Wolfgang Schoech New Rail Maintenance Trends in Europe

Speno International SA Anti-headcheck-profiles and Preventative Cyclic Grinding

NEW RAIL MAINTENANCE TRENDS IN EUROPE –

ANTI-HEADCHECK-PROFILES AND PREVENTIVE CYCLICAL
GRINDING

Dr Wolfgang Schoech
Speno International SA, 26, Parc Chateau-Banquet, CH -1211 Geneva 21, Switzerland
Tel: +41 22 906 4600, Fax: +41 22 9064601, e-mail: WS@speno.ch

SUMMARY

Rail maintenance in Europe has traditionally focused on corrugation removal and simultaneous
correction of the transverse railhead profile, usually undertaken as corrective action, when defect
severity exceeded preset intervention thresholds. With the ever increasing appearance of Rolling
Contact Fatigue (RCF) over the last decade, rail maintenance is about to change to more strategically
planned interventions assuring routine elimination of the fatigued surface layer by applying specific
target profiles to reduce contact stresses. This paper summarizes work undertaken within the section
WP 4.5 of the European research program “INNOTRACK”, a project, which aims at reducing track
maintenance costs. The paper specifically discusses so-called Anti-Headcheck-Profiles (AHC) and
new rail maintenance strategies, which are about to be implemented in Europe.

1. INTRODUCTION wear - have to be taken into account to avoid

In Europe Rolling Contact Fatigue (RCF) has
become a major issue on both conventional
mixed traffic and dedicated high-speed lines.
Even urban transit systems despite their
relatively light axle loads and low line speeds,
suffer from surface fatigue.
gaining from one only to lose from the other.
The cost of maintenance by grinding in an
optimized way should be more than out-
weighed by longer rail life, thereby improving
life-cycle-costs.

While maximum nominal axle loads have 2. EUROPEAN RESEARCH ON

usually remained constant, the effective loads
of freight wagons have increased. Freight
trains operate faster and as dynamic loads
increase exponentially with speed, their effect
becomes more obvious. Modern locomotives
with increased installed power run on a
controlled slip regime, deploying maximum
acceleration and speed. Therefore the
stresses on the rail surface regularly exceed
the material fatigue limit and hence provoke
damage that requires frequent maintenance
intervention.
Rail maintenance is essentially achieved by
metal removal, an action that equates to
artificial wear. Rails also undergo natural wear
by traffic, generally at a low rate - particularly
with modern high quality steel. Wear rates
depend on size and shape of the contact area
between wheel and rail.
This is particularly critical when the shapes of
the two bodies do not interact perfectly, as for
instance after incorrect modification by
grinding. Therefore both aspects - fatigue and
RAIL MAINTENANCE
2.1. The Work Package WP 4.5
The European Community supports - within a
framework of various other big research
projects – a major project called
“INNOTRACK” that aims at reducing track
maintenance costs. This project contains work
package WP 4.5 that deals with rail
maintenance, and in particular rail grinding.
The participants - four infrastructure
companies, two rail suppliers and one grinding
contractor - looked for new or improved ways
to prolong rail life and to reduce life-cycle-
costs.
The first part of the project started with a
review of the current situation with respect to
applied target profiles and maintenance
procedures, while seeking potential for
improvement. Whereas the majority of railway
lines with conventional mixed traffic are still
operated on the basis of traditional
maintenance plans, all the railways in the
AusRAIL PLUS 2009
17 – 19 November 2009, Adelaide
Wolfgang Schoech
Speno International SA
working group apply, in addition to standard
profiles and rail laying angles, specifically
shaped profiles to reduce gauge corner
fatigue. The various specific characteristics
were studied in detail with a view to possibly
defining one standard “anti-headcheck-profile”.
The second step of the project was to find
maintenance strategies, which, while reducing
the fatigue problem by removing fatigue
surface material and delaying crack initiation,
also minimize wear. The experiences obtained
in the participants' local and specific conditions
have been openly exchanged. Basically similar
approaches have been reported, but also quite
a few contradictions. The mix of cumulated
knowledge and experience resulted in a
commonly accepted understanding of the
phenomenon and proposals for its solution. [1]
2.2. Anti-Headcheck (AHC) - Profiles
One important document (a so-called
“deliverable”) prepared by the working group
summarized and commented on the various
specific target profiles for grinding that have
been designed to improve the contact
geometry between the wheel and the rail in
order to reduce contact stresses.
Five specific target profiles were compared.
Whilst the basic idea behind the profiles is
similar they differ in detail. They are
characterized by specifically grinding more
metal off the gauge corner in order to achieve
lower contact stresses. These profiles are
applied in head check sensitive areas, usually
on the high rails in curves (fig. 1):
0.2 mm Reference : 60E2 1:40
Radial difference between profiles
60E1 1:20 AHCP SNCF
54E1 AHC 1:40
60E2 1:40 -0.6 DB AG
NR HR 1 1:20
60E1 1:20 AHCC SNCF
Figure 1:
Comparison of Anti-headcheck-profiles: The
reference profile is the 60E2 (bold line) 1:40
New Rail Maintenance Trends In Europe
Anti-Headcheck-Profiles and Preventive Cyclical Grinding
and the reference points are the railhead
centre and 14 mm below at gauge; the radial
difference to the reference profile is given
underneath
• 54E1 AHC (ProRail)
• 60E1 AHCC (SNCF); Anti Head Check
Profile for Corrective purposes
• 60E1 AHCP (SNCF); Anti Head Check
Profile for Preventative purposes
• 60E2 –0.6 (DB AG); the designation “-0.6”
describes the undercutting of the initial
profile at the gauge corner.
• NR HR 1 (Network Rail)
The following observations can be made:
• The HR1 – profile provides a consistently
lower shape from the centre to gauge and
a higher one from centre to field
• The difference between the two Anti-
Headcheck Profiles of SNCF is the more
undercutting at the gauge shoulder for the
corrective profile AHCC compared to the
preventive profile AHCP
• The 60E1 AHCC – profile has a
distinguished lower zone at the gauge
shoulder
• The 60E1 AHCP – profiles, the 54E1 AHC
– profiles and the 60E2 –0.6 have similar
shapes at the gauge shoulder and corner,
the latter two provide virtually identical
contact conditions because of the differing
head-width
These profiles require a maximum of 0.6
mm undercutting at the gauge and
combine moderate crack removal and
gauge corner relief as a way to minimize
metal removal requirements. With heavy-
duty grinders such work can be achieved
in a one-pass regime, which would be
ideal for cyclical maintenance grinding
work.
The preventive anti-headcheck profiles,
featuring up to 0.6 mm gauge corner
undercutting, provide rather similar contact
conditions. Standardisation of these profiles
seems desirable. However, due to the fact that
contact conditions depend on rolling stock
(wheel profiles, bogie stiffness etc.) and line
conditions, the infrastructure managers do not
consider it possible to propose a uniform
preventive anti-headcheck profile for general
use.
The other two profiles require more metal
removal for the first application. If maintained
AusRAIL PLUS 2009
17 – 19 November 2009, Adelaide
Wolfgang Schoech
Speno International SA
in proper cycles, metal removal can as well be
adjusted for a one-pass regime as well.
A development of further standardised profiles
would require cooperation of wheel-rail contact
experts from both sides (track and vehicle), as
running stability (equivalent conicity),
derailment risk (wheel climbing) and fatigue
issues need to be addressed.
The mentioned profiles should at least serve
as guidelines for railways not yet having
established respective RCF - target profiles. By
applying them, gauge corner fatigue is
reduced, as is the respective maintenance
cost. Thus, they are recommended for Europe-
wide use.
2.3. Grinding Strategies
2.3.1 Present situation
In Europe - apart from some exceptions - there
are not yet specific and harmonized grinding
strategies. Grinding is mainly executed to
control corrugation and related noise
problems. Occasionally, but increasingly,
grinding is executed to remove severe RCF.
A basic problem is the lack of budget available
for grinding, so that it is usually insufficient for
application of a more strategic maintenance
regime. Short term reactive needs (repair of
damaged components) take precedence over
development of a long-term approach
(prevention of damage to reduce LCC).
2.3.2. Exceptions
The railways participating in the working
package WP 4.5 have already started to apply
specific maintenance strategies, and this
distinguishes them from the general European
practice. DB AG and ProRail use rail
inspection trains equipped with an Eddy-
current headcheck-detection unit, which is able
to examine the rails at speeds of up to 100
km/h.
• DB AG
Regarding headchecks, DB AG uses manual
inspection trolleys based on eddy-current and
ultrasonic technology. The point in time at
which rail maintenance is undertaken (grinding
or renewal) depends on the depth of damage
measured, and from the result of ultrasonic
testing.
New Rail Maintenance Trends In Europe
Anti-Headcheck-Profiles and Preventive Cyclical Grinding
In 2008 a preventive cyclic rail-grinding
program was introduced for rails in curves with
radii from 500 to 5,000 m for lines with high
capacity (40% of the whole network) while
aiming at a metal removal of 0.5 mm. The
envisaged grinding interval depends on track
tonnage and varies from 0.5 to 2 years.
The target profile is the standard 60E2 with an
inclination of 1:40, whereby - different to usual
grinding practice - only negative production
tolerances (0 to -0.6 mm) are allowed.
• SNCF
Until 2007 rail maintenance was done only for
corrective purposes: on conventional lines
treatment was programmed when headchecks
could be visually detected or influences in
track geometry became apparent. On high-
speed-lines rail grinding was executed when
ballast stone imprints or headchecks occurred.
The application of special Anti-Headcheck-
Profiles has resulted in the extension of rail
service life by at least five years, a finding
supported by an econometric study undertaken
by the SNCF Infrastructure Maintenance
Division [2].
Consequently the following new maintenance
strategy was implemented in 2008:
• Preventive cyclic grinding on main lines
• Gradual reduction of the amount of
corrective work, which should become
exceptional
• Continuous treatment of lines with variable
metal removal according to the rail
condition using adequate (variable)
grinding speeds
• With long term programming (interventions
are known years ahead) longer possession
times can be organized in order to
increase productivity of grinding sites and
thus cost reductions are expected
• ProRail
Preventive cyclic grinding started in 2005
through adoption of a grinding policy proposed
by the Canadian National Research Council
(NRC).
Before the introduction of a cyclic grinding
policy, it was important that a zero damage
level was reached by undertaking corrective
grinding wherever necessary.
AusRAIL PLUS 2009
17 – 19 November 2009, Adelaide
Wolfgang Schoech
Speno International SA Anti-Headcheck-Profiles and Preventive Cyclical Grinding
Such corrective grinding is executed six to nine
months after inspection by a measuring train.
Headchecks not deeper than 2 mm or squats
with a diameter up to 6 mm are considered
suitable for grinding.
The aim is to remove a maximum of 1.5 mm on
the 80 mm and 300 mm radius sections of the
54E1 rail profile. For switches and the high rail
in curves with radius below 3,000 m, the 54E1-
AHC - profile is used.
It took two years of planning to provide enough
grinding capacity to reach the 100% preventive
cyclic grinding policy for straight track and
curves. In 2007 ProRail started to grind rails in
switches to the anti-headcheck profile, at first
focusing on the straight track only.
In principle any preventive cyclic grinding starts
with initial grinding of new rails just after their
installation. The best results are achieved by
grinding within six weeks following installation,
a maximum of three months is allowed
exceptionally. Thereby the minimum metal
removal required is 0.5 mm, the target profile
being 54E1.
For rails in switches and the high rail in curves
with radii below 3,000 m, the 54E1-AHC -
profile is used.
Cyclic grinding is executed at intervals of 15
MGT in curves with radii below 3,000 m, 30
MGT for radii between 3,000 and 9,000 m and
45 MGT with radii above 9,000 m. The target
profiles are once again 54E1 in straight track
and 54E1-AHC for high rails in curves. A
minimum of 0.2 mm of metal has to be
removed within one grinding pass.
The representative of ProRail stated that the
introduction of the preventive cyclic grinding
strategy has resulted in a reduction of rail
maintenance costs of about 50 percent.
• Network Rail
At present Network Rail uses three large plain
line grinders in single pass regimes, which
allow maintaining 32 km of curved track or 96
km of straight track each grinder per overnight
shift. Additionally three smaller grinders are in
use.
Rail grinding activity is prioritised so that the
highest priority curves with radii less than
2,500 m as well as switches and crossings are
ground approximately every 15 EMGT
New Rail Maintenance Trends In Europe
(equivalent million gross tons) and straight
track every 45 EMGT of traffic.
Where RCF exists, grinding of long sites
(usually several kilometres) is undertaken so
as to produce a uniform running band towards
the crown of the rail. This technique relieves
load from the cracked area and to slow down
the development of the existing cracks.
Grinding of cracked rail may not remove the
cracks unless they are very small and shallow.
All rails are ground to the same nominal head
profile. The NR HR1 profile is used for the high
rail of all curves and has additional relief on the
shoulder and gauge corner of the rail. The NR
113 lb profile is used for all other rail, which is
a low rail profile equivalent to a new BS113A
or a 56E1 profile.
A production tolerance of 0 to -0.6 mm may be
used, the aim being to keep the profile close to
the lower (-0.6 mm) tolerance.
In order to maximise productivity, Network Rail
first grinds on a site and/or route specific basis,
where the profile but not the minimum metal
removal needs to be achieved. Where this is
necessary, this may result in little or no metal
removal from the centre of the railhead. For in-
traffic one pass grinding the above outlined
criteria might not be reached in one grinding
cycle.
2.3.3 Recommendations of working group
There is unanimous acceptance that
preventive cyclic maintenance grinding with
limited metal removal requirements should be
executed while applying profiles with moderate
gauge corner relief.
In case of more severe fatigue, considerable
gauge corner undercutting is recommended
(corrective action). It could not be established
whether complete headcheck removal should
be aimed for generally (lack of work capacity
and budget) or whether partial crack removal
would be sufficient. In the case of the latter,
the residual damage remaining needs to be
assessed using recording techniques now
available (eddy current testing).
2.4 Recommended Grinding Strategies
When launching the INNOTRACK project,
there was some wishful thinking that
completely new rail maintenance technologies
would be developed to help reduce life-cycle-
costs (LCC). Although this has not been the
AusRAIL PLUS 2009
17 – 19 November 2009, Adelaide
Wolfgang Schoech
Speno International SA Anti-Headcheck-Profiles and Preventive Cyclical Grinding
case, it has been found that there is great
potential for improving the effects of the
existing rail grinding technology.
After reviewing the present grinding strategies
and the target profiles, the working group
checked the potential for improvements aiming
at reducing LCC.
Recommendations were summarized pointing
to the application of initial grinding, the
introduction of strategic preventive cyclic
actions as well as optimization of the existing
specifications and logistic matters.
2.4.1. Initial grinding
Initial grinding is done with all newly
constructed lines, in particular for high-speed
lines. It is also done after renewal of long
sections of rail. Due to operational restrictions
it may be executed up to six months after re-
railing. Specifications should demand a
minimum metal removal of 0.3 mm, as-rolled
profiles and symmetric tolerances (e.g. +/-0.3
mm).
Some infrastructure managers have already
started to specify target profiles different from
the as-rolled ones, e.g. wear adapted profiles
to better accommodate hollow worn wheels
(ore line ”Malmbanan” in Sweden), low conicity
profiles (ÖBB in Austria). In case of expected
gauge corner fatigue only negative tolerances
(e.g. 0/-0.6 mm) are requested (DB AG, BV).
It is recommended that in general, new
specifications should be issued requiring
grinding to be carried out as soon as possible
after re-railing with optimized target profiles,
e.g. for wheel-adapted profiles or anti-
headcheck profiles with appropriate production
tolerances.
2.4.2. Use of RCF-detection systems
Headcheck detection systems have been
developed and they are now available also on
rail grinding machines. These systems allow
checking the damage depth. Thus, a certain
damage level can be accepted (as intervention
threshold or as remaining depth after
treatment).
This tolerance is small enough to be removed
in a short time and does not interfere with
safety issues. It is of a certain dimension not to
require intervention too often, in order to
reduce interference with traffic.
New Rail Maintenance Trends In Europe
2.4.3. Strategic preventive actions
Basically, the longer the maintenance interval,
the higher is the metal removal rate. Most
importantly – the longer is the period for the
growth of surface problems and also other
irregularities such as corrugation and high
internal stresses. Equally, the ratio of natural
wear by traffic over artificial wear by grinding
needs to be well balanced.
The maintenance interval should depend on
actual measurements, as well as specified
average metal removal – and this needs to be
checked during grinding work. Such a policy
limits artificial wear by grinding.
Specific target profiles with defined gauge
corner relief and respective production
tolerances need to be applied. Due to variable
traffic and track conditions it is not possible to
define only one target profile for RCF -
maintenance work. However, guidelines could
help to standardize the approach and to
prescribe uniform production tolerances to be
used.
A strategy, which aims at minimal metal
removal rates between 0.15 and 0.3 mm, is
recommended. Metal removal rates depend on
maintenance cycles, which in themselves
depend on machine availability, operational
and budgetary aspects. It is not appropriate to
ignore such conditions, but to integrate them
as much as possible in flexible regimes.
When working in cycles (for any given surface
problem) all other irregularities such as
corrugation, imprints, squats etc. will be
controlled or eliminated simultaneously and
their negative effects removed.
Grinding work reduces dynamic forces and
vibrations and thus helps to reduce track
degradation. It therefore should be, whenever
possible coordinated with other track
maintenance activities, following tamping, in
particular.
If wheel profile management were undertaken
in a similar preventive way with improved
intervention threshold, RCF would be positively
influenced as well, with all resulting positive
consequences for LCC.
2.4.4. Elaboration of optimized specifications
The European CEN - specifications for grinding
work deal mainly with acceptance criteria for
the executed work, and these criteria are also
AusRAIL PLUS 2009
17 – 19 November 2009, Adelaide
Wolfgang Schoech
Speno International SA Anti-Headcheck-Profiles and Preventive Cyclical Grinding
applied by many European infrastructure
managers.
Intervention thresholds and / or maintenance
cycles are rarely addressed, and requirements
relating to how the work is organized and
executed are not formalized. Specifications to
ensure that machines achieve the targets in a
technically and economically optimal way do
not exist.
In an ideal world, specifications should
combine technical, operational and economic
considerations. The optimum solution has to
take into account availability of suitable
machinery, working conditions (e.g. depots,
transfers, and possession times) and metal
removal requirements. The order of these
three points is not essential as they all interfere
with each other anyway.
2.4.5. Logistics optimization
Grinding has been executed according to
programmes, which are based on the need to
rectify a range of various rail surface
phenomena such as corrugation removal and
related noise, ballast stone imprints and similar
surface defects.
When establishing a strategic headcheck
controlling approach, logistical issues need to
be addressed as well: grinding interventions
require track possession time. If the grinding
technology used matches all requirements,
high production rates at comparatively low
prices can be expected.
Usually grinding concentrates on problematic
areas often dispersed geographically. As
depots for the grinding machines are located at
considerable distances from worksites, the
grinding machines have to be transferred
every day over long distances (usually as low
priority trains), thus precious working time is
lost. Due to the heavy organizational work on
site for activating pre-programmed
possessions, further time is lost during the
work shift.
Grinding contracts are always indirectly based
on daily shift prices, which determine the costs
for a finished kilometre. As very often the
grinding equipment is used over short sections
(e.g. problematic curves) often many
kilometres apart, and corrective work requires
a higher number of working passes, the price
per finished metre is fairly high.
New Rail Maintenance Trends In Europe
RCF grinding has to be programmed
strategically: a regular preventive cyclic
grinding program should cover a whole line.
Possession times have to be organized
accordingly. Depots or machine stabling
sidings adapted to the maintenance
requirements of the machines should be
available at strategic points.
An ideal maintenance plan assures that the
grinding machines (size to be adapted to
required metal removal in a one-pass
operation) start from the first depot and move
over the line in order to grind wherever
required.
The working speed will be dependent on the
required metal removal (grinding cycle) and
could vary from 3 km/h (exceptionally in case
of more severe defects) to a desired maximum
of 20 km/h. At present grinders are limited at
about 10 km/h.
Available track possession time has to be used
as effectively as possible. The organisation of
daily grinding work needs to be perfected to
ensure that the ratio of working period over
effective grinding time is maximised.
Present experience does not reveal any
negative effects of “normally” ground rail
surfaces. Excessive roughness and wide
facets with sharp ridges between them are
usually prevented through the need to conform
to the grinding specifications. This might be
different for light axle traffic (urban systems)
and this aspect would require further
investigation.
On-board recording equipment has to be able
to document the work undertaken and its
quality without the need to check the result in
track.
Predictable time requirements are favourable –
multiple pass work should be limited.
Production rates would increase tremendously
when uninterrupted one-pass grinding could be
executed. With an average grinding speed of
10 km/h it should be possible to achieve a
production rate of up to 50 km per day.
Carefully planned machine deployment leads
to cost reductions. Internationally, production
time (manoeuvring, waiting for possession,
grinding, reversing, measuring, cleaning and
so on) amounts to about 60 % of the machine
deployment time at present. [3]
AusRAIL PLUS 2009
17 – 19 November 2009, Adelaide
Wolfgang Schoech
Speno International SA Anti-Headcheck-Profiles and Preventive Cyclical Grinding
If the ratio of production time over deployment
time could be increased to 70 %, this would
lead to a cost reduction of 14 %. For example,
with an estimated budget requirement of say,
50 million Euros per annum, a saving of 8.4
million Euros would be achievable annually. [3]
In order to reach such an ideal situation, high-
capacity machines need to be used. The
investment needed for these is only justified
when these machines can work in a constant
high-production regime.
Respective service contracts for maintenance
should cover periods of several years, allowing
lower basic rates for daily shifts. Short grinding
sections requiring multiple passes would be
attributed to more flexible compact machines.
2.4.6. Proposal for a strategy change
Before the cyclic strategy can be implemented,
circumstantial corrective actions are required in
order to bring the track section, line or network
concerned up to a suitable initial condition.
This implies a heavy initial investment in
maintenance followed by economically
beneficial cyclic measures.
In order to move from a corrective
maintenance regime, as used at present, to a
preventive cyclic one, the following steps are
proposed:
• Measurements and documentation of the
current situation with regard to Rolling
Contact Fatigue
• Classification of the track sections in the
following categories:
- Preventive cyclic work sufficient
- Corrective work required
- Heavily damaged (to be replaced in due
time)
• Prioritization of required corrective actions
- Corrective to zero (preventive mode) in
one step (Preferred scenario)
- Corrective to zero (preventive mode) in
several steps in case of limited budget
or grinding capacity
- Keep present situation by preventive
cyclic interventions (minimal solution)
• In any case all existing and corrected
sections need to be kept in the preventive
cyclic mode
• Prioritization of preventive cyclic work over
corrective actions
New Rail Maintenance Trends In Europe
3. NEW PROCEDURES IN DEVELOPMENT
As a consequence of these new proposed
maintenance strategies German Railways (DB
AG) has already organized together with
Speno International two specific test
campaigns in order to explore innovative
production possibilities under real conditions.
One problem identified was the interference of
the grinding work with signalling equipment
mounted near rails, which requires either to lift
some grinding units or to be dismounted
before grinding and re-mounted afterwards
posing substantial problems to site
organization.
3.1. “OPG” – One-pass-grinding
During two shifts two 48-stone grinders have
been coupled together operating as one big
96-stone consist. As usual with a test set-up
not everything went according to plan.
However, the main objectives could be
demonstrated satisfactorily:
With a grinding speed of 9 km/h an average
metal removal of 0.35 mm in the rail centre and
some more at the sides has been achieved.
The transverse profile and the rail surface
conditions were well within usual
specifications.
For routine work the operational organization
needs to be improved with respect to
dismounting and re-mounting of the signalling
equipment. Probably some modifications of the
grinding units and some limitations to negative
gauge corner angles in these delicate areas
could ease the situation. Equally improved
collection of grinding dust and slag needs to be
re-examined.
Forty kilometers of finished track per shift
seems to be realistically achievable. DB AG
envisages a total of 4,000 track - kilometers to
be covered by yearly cyclic grinding, which
would result in an amount of some 100 shifts
per year.
3.2. “TPG” – Two-pass-grinding
During four shifts one standard 48-stone
grinder was operated to achieve basically the
same result as with the above OPG-method
machines, but of course within two passes.
The advantage is seen in the fact that a
shorter length of track needs to be organized.
Also there is more flexibility available in case
AusRAIL PLUS 2009
17 – 19 November 2009, Adelaide
Wolfgang Schoech
Speno International SA Anti-Headcheck-Profiles and Preventive Cyclical Grinding
some section would need more or less metal
removal, as the grinding speed can be varied
for each pass, with the second pass used to
bring the rail within tolerance limits.
In total the practice test confirmed the
expected production capacity: At least 20 km
of track could be finished per night according
to specifications (target profile with tight
tolerances and a minimum of 0.3 mm metal
removal around the rail head.
Both strategies – OPG and TPG – have their
stronger and weaker sides. DB AG has not yet
decided which one finally to adopt, but as real
life is always a compromise it may well be, that
both processes will have their part of the
application.
4. CONCLUDING REMARKS
Based on these recommendations it is hoped,
that more railways or infrastructure managers
respectively will follow the successful
experiences of the partners of the working
group in order to explore the achievable
benefits.
Improving the present rail maintenance
strategy needs to include a planned change
from sporadic, condition-based interventions to
New Rail Maintenance Trends In Europe
pro-actively planned preventive programs.
Other potential areas for improvement are the
optimization of existing specifications and
logistics.
Considering the various areas where
development is under way, it has become clear
that an even more efficient future for rail
maintenance lies ahead of us.
5. REFERENCES
[1] Schoech W, Heyder R, Dollevoet R:
Specific railhead profiles to control rolling
contact fatigue – design and maintenance, the
European approach, 8th International
Conference on Contact Mechanics and Wear
of Rail/Wheel Systems, Firenze, Italy,
September 15-18, 2009
[2] Meier-Hirmer C, Pouligny Ph: Impact of
preventive grinding on maintenance costs and
determination of an optimal grinding cycle,
th
Proceedings, 8 World congress on Railway
Research, Seoul, Korea, May 18-22, 2008
[3] Hempe, Thomas & Siefer, Thomas: “Rail
grinding as an integral part of technically and
economically efficient track maintenance”,
ZEVrail Glasers Annalen 131 (2007) 3 März
AusRAIL PLUS 2009
17 – 19 November 2009, Adelaide