RepublicofBulgaria EDICTOFGOVERNMENT±

Transcription

1 RepublicofBulgaria EDICTOFGOVERNMENT± Inordertopromotepubliceducationandpublicsafety,equal justiceforal,abeterinformedcitizenry,theruleoflaw, worldtradeandworldpeace,thislegaldocumentishereby madeavailableonanoncommercialbasis,asitistherightof alhumanstoknowandspeakthelawsthatgovernthem. EN :2008+A1:2010: Railway applications - Track - Track geometry quality - Part 5: Geometric quality levels - Plain line [Required by Directive 2008/57/EC]

2

3 Май 2010 БДС EN :2008+A1 ICS: Заменя: БДС EN :2008. Железопътна техника. Релсов път. Качество на геометрията на релсовия път. Част 5: Нива на качеството на геометрията на релсовия път. Обикновена линия Railway applications - Track - Track geometry quality - Part 5: Geometric quality levels Европейският стандарт EN :2008+A1:2010 има статут на български стандарт от Този стандарт е официалното издание на Българския институт за стандартизация на английски език на европейския стандарт EN :2008+A1: ,,, 1797,., стр. Национален за позоваване:бдс EN :2008+A1:2010

4 НАЦИОНАЛЕН ПРЕДГОВОР Този стандарт е подготвен с участието на БИС/TK 70 "Железопътен транспорт". Следват 22 страници на EN :2008+A1:2010., : - :,.,. 3, 1 - On-line : : info@bds-bg.org

5 EUROPEAN STANDARD NORME EUROPÉENNE EUROPÄISCHE NORM EN :2008+A1 April 2010 ICS Supersedes EN :2008 English Version Railway applications - Track - Track geometry quality - Part 5: Geometric quality levels - Plain line Applications ferroviaires - Voie - Qualité géométrique de la voie - Partie 5: Niveaux de la qualité géométrique de la voie - Voie courante Bahnanwendungen - Oberbau - Qualität der Gleisgeometrie - Teil 5: Geometrische Qualitätsstufen - Gleise This European Standard was approved by CEN on 7 February 2008 and includes Amendment 1 approved by CEN on 22 March CEN members are bound to comply with the CEN/CENELEC Internal Regulations which stipulate the conditions for giving this European Standard the status of a national standard without any alteration. Up-to-date lists and bibliographical references concerning such national standards may be obtained on application to the CEN Management Centre or to any CEN member. This European Standard exists in three official versions (English, French, German). A version in any other language made by translation under the responsibility of a CEN member into its own language and notified to the CEN Management Centre has the same status as the official versions. CEN members are the national standards bodies of Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland and United Kingdom. EUROPEAN COMMITTEE FOR STANDARDIZATION COMITÉ EUROPÉEN DE NORMALISATION EUROPÄISCHES KOMITEE FÜR NORMUNG Management Centre: Avenue Marnix 17, B-1000 Brussels 2010 CEN All rights of exploitation in any form and by any means reserved worldwide for CEN national Members. Ref. No. EN :2008+A1:2010: E

6 Contents Page Foreword Scope Normative references Terms and definitions Symbols and abbreviations Background Overview Assessment of track geometric quality Immediate action limits Introductory remarks Track gauge Longitudinal level Cross level Alignment Twist Alert and intervention limit Annex A (informative) Relative importance of the various parameters A.1 Track-vehicle system A.2 Influence of track geometry parameters on vehicle behaviour and safety A.3 Other criteria Annex B (informative) Alert and intervention limits B.1 Introduction B.2 Alert limit and intervention limit B.2.1 Track gauge B.2.2 Longitudinal level B.2.3 Cross level B.2.4 Alignment B.2.5 Twist Annex C (informative)!a-deviations" Annex ZA (informative) Relationship between this European Standard and the essential requirements of EU Directive 96/48/EC of 23 rd July 1996 on the interoperability of the trans-european high-speed rail system amended by the EU Directive 2004/50/EC of 29 th April Bibliography

7 Foreword This document (EN :2008+A1:2010) has been prepared by Technical Committee CEN/TC 256 Railway applications, the secretariat of which is held by DIN. This European Standard shall be given the status of a national standard, either by publication of an identical text or by endorsement, at the latest by October 2010, and conflicting national standards shall be withdrawn at the latest by October This document includes Amendment 1, approved by CEN on This document supersedes EN :2008. The start and finish of text introduced or altered by amendment is indicated in the text by tags! ". Attention is drawn to the possibility that some of the elements of this document may be the subject of patent rights. CEN [and/or CENELEC] shall not be held responsible for identifying any or all such patent rights. This document has been prepared under a mandate given to CEN by the European Commission and the European Free Trade Association, and supports essential requirements of EU Directive 96/48/EC of 23 rd July 1996 on the interoperability of the trans-european high-speed rail system amended by the EU Directive 2004/50/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 th April For relationship with EU Directive, see informative Annex ZA, which is an integral part of this document. This European Standard is one of the series EN Railway applications Track Track geometry quality as listed below: Part 1: Characterisation of track geometry Part 2: Measuring systems Track recording vehicles Part 3: Measuring systems Track construction and maintenance machines Part 4: Measuring systems Manual and light weight devices 1)!Part 5: Geometric quality levels Plain line" According to the CEN/CENELEC Internal Regulations, the national standards organizations of the following countries are bound to implement this European Standard: Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland and United Kingdom. 1 ) To be published. 3

8 1 Scope This European Standard defines the minimum requirements for the quality levels of track geometry, and specifies the safety related limits for each parameter as defined in EN This standard covers the following topics: description of quality levels; relative importance of parameters; immediate action limit; considerations on other quality levels. This European Standard applies to high-speed and conventional plain line of mm and wider gauge railways provided that the vehicles operated on those lines comply with EN and other vehicle safety standards. For lines covered by the high speed infrastructure TSI, the requirements stated in the HS INS TSI prevail. Any track geometry parameter not covered by the HS INS TSI needs to be compliant with this European Standard. 2 Normative references Not applicable. 3 Terms and definitions For the purposes of this document, the following terms and definitions apply. 3.1 nominal track gauge reference value for track gauge used by individual networks 3.2 design track gauge design value of track gauge for a given track section, which might be different from the nominal track gauge 3.3 QN1 level refer to EN QN2 level refer to EN QN3 level refer to EN

9 4 Symbols and abbreviations For the purposes of this document, the following symbols and abbreviations apply. Table 1 Symbols and abbreviations Symbol or abbreviation Designation Unit AL Alert limit mm or mm/m IL Intervention limit mm or mm/m IAL Immediate action limit mm or mm/m D1 Wavelength range D1: 3 m < λ 25 m m D2 Wavelength range D2: 25 m < λ 70 m m D3 Wavelength range D3: 70 m < λ 150 m for longitudinal level Wavelength range D3: 70 m < λ 200 m for alignment m HS INS TSI High Speed Infrastructure Technical Specification for Interoperability Twist base-length m λ Wavelength m N/A Not applicable r Curve radius m u Cross level mm V Speed km/h 5 Background The importance of knowing the track geometric quality arose in the middle of 20 th century, when European infrastructure managers developed their own track recording vehicles allowing a continuous measurement of track geometry and based on this, their own track geometry quality evaluation standards. These independent developments resulted in different measuring and evaluation methods which are no longer adequate in the light of the requirements of European railway interoperability. This is because it is difficult to compare the track geometry conditions of various European infrastructures. Yet, at least for safety reasons, it is necessary to make such comparisons. The main purpose of the standard is to define a minimum track geometry quality to ensure safe operation of trains based on the experience of various European infrastructure managers. 6 Overview This European Standard sets out quality levels, in particular immediate action limits, with the aim of harmonising European track geometry quality standards. It can be significant in: optimisation of track geometry maintenance works; optimisation of vehicle ride quality and dynamic loading of the track; 5

10 harmonising vehicle acceptance procedures. Requirements given in this European Standard should be taken into account: by infrastructure managers; by track maintenance managers; by vehicle manufacturers; by track contractors; by regulatory authorities; for research purposes. The values stated in this European Standard are based on the values prescribed by various European railways. Furthermore, this standard takes into account, as far as possible, the previous studies made on this topic: Annex C of EN 14363:2005; TSI for high-speed line infrastructure; ORE Question B55 report N.o 8 (1983). 7 Assessment of track geometric quality All the parameters as defined in EN are encompassed in this European Standard; their respective importance and their influence on vehicle behaviour are described in Annex A. Three indicators can describe the track geometric quality: extreme values of isolated defects; standard deviation over a defined length, typically 200 m; mean value. NOTE 1 Consideration should be given to successions of isolated defects because they could generate resonance effects, and to combinations of defects in several parameters at the same location (see Annex A). Three main levels have to be considered: Immediate Action Limit (IAL): refers to the value which, if exceeded, requires taking measures to reduce the risk of derailment to an acceptable level. This can be done either by closing the line, reducing speed or by correction of track geometry; Intervention Limit (IL): refers to the value which, if exceeded, requires corrective maintenance in order that the immediate action limit shall not be reached before the next inspection; Alert Limit (AL): refers to the value which, if exceeded, requires that the track geometry condition is analysed and considered in the regularly planned maintenance operations. 6

11 These values are given as a function of speed, which is an important factor for the evaluation of track geometry quality. Parts 2, 3 and 4 of EN give measuring methods for track geometry whereby track geometry quality can be assessed. The values in the tables are given for a loaded track as defined in EN When the measurements are made on unloaded track, the difference in the measured values that may result need to be taken into account. The normative part of the standard gives IALs for isolated defects and for mean track gauge. The informative part of this European Standard gives ILs and ALs for isolated defects and mean track gauge, and ALs for standard deviations. The track geometry limits AL, IL and IAL differ from the 3 vehicle acceptance levels QN1, QN2 and QN3 used in EN More particularly QN3 is quite different from IAL because, according to EN 14363, it characterises track sections which do not exhibit the usual track geometry quality. Quality level QN3, however, does not represent the most adverse but still tolerable maintenance status which still allows regular train operations. NOTE 2 A further quality level of track geometry can be used for track works acceptance (see EN ). NOTE 3 The intervention limit depends on the corrective maintenance policy, the frequency of inspection and defect growth rate. 8 Immediate action limits 8.1 Introductory remarks The immediate action limit values given in this standard are derived from experience and from theoretical considerations of the wheel-rail interaction as physical tests with different vehicles up to the point of derailment are not practicable. Exceeding these immediate action limit values requires specific measures to be implemented to reduce the risk of derailment or other hazards to an acceptable level. The wavelength range D3 is not taken into account in the following, as it is not directly linked with safety, but more with vehicle ride quality. The immediate action limits given in the following tables and figures are normative. With the exception of track gauge, all values stated are absolute. 8.2 Track gauge The values provided in the following tables apply to the nominal track gauges mm, mm and mm. Networks using other nominal track gauges shall adjust the values accordingly. The reference for the track gauge in the HS INS TSI is mm. NOTE The minimum and maximum values in Table 2 and Table 3 are independent from the design track gauge. 7

12 Table 2 Track gauge IAL Isolated defects Nominal track gauge to peak value Speed (in km/h) Nominal track gauge to peak value IAL Nominal track gauge to peak value HS INS TSI (reminder) Minimum Maximum Minimum Maximum V < V < V < V < V Table 3 Track gauge IAL Nominal track gauge to mean track gauge over 100 m Nominal track gauge to mean track gauge over 100 m Speed (in km/h) Minimum Maximum V 40 N/A < V < V < V < V < V NOTE The minimum values may be relaxed by 1 mm when the nominal rail inclination is 1:20. 8

13 Table 4 Gauge HS INS TSI IAL Minimum value of mean gauge (mm) over 100 m in service, on straight track and in curves of radius R > m (reminder) Speed (in km/h) Minimum value of mean gauge (mm) over 100 m in service, on straight track and in curves of radius R > m V < V < V < V < V < V V > Longitudinal level Table 5 Longitudinal level IAL Isolated defects Mean to peak value Mean to peak value Speed (in km/h) Wavelength range D1 D2 V N/A 80 < V N/A 120 < V N/A 160 < V < V The mean, in the table above, is calculated over a length of at least twice the higher wavelength in the D1 or D2 range. In practice the mean will be close to zero and therefore zero to peak values may be used. Special attention should be paid to short wavelength defects which, although unlikely, can become dangerous when their amplitude is high. NOTE For speeds less than or equal to 40 km/h, the limit can be relaxed to 31 mm. 8.4 Cross level This standard gives no IAL values for cross level because the risk associated with a cross level defect is tied to twist and cant deficiency. IAL values for twist are given in 8.6. Cant deficiency limits depend on the track alignment design and construction rules, and the characteristics of the traffic, on each network. Each infrastructure manager may specify limits for his own network taking into account the above characteristics. 9

14 8.5 Alignment Table 6 Alignment IAL Isolated defects Mean to peak value Mean to peak value Speed Wavelength range (in km/h) D1 D2 V N/A 80 < V N/A 120 < V N/A 160 < V < V The mean, in the table above, is calculated over a length of at least twice the higher wavelength in the D1 or D2 range. In practice the mean will be close to zero and therefore zero to peak values may be used. Special attention should be paid to short wavelength defects which, although unlikely, can become dangerous when their amplitude is high. NOTE 1 For speeds less than or equal to 40 km/h, the limit can be relaxed to 25 mm. NOTE 2 Some types of track construction may have a greater risk of buckling when subject to high amplitude alignment defects. 8.6 Twist The track twist limit is a function of the measurement base-length applied ( ) according to one of the equations: 1) Limit twist = ((20/ ) + 3) for u (r 100)/2 (curve A) with a maximum value of: 7 mm/m for lines designed for speed V 200 km/h; 5 mm/m for lines designed for speed V > 200 km/h; 2) Limit twist = ((20/ ) + 1,5) for (r 100)/2 < u < (r 50)/1,5 (curve B) with a maximum value of 6 mm/m and a minimum value of 3 mm/m. For both equations: is the twist base-length, with 1,3 m 20 m; u is the cross level ; r is the curve radius (in m). 10

15 Key twist base-length (in m) cf. Table 1 C IAL value for twist (in mm/m) Figure 1 Twist IAL Isolated defects Zero to peak value Twist values in accordance with the above figure shall only be applicable if the twist extends for at least 2 m. The minimum base-length considered herein is 1,3 m and the maximum is 20 m in accordance with ORE B55 RP8. NOTE 1 Exceeding the above limits of cross level u can be allowed provided that other measures are taken to ensure safety, e.g. installation of check rails or rail-lubrication systems. NOTE 2 For long twist base-lengths, certain tight curves having a high design twist require special care in maintenance because of the small difference between the IAL values and the design twist values. NOTE 3 For gauges wider than mm, different cross level u limits should be used. 9 Alert and intervention limit Unlike immediate action limits, which take into account the track/vehicle interaction, as well as the risk of unexpected events (see Annex A), the other quality levels are mainly linked with maintenance policy. Maintenance policy may be directed either at upholding safety alone or at achieving good ride quality, lower life cycle cost or more attractive (higher speed) services in addition to safety. The alert limits and intervention limits set by the European infrastructure managers will be set at least to ensure safety and can be tightened to achieve a given level of ride quality. The frequency of inspections should be chosen to take account of the intervention and alert levels set down in each European infrastructure manager standard and to assure the geometric quality of the track. For these reasons, the values given in Annex B should be considered as purely indicative, reflecting the common practice in most European infrastructure managers. 11

16 Annex A (informative) Relative importance of the various parameters A.1 Track-vehicle system The railway track has the three functions: carrying the train, guiding it and absorbing the traction forces. These functions lead to vertical, lateral and longitudinal forces between train and track. The track-vehicle interaction cannot be defined precisely as a deterministic process, because it depends on a great number of external and internal factors of the system. Some external factors have not been taken into account in the determination of immediate action limits, such as wind or resonance effects due to the substructure. Considering only track-vehicle interaction, 3 types of criteria have to be taken into account: a) Safety parameters 1) Sum of the lateral forces (ΣY) This parameter characterises the risk of track shift under load due to high forces on the track. The lateral resistance of a track is mainly related to the friction of sleepers on the ballast. Then, it depends on the vertical force applied on the track. It is expressed with a very simple law, the so called Prud Homme formula or limit, which is given by: ΣY α (10 + P 0 /3) where P 0 α is the static axle load (in kn) being equal to 1 for locomotives and coaches, and 0,85 for freight wagons. 2) Lateral (Y) and vertical (Q) forces combination The ratio Y/Q generated by a wheel characterises the risk of derailment, corresponding to climbing of the wheel flange onto the rail. Y/Q ratio has to be lower than a critical value depending on the angle between wheel and rail, the contact condition, the speed and other factors. 3) Quasi static lateral and vertical forces In small radius curves (R 600 m), quasi-static lateral and vertical forces have also to be taken into account. b) Comfort parameters Comfort is evaluated by measuring vertical and lateral accelerations in the vehicle body (respectively * & and & ). z& * y& 12

17 c) Parameters influencing components life Track components and vehicle components life is mainly linked to vertical and lateral forces. A.2 Influence of track geometry parameters on vehicle behaviour and safety To define track geometry quality, it is necessary to choose and to combine significant geometrical parameters of the track and determine thresholds for safety taking into account the above mentioned track/vehicle interactions aspects. Experience and theoretical considerations have shown that practically all track geometry parameters have an influence on the vehicle response. Particular combinations of track geometry parameters could have a strong influence on the vehicle response. The predominant influences of individual track geometry parameters on vehicle response are those identified in the table below by a cross. Table A.1 Relationship between vehicle response and track geometry parameters Vehicle response (forces and accelerations) Track gauge Parameters Longitudinal level Twist/cross level Alignment ΣY X X X Q X X X y& & * X X z& & * X Y/Q X X X X Twist and track gauge are particularly important because of their respective influences on wheel loading and on vehicle stability. A.3 Other criteria The track-vehicle system should also be considered from the standpoint of other factors that can generate substantial vehicle responses. These factors, as listed below, although not treated exhaustively in this European Standard, have been considered in the immediate action limits set down in the standard without, however, taking into account their extreme conditions, which could by themselves, create a hazardous situation: cant deficiency or cant excess, which generates quasi-static forces that can worsen the reaction of the vehicle on a local defect; horizontal curvature, which generates quasi-static forces that can be quite substantial depending on the running speed; shape and sequence of defects; track geometry quality standards usually address the problem of isolated defects without considering their shape or their sequence. However, experience shows that the 13

18 shape and sequence of defects, as well as combinations of defects of different nature, may also affect the vehicle reaction; wheel-rail contact geometry; for example equivalent conicity, which is important for the running behaviour of the vehicle; rate of change of the defect; since any track defect can evolve between two inspections, its amplitude should be monitored against the corresponding limit and its rate of change and other characteristics evaluated; vehicle type and state of maintenance; the track usually cannot be devoted to a single vehicle type. Since each type has its own characteristics and response, provision should be made so that all vehicles complying with EN and other vehicle safety and maintenance standards will run safely; environmental conditions should be considered. Wind loads for example can have a quasi-static effect in the same manner as cant deficiency as well as a dynamic effect on the vehicle. 14

19 Annex B (informative) Alert and intervention limits B.1 Introduction Examples of intervention and alert limits are given in the following tables and figures. These values are not mandatory but are proposed as a guideline. To take account of the differing tolerances on certain parameters, some values are expressed as a range, others as a discrete value. With the exception of track gauge, all values stated are absolute. B.2 Alert limit and intervention limit B.2.1 Track gauge The values provided in the following tables apply to the nominal track gauges mm, mm and mm. Networks using other nominal track gauges should adjust the values accordingly. NOTE The minimum and maximum values in Table B.1 and Table B.2 are independent from the design track gauge. Table B.1 Track gauge AL & IL Isolated defects Nominal track gauge to peak value Speed (in km/h) Nominal track gauge to peak value AL Nominal track gauge to peak value IL Nominal track gauge to peak value IAL (reminder) Minimum Maximum Minimum Maximum Minimum Maximum V < V < V < V < V

20 Table B.2 Track gauge AL & IL Nominal track gauge to mean track gauge over 100 m Speed (in km/h) nominal track gauge to mean track gauge over 100 m AL nominal track gauge to mean track gauge over 100 m IL nominal track gauge to mean track gauge over 100 m IAL (reminder) Minimum Maximum Minimum Maximum Minimum Maximum V 40 N/A +25 N/A +28 N/A < V < V < V < V < V B.2.2 Longitudinal level Table B.3 Longitudinal level AL & IL Isolated defects Mean to peak value Speed (in km/h) Mean to peak value AL Mean to peak value IL Mean to peak value IAL (reminder) Wavelength range Wavelength range Wavelength range D1 D2 D1 D2 D1 D2 V to 18 N/A 17 to 21 N/A 28 N/A 80 < V to 16 N/A 13 to 19 N/A 26 N/A 120 < V to 15 N/A 10 to 17 N/A 23 N/A 160 < V to to 20 9 to to < V to to 18 8 to to The mean, in the table above, is calculated over a length of at least twice the higher wavelength in the D1 or D2 range. In practice the mean will be close to zero and therefore zero to peak values may be used. NOTE For speeds less than or equal to 40 km/h, the ALs and ILs can be relaxed. 16

21 Table B.4 Longitudinal level AL Standard deviation Standard deviation Speed D1 (in km/h) V 80 2,3 to 3 80 < V 120 1,8 to 2,7 120 < V 160 1,4 to 2,4 160 < V 230 1,2 to 1,9 230 < V 300 1,0 to 1,5 B.2.3 Cross level IL and AL values are not given for cross level because the risk associated with a cross level defect is tied to twist and to cant deficiency. IL and AL values for twist are given in B.2.5. Cant deficiency limits depend on the track alignment design and construction rules, and the characteristics of the traffic, on each network. Each infrastructure manager may specify limits for his own network taking into account the above characteristics. The difference between the measured peak cross level and the design cross level should not exceed 20 mm. B.2.4 Alignment Table B.5 Alignment AL & IL Isolated defects Mean to peak value Mean to peak value Mean to peak value Mean to peak value Speed AL IL IAL (reminder) (in km/h) Wavelength range Wavelength range Wavelength range D1 D2 D1 D2 D1 D2 V to 15 N/A 15 to 17 N/A 22 N/A 80 < V to 11 N/A 11 to 13 N/A 17 N/A 120 < V to 9 N/A 8 to 10 N/A 14 N/A 160 < V to 8 10 to 15 7 to 9 14 to < V to 7 8 to 13 6 to 8 12 to The mean, in the table above, is calculated over a length of at least twice the higher wavelength in the D1 or D2 range. In practice the mean will be close to zero and therefore zero to peak values may be used. NOTE For speeds less than or equal to 40 km/h, the ALs and ILs can be relaxed. 17

22 Table B.6 Alignment AL Standard deviation Standard deviation Speed D1 (in km/h) V 80 1,5 to 1,8 80 < V 120 1,2 to 1,5 120 < V 160 1,0 to 1,3 160 < V 230 0,8 to 1,1 230 < V 300 0,7 to 1,0 B.2.5 Twist In practice, twist is measured on a 3 m base by the majority of networks, therefore IL and AL values are only given for that base-length ( = 3 m). Table B.7 Twist AL & IL Isolated defects Zero to peak value ( = 3 m) Speed (in km/h) Zero to peak value AL (in mm/m) Zero to peak value IL (in mm/m) Zero to peak value IAL (reminder) (in mm/m) V < V < V < V < V If necessary, the Infrastructure Manager can give values for other base-lengths, with the help of both the above table and the Figure 1 in 8.6, applying a factor to the IAL values, such as 0,6 for AL and 0,7 for IL. NOTE In order to take into account the high rate of change of cross level of certain transition curves by design, the IL and AL can be increased provided the IAL is not exceeded. 18

23 Annex C (informative)!a-deviations A-Deviation: National deviation due to regulations, the alteration of which is for the time being outside the competence of the CEN/ CENELEC member. Switzerland In addition to the regulations in sub-clause 8.2 "Track gauge" and sub-clause 8.6 "Twist" of EN , the requirement of the executing provisions of the Railway ordinance (SR / and the complementary provisions of Regulation R have also to be complied in Switzerland. According to these regulations: the minimum track gauge is mm; within existing curves and radii in which the cant exceeds the value u = (r-50)/1,5 [mm], the twist appearing in the track in service shall not exceed the value of 3 mm/m for base-lengths greater than or equal to 1,3 m. On such curves, check rails or rail lubrication systems are not necessary. Justification: In Switzerland, the upper limits of cant values in existing curves can be exceeded if the following measures (cf. note 1, sub-clause 8.6) are provided: a good track quality (twist < 3 mm/m); wheel flange lubrication on the locomotives/traction units. NOTE (From CEN/CENELEC Internal Regulations Part 2:2008, 2.17): where standards fall under EU Directives, it is the view of the Commission of the European Communities (OJ No C 59, ) that the effect of the decision of the Court of Justice in case 815/79 Cremonini/Vrankovich (European Court Reports 1980, p. 3583) is that compliance with A-deviations is no longer mandatory and that the free movement of products complying with such a standard should not be restricted within the EU except under the safeguard procedure provided for in the relevant Directive." 19

24 Annex ZA (informative) Relationship between this European Standard and the essential requirements of EU Directive 96/48/EC of 23 rd July 1996 on the interoperability of the trans-european high-speed rail system amended by the EU Directive 2004/50/EC of 29 th April 2004 This European Standard has been prepared under a mandate given to CEN by the European Commission to provide a means of conforming to Essential Requirements of the New Approach Directive 96/48/EC of 23 rd July 1996 on the interoperability of the trans-european high-speed rail system amended by the EU Directive 2004/50/EC of 29 th April Once this standard is cited in the Official Journal of the!european Union" under that Directive and has been implemented as a national standard in at least one Member State, compliance with the clauses of this standard given in Table ZA.1 confers, within the limits of the scope of this standard, a presumption of conformity with the corresponding Essential Requirements of that Directive and associated EFTA regulations. Table ZA.1 Correspondence between this European Standard and Directive 96/48/EC Chapter/ /annexes of this European Standard Clause 7 Assessment of track geometric quality Clause 8 Immediate Action Limits: 8.2 Track gauge Chapter/ /points and annexes of the TSI Infrastructure 23/06/2006 Chapter 3 Essential requirements Technical compatibility Chapter 4 Description of the Infrastructure domain - Point Definitions Chapter 4 Description of the Infrastructure domain Nominal track gauge Equivalent conicity Minimum values of mean track gauge Track geometrical quality and limits on isolated defects -Point Immediate action, intervention and alert limits -Point Immediate action limit Variation of gauge, isolated defects and nominal gauge to peak value Corresponding text, articles/ /annexes of the Directive 96/48/EC Annex III Essential requirements Technical compatibility Annex II Subsystems Point 3 Basic parameters for interoperability Annex III Essential requirements 1.1 Safety Point Qualifying remarks/notes 20

25 Clause 8 Immediate Action Limits: 8.6 Twist Clause 9 Alert and intervention limit Chapter 4 Description of the Infrastructure domain Track geometrical quality and limits on isolated defects -Point Immediate action, intervention and alert limits -Point Immediate action limit track twist, isolated defects and zero to peak value Chapter 4 Description of the Infrastructure domain Maintenance plan Chapter IV Subsystems Art Annex III Essential requirements Safety Point Annex III Essential requirements Reliability and availability Annex A Relative importance of various parameters A1 Track vehicle system Annex B Alert and intervention limit B 2 Alert limit and intervention limit B 2.1 Track gauge B 2.2. Longitudinal level B Alignment B Twist Chapter 4 Description of the Infrastructure domain Track resistance Chapter 4 Description of the Infrastructure domain Track geometrical quality and limits on isolated defects -Point Immediate action, intervention and alert limits Annex III Essential requirements Safety Point and

26 Powered by TCPDF ( EN :2008+A1:2010 (E) Bibliography [1] EN , Railway applications Track Acceptance of works Part 1: Works on ballasted track Plain line [2] EN , Railway applications Track Track geometry quality Part 1: Characterisation of track geometry [3] EN 14363:2005, Railway applications Testing for the acceptance of running characteristics of railway vehicles Testing of running behaviour and stationary tests [4] Technical specification for interoperability relating to the infrastructure subsystem of the trans-european high-speed rail system [5] ORE B 55, Prevention of derailment of goods wagons on distorted tracks: RP 8 (April 1983), Conditions for negotiating track twists Recommended values for the track twist and cant Calculation and measurement of the relevant vehicle parameters Vehicle testing (final report) [6] 96/48 ST13 Part 2 Version EN Draft technical Specification for Interoperability: Infrastructure Sub-system 22