welcome efrtc general meeting, paris, 11th june 2010 franz messerli

WELCOME

EFRTC General Meeting, Paris, 11th June 2010Franz Messerli

Homologation of track machines for delivery to

customers – experience of manufacturer,

Mr. Franz Messerli, Assistant to the Managing

Director, MATISA

Purpose of the presentation

Franz Messerli EFRTC General Meeting, Paris, 11th June 2010

Purpose

Purpose of this presentation• Explain the evolution of the homologation

process over the last 15 years• Show some recently made experiences


• Track maintenance machines• Homologation process in the nineties • Today's homologation process• Experiences made with today’s

homologation process• Outlook• Summary• Questions

Content


Track maintenance machines



• On-track machines look more and more similar to freight wagons, passenger coaches or locomotives ?



• They are built as standard railway vehicles that can be incorporated in a train formation or for example tamping machines can transit on the track under their own power.



• But other than conventional rolling stock who transport passengers or carry freight the main purpose of track maintenance machines is to maintain and renew the tracks.

• They are manufactured in small numbers, tailored to customers and market requirements thus almost never at 100% identical to another machine.


Homologation process in the nineties



• B 66 U for DB in 1993

• BZA 82 in Munich

• One handwritten page A4 of requirements



Today's approval process

Today's approval process


Today’s approval process

• Basic requirements are covered by the European Standard EN14033-1/-2/-3 “Rail bound construction and maintenance machines”


Today’s approval process

The following documents, calculations and proof must be delivered to the Railway Authorities

• Machine and bogie frame strength• Proof of strength of mounted parts• Resistance to longitudinal compressive load • Powered and idle wheel set calculations • Demonstration of safety against derailment• Demonstration of running safety• Demonstration of brake performances• Demonstration of electrical contact resistances• Demonstration of equipment to be monitored (pressurised tanks such

as brake air reservoir, fuel tanks, diesel, hydraulic, pressure valves)• Etc.


Some experiences made by MATISA

Some experiences made by MATISA with today’s

homologation process



•Over the last 15 years the MATISA internal amount of effort and cost for a European machine approval has been multiplied by big factors. For MATISA Switzerland the numbers are as follow:

1993 = 0.5 person for homologation 2010 = 10 people in testing and approval department

5 people in calculation department Design engineers spend 20 % of their time for the elaboration of approval related documents.

Not counted management efforts used to overcome almost daily new problems and requirement.



• Cost comparison

B 66 UC Salcef, 2005, under old approval process B 66 UC Fourchard, 2009, under today’s approval process,

12 times more in external cost



• Largely dependant on the person which signs off approval

Interpretation of standard

Know-how

Experiences

Background


• Difficulties to keep up with the huge number of EU Standards


• Request of independent reviews by external certified testing bodies for:

Brake testing



•Safety against derailment



•Running safety (UIC 518)



• Testing proof of safety against derailment for a 3 point suspension system, external cost of more than € 30K



• Machine and bogie frame calculations



• Wheel sets calculations




•Little difference made between on-track machines and Locomotives/Rolling stock

•Tamping machine, re-testing of brake performance in the country of destination = nearly impossible

•WTM S+C carrying wagons 10 WTM approved for Germany 39 WTM delivered into 3 different countries, including Germany No known safety issue over last 10 years of operation To approve latest 3 for Germany it becomes necessary to go through whole new process again.


• Approval bodies do not care about cost, efforts and delivery delays due to the complexity of the homologation.


Outlook

Outlook


Outlook

• Future homologation will be covered by TSI’s which are EU law• Notified bodies (NoBos) will carry out approval against standards

and elaborate technical file for submission to the national authorities

• The national authorities of a 3rd country should accept verification against a standard that had been carried out by the NoBo of another country


Outlook

The TSI Noise has already to be applied for the approval in certain countries. The conditions have been made easier. Some of the conditions today are:• No rain• No snow• Little wind • Approved track (shape of the countryside, track material, rail

roughness• 1000 km travelled


Summary

Summary


Summary

• Efforts and cost for approval have dramatically risen over the last years.

• It seems very likely that the introduction of the TSI will further increase efforts, expenses and delivery times.

• On-track machines should not be put into the same category as locomotives or freight wagons.

• On-track machines are often manufactured in small numbers tailored to customer needs


Summary

• On-track machines travel much less over then network than other rolling stock

• The resistance of the national approval bodies and external independent experts will in our view still prevent the application of the Interoperability principle with the explanation that national specifications and procedures still apply.


Questions

Questions

EFRTC General Meeting, Paris, 11th June 2010 Franz Messerli

Tank you very much for your attention


welcome efrtc general meeting, paris, 11th june 2010 franz messerli

Documents

franz messerli slide

nineties efrtc general

welcome efrtc general

homologation of track

matisa purpose

purpose purpose

derailment demonstration

market requirements