rhomberg Bahntechnik GmbH, Bregenz ........................... U4

Robel GmbH, Freilassing ..................................................43

Vogel & Plötscher GmbH & Co. KG, Breisach .....................27

Special (2007)7

Railway infrastructure costs are a major element of the fixed costs of the railway system. Consequently every railway network strives for higher utilisation of capacity, so as

to bring in sufficient income at least to cover operational and maintenance costs. The respective elements of the network need to be so configured, that the capacity of individual route sections and pinch points are mutually consistent.

However when infrastructure work needs to be undertaken, to replace defective components or to carry out other rectification work, track capacity is reduced because of the associated track closures, or temporary

speed restrictions or single-line working imposed for the work to be carried out. The network operator and the infrastructure contractors and suppliers must constantly strive to reduce the frequency and extent of maintenance activities, to co-ordinate their activities, to shorten required line closure periods, and to improve job planning.

Objective measures of the severity of interference with planned operations have been developed, leading to a cash value of the impact; consequently it is possible to optimise maintenance strategies in a scientific manner.

Selection of the actual type of track structure is critical for impact on operations of maintenance and construction activity. Slab track ensures long-term stability of track geometry and reduces maintenance requirements to a minimum. In the case of ballasted track, well-honed maintenance processes are now available, for which high output track maintenance machines have been developed. A diverse industrial sector devoted to infrastructure maintenance

Prof. Dr.-Ing. Jürgen SiegmannTechnical University Berlin, Department of Track and Railway Operations

has developed, and co-operation between the network operator and industry is relatively strong.

Inspection processes produce detailed information, which together with measurement data using GIS technology, enable good advance planning of maintenance activities. This ensures that appropriate plant is made available for the work, that proper worksite planning will have been carried out, and that accurate advance information can be given to train operators about the extent of the required line closure or of any necessary journey time extension.

Job planning obviously takes into account the train timetable, so that long distance passenger trains and important freight trains only encounter a single disruption on account of track works on any one journey. Special events like football championship matches etc and public holidays need to be taken into account. At such times with additional trains operating, the timetable needs to be adhered to even more exactly than normally. Unfortunately these events often take place in the best time for site work, and as a result the volume of required work is intensified later, with corresponding difficulties of co-ordination.

The ability to make long term plans for infrastructure maintenance work has often suffered in the past from lack of available funds or uncertainty about budget provision. This situation should improve under the Capacity and Funding Agreement (“LuFV”). This should give certainty over a 15 year period, guaranteeing the network the politically required quality.

It is evident that proper maintenance in a time of conflicting demands comprises much more than technology alone. Accordingly we need a thorough knowledge of good practice in this subject, and this special issue of RTR makes an important contribution.

Foreword: Maintenance and Renewal of Track

Special (2007)8

Quality is delivered on one hand by capital investment or renewal, and on the other hand by maintenance effort. At the time of installation of new works, or renewal of existing assets, the target is provision of a desired initial quality; the target of maintenance activity is to sustain this initial state in a stable geometrical state, in which geometrical quality degrades at an acceptably slow rate.

The emphasis of short-term economies as against the impact of long-term effects has been shifted significantly towards the former in recent years, seen as much in deferring capital and renewal schemes as in reducing maintenance effort. This paper examines the output of investigations by the Austrian Federal Railways (ÖBB) and their partners in the period since 1997, to determine the optimal and necessary level of quality at the time of installation and the corresponding essential maintenance input.

Features of the Track Structure

The reasons for the – in the author’s opinion – often excessive reductions in expenditure arise from the nature of the track structure itself, being quite different from other technical systems:

� The service life of the track at 25 to 50 years is extremely long

� During a period of inadequate maintenance, it is a relatively long time before the track shows signs of stress

� The track reacts badly to a lengthy period of inadequate maintenance (the phenomenon of “track memory”) and it reacts with an irreversible shortening of its period of geometrical stability.

These qualities of the track have the following impact:

� On the one hand, shortcomings in quality standards are only recognised as such when the track no longer behaves with its proper stability.

� On the other hand short-term savings resulting in quality shortfalls exhibit negative effects only in the medium and long terms; this phenomenon is something of a danger in the current environment.

Accordingly, quality and the impact of measures taken to improve quality can

Track Quality – Luxury or Necessity?

The issue of how far a high track quality is technically essential and how far it is economically optimal often arises, particularly at times of budgetary constraint. What factors give rise to good track quality?

Associate University Professor, University of Technology, Graz, Institute for Railway Engineering and Transport Economy

Address: University of Technology, Graz, Rechbauer Str. 12, A-8010 Graz

E-mail: peter.veit@TUGraz.at

Prof. Dipl.-Ing. Dr. Peter Veit

Fig 1: Effect of initial quality on the change of track quality over time

only be assessed over the long term. For this reason, the ÖBB’s “Track Strategy” project was started in 1997 in close collaboration with the Institute for Railway Engineering and Transport Economy of Graz University of Technology, with the object of evaluating the economic worth of capital and maintenance expenditure.

The long-term dependencies in considering the track require us to look at life cycle costs, consisting of:

� Cost of first installation, or of renewal� Cost of planned maintenance work� Cost of additional small maintenance� Cost of operational interference by

track work, and� Cost of operational interference due to

inadequate quality (precautionary speed restrictions).

In addition, it is clear that a good quality track deteriorates more slowly than a poor

Track Quality – Luxury or Necessity?

Special (2007)9

quality track; in other words the stability is dependent on the condition, mathematically expressed as a differential equation of the form

dQ–––– = b · Q dt

which resolves to

Q = Q0 · eb-t

where

Q = current quality,Q0 = quality at time t = 0 (corresponding

to the quality at the completion of installation works)

b = deterioration ratet = time

This formula emphasises the unavoidable dependency between first cost (or renewal) expenditure and maintenance effort, as Q0is the result of the capital expenditure, and eb-t describes the deterioration behaviour of the track in operation. This relationship can be determined by evaluation of track measurement data; however wide variations are observed in the value of b the rate of deterioration.

This relationship is so definite that subsequent effort cannot restore the original quality Q0, and it forces a limit on the stability of the track throughout its life.

Fig. 1 shows results from the ÖBB recording vehicle based on the MDZ A ride quality category at various points in time. MDZ A is an indication of acceleration variation in the vehicle as a result of track irregularity, and MDZ A = 0 is a perfect quality.

Experience indicates that the deterioration rate is smallest when the initial quality is high; but comparative evaluation on different track with differing local factors show wide variation in the rate of deterioration, b.

This e-function describes the behaviour of the track in a number of situations: if the starting quality is reduced, then the whole curve is shifted to the left, and the current quality of the track is changed accordingly (Fig. 2). Even a moderate reduction in initial quality results in the track condition reaching the threshold for maintenance intervention much earlier.

Analysis of track behaviour shows that the deterioration of the track in operation compared to the initial quality depends on a wide variety of factors such as:

� Formation condition, especially the effectiveness of the drainage system;

� Ballast quality� Traffic loading� Type of track construction� Curvature, etc

resulting in a wide variation of track behaviour following maintenance operations (Fig. 3).

The illustration shows that the deterioration function varies between two limits. On the one hand it is possible to see cases where the track behaves, from the time of maintenance Qi, almost identically to the first occasion when this quality was achieved (after about 140 days in the diagram). In this case the improvement is sustained, the quality is improved and the track behaves optimally (green curve). On the other hand situations can be seen where the track behaves as it did before maintenance, at point Qtv.This maintenance effect is of short duration, and although it has been given some margin of time, this is quickly dissipated as the track behaves as before

the maintenance operation (red curve).

This observation indicates that the quality of the track can be described by the quality category letter and the appropriate deterioration, for otherwise the behaviour of the track following the green and red curves would be indistinguishable, as the subsequent behaviour after maintenance work would be determined by Qi alone.

Study of individual cases gives a surprisingly simple solution for this phenomenon: if the technically appropriate maintenance regime is adhered to, the maintenance work has a lasting effect; if only the symptoms are addressed, no sustained improvement is possible. A typical example is tamping of ballast pockets or installation on formations of varying stiffnesses without prior attention to formation condition. In such cases no sustained maintenance improvement takes place, and the track quickly returns to the former geometry defects.

Fig 2: Influence of initial quality on maintenance requirement

E = threshold level

0 time [days] 700

Fig 3: Track behaviour and maintenance work

0 time [days] 900

Track Quality – Luxury or Necessity?

Special (2007)10

Further analysis indicates:

� That subsequent maintenance work can only bring track quality close to the original condition, but can never actually achieve it or better it

� That track memory is a real phenomenon, and that the achievable track quality after maintenance work is dependent on the initial track quality, as is the subsequent behaviour, subject to other parameters (Fig. 4).

With a quality of – 15 at the time of maintenance work, an improvement of 10 MDZ A points should have achieved the original quality level. In fact only a 5 point improvement was achieved, a 5 point shortfall. If the actual value was – 30, a 10 point shortfall would have remained.

The general behaviour of the track therefore follows a cycle of deterioration and subsequent restoration work, but because the track quality can never be returned to its former level, the cycle becomes shorter. The time interval of this cycle may be described as the technical service period. The economic service period is shorter, because towards the end of the technical service period the maintenance requirement climbs sharply.

Further analysis confirms the theoretically derived relationship between tamping interval and the service period. Higher initial quality leads, through the less frequent requirement to tamp, to longer life of the track. This analysis leads to the definition of a conforming intervention criterion, which varies with the age of the track, so that older track near the end of its service life may have lower quality targets than new track (of course without infringing ride comfort and safety requirements) (Fig. 5).

It is clear that a universal strategy can be constructed for optimising the life of the track.

In summary, we can say that:

� The deterioration rate of track is dependent on current quality;

� The original track quality can never subsequently be reproduced, and certainly never exceeded.

� For this reason the initial track quality is of the highest importance.

� Track geometrical quality must always be described by the quality and its rate of change

� It is inappropriate to separate a capital works and renewal strategy from the maintenance strategy: optimisation can only be achieved with a single comprehensive strategy

Fig 4: Average achievable quality levels against actual quality level at the time of maintenance

Fig 5: Conformant intervention level

Fig 6: Breakdown of life cycle costs. (Normalised annual cost percentage: Total / depreciation / Traffic delays / Maintenance