Reducing track noise

[RAGNARØKR]

The start of Oxford-Marylebone services has been deferred to December due to objections from people adjacent to the line, concerned about noise disturbance.

It was noticeable recently that rail noise is much reduced when there is snow lying on the ground. This suggests the possibility of some kind of low-level baffle to mimic the effect and reduce disturbance in sensitive locations.

Any comments or suggestions?

 

[bengley]

My suggestion would be for the residents to understand that the railway has been there a lot longer than they have and to leave if they don't like it!

 

[dakta]

would I be criticised if I made the serious suggestion that people give the proximity of a railway line some consideration when buying a house?

edit: just seen someone beat me to it. Very relieved im not the only lunatic in the asylum

 

[Philip Phlopp]

The route has had extensive noise survey work done, and as result fencing and acoustic mitigation has already been installed.

It may be that some additional works are necessary, but really, most homes that are complaining will find that the noise is well within acceptable levels and we're looking at relatively low levels of additional noise.

 

[najaB]

It was noticeable recently that rail noise is much reduced when there is snow lying on the ground. This suggests the possibility of some kind of low-level baffle to mimic the effect and reduce disturbance in sensitive locations.

Is it actually wheel-rail noise that most people complain about or diesel engine noise? When trains are coasting they really aren't that noisy unless you're immediately trackside - that's what makes the railway dangerous, often you can't hear the train until it's almost on top of you!

 

[Philip]

Some railways have 'roaring rail' which is little corrugations on the surface of the rail, so close together that when the wheels of a train pass over the affected section of rail at speed, a high pitched and high frequency screaming sound is heard. I believe this is quite uncommon now, but 10 years ago a lot of lines still had affected sections. The line over Chat Moss towards Manchester was a good example.

 

[route:oxford]

The start of Oxford-Marylebone services has been deferred to December due to objections from people adjacent to the line, concerned about noise disturbance.

It was noticeable recently that rail noise is much reduced when there is snow lying on the ground. This suggests the possibility of some kind of low-level baffle to mimic the effect and reduce disturbance in sensitive locations.

Any comments or suggestions?

I'd like to, but I'm forbidden by the moderators from mentioning the political party that has been leading the campaign against the enhancements to rail services through North Oxford.

Here's the two that are leading the current demand for a formal enquiry into the rebuilding:-

(No, it isn't Colonel Saunders).

 

[petersi]

It does seam doing any infrastructure improvements in the southern 1/3 of the country is a night mare

It is not as though trains have not been running recently

 

[Peter Sarf]

I think sound travels differently at night or in cold air. I think I recall that sound can travel in an arc back to ground level more effectively in cold / night time. Come the spring any surrounding trees will have sound padding (leaves) on them !.

My mothers neighbour complains every time a Eurostar on HS1 goes past about a mile away BUT when I point out the noise from the adjacent M2 motorway he does not seem to see that as a problem !.

 

[mbreckers]

The Railway is an essential part of life in this country, from getting commuters to work to getting freight to the shop shelves.

Yes, steps should be taken to mitigate noise where possible, but if the Railway was there before you then either lump it or move.

If it is a new build Railway, then Network Rail should (and I imagine they would) do everything they can to minimize noise, but again, the Railway is an essential part of our economy and way of life.

A train passing will make noise for what, a minute at most? I'm sure thats not going to kill you.

 

[coppercapped]

The start of Oxford-Marylebone services has been deferred to December due to objections from people adjacent to the line, concerned about noise disturbance.

<SNIP>

Any comments or suggestions?

The major reason for the delay is not noise which as Philip Phlopp has mentioned in his post has mostly been solved to the satisfaction of the planning requirements but the delay in Oxford City Council approving a planning application to move staff accommodation at Oxford station. This has to be done to allow the construction of the platforms needed for the Marylebone service.

 

[jimm]

The major reason for the delay is not noise which as Philip Phlopp has mentioned in his post has mostly been solved to the satisfaction of the planning requirements but the delay in Oxford City Council approving a planning application to move staff accommodation at Oxford station. This has to be done to allow the construction of the platforms needed for the Marylebone service.

Not forgetting the minor matter of Network Rail finally getting round to installing the new track and signalling that is needed to allow Chiltern's trains to get in and out of the said platforms and to and from Oxford North junction.

 

[northwichcat]

Start the service using Pacers and 150s, then replace them with 168s. That way the residents will comment on how little noise there is using the more modern trains.

 

[Haydn1971]

My suggestion would be for the residents to understand that the railway has been there a lot longer than they have and to leave if they don't like it!

Always used to entertain when I worked for Derbyshire County Council and residents had the audacity to complain about tractors on the roads, quarry traffic and sheep dung... You live in the Peak District, it was all there before you

Although that argument fell apart at a public meeting a few weeks ago, when a colleague of mine expressed to a young chap who was barking on about noise that the M6 has been in place in Cheshire for over 50 years, with the inference that he must have moved in after the motorway was built... yes, it was built across my parents land with little consultation came the retort !

 

[route:oxford]

The major reason for the delay is not noise which as Philip Phlopp has mentioned in his post has mostly been solved to the satisfaction of the planning requirements but the delay in Oxford City Council approving a planning application to move staff accommodation at Oxford station. This has to be done to allow the construction of the platforms needed for the Marylebone service.

Oh, well I'm not forbidden from blaming The Greens for that.

Just a small matter of a Green campaigner's income from her solar panels being being reduced by double height temporary building.

 

[Jamesb1974]

Deleted

 

[RAGNARØKR]

Oh dear. None of the comments addressed the possible feasibility of the technical solution put forward.

Rightly or wrongly, large amounts of money are already spent on substantial noise reduction barriers. Some kind of low-level sound-reduction device would be simpler, cheaper and less visually intrusive. That was the main point of raising the matter. What a pity none of the commentators was able to make any kind of critical comment as to whether or not this might be practicable are actually work.

 

[route:oxford]

Oh dear. None of the comments addressed the possible feasibility of the technical solution put forward.

Rightly or wrongly, large amounts of money are already spent on substantial noise reduction barriers. Some kind of low-level sound-reduction device would be simpler, cheaper and less visually intrusive. That was the main point of raising the matter. What a pity none of the commentators was able to make any kind of critical comment as to whether or not this might be practicable are actually work.

Given that there is going to be a 2 metre tall fence between the railway and the residential properties in an urban area then it is going to be the most practical form of acoustic barrier or mitigation tool to install, implement and maintain to a standard design throughout the country.

Also, don't forget that "community leaders" are usually noisy but dim. They'd never believe that strategically placed bits of plastic near the track are anywhere near as good as a sturdy fence.

 

[jimm]

Oh dear. None of the comments addressed the possible feasibility of the technical solution put forward.

Rightly or wrongly, large amounts of money are already spent on substantial noise reduction barriers. Some kind of low-level sound-reduction device would be simpler, cheaper and less visually intrusive. That was the main point of raising the matter. What a pity none of the commentators was able to make any kind of critical comment as to whether or not this might be practicable are actually work.

Maybe if you hadn't started off with incorrect information and instead just talked about your barrier idea, then maybe people might have focused on that.

Not that I believe for one minute it would work, given that lots of research has been done on the subject, all over the world and the result people keep coming up with, and installing, is large barriers.

Oh, well I'm not forbidden from blaming The Greens for that.

Just a small matter of a Green campaigner's income from her solar panels being being reduced by double height temporary building.

And speaking of misinformation, the issue in case of the person you are referring to was loss of sunlight to her garden. Not to solar panels.

Given that her house is 35 metres from the railway boundary, which Chiltern felt moved to point out in a rebuttal of her evidence to the public inquiry, even loss of light to the garden was not going to happen. It might have been an issue if the proposed staff building was a skyscraper, which it isn't. And the building has, of course, been subject to considerable scrutiny and revision before agreement was reached on the final design by the city council and Network Rail.

All this information can be obtained in a matter of seconds from the Oxford Mail website and assorted official sources by simply searching for her name and adding the words station building.

But don't let boring old facts get in the way of your ranting, will you?

 

[jopsuk]

OK, where would your proposed dampening be located? If it's between the tracks, above the sleepers, that creates potential maintenance issues.

What would you propose it be made of?

 

[edwin_m]

The most common solution seems to be wooden fences, which absorb sound better than other materials. These are most often higher and located at the railway boundary, probably because smaller and closer ones would impede maintenance access.

Snow has a general muffling effect on sound, so it's possible that what you hear is the effect of the snow generally rather than just that between the rails. Certainly some sort of sound absorber between the rails would have no effect on the wheel-rail noise that goes out to the side. There have been experiments with plastic foam stuck to the rails to damp down the vibrations in them, but it doesn't seem to have caught on.

Ground vibration (rumble) is another problem well known to those who stay in hotels built above Tube lines! More modern underground lines can include special fasteners to prevent vibrations getting into the ground, or even be laid on concrete slabs that "float" on springs or rubber pads. This is used where Crossrail goes under the Barbican concert hall.

 

[coppercapped]

Oh dear. None of the comments addressed the possible feasibility of the technical solution put forward.

Rightly or wrongly, large amounts of money are already spent on substantial noise reduction barriers. Some kind of low-level sound-reduction device would be simpler, cheaper and less visually intrusive. That was the main point of raising the matter. What a pity none of the commentators was able to make any kind of critical comment as to whether or not this might be practicable are actually work.

There has been much information published over the years on this subject in the railway technical press, such as Railway Gazette and more academic journals. A search in that area would have answered much of your question.

I am not an expert in this field but judging from what I have read, and understand from the physics of the process, the generation and radiation of sound from railway track and wheels has many causes and transmission paths. Solving one issue will not necessarily mean that perceived noise levels drop significantly although the frequency distribution of the sound can shift.

Noise can be generated by the distortion of the wheels and rails due to the their loading and unloading. The frequencies generated can then be radiated from the wheel disc acting as a loudspeaker membrane or from the rail web acting in the same way. There is also noise generated due to the surface roughness of the wheels and rails and the micro-slip which occurs under acceleration, braking and curving all of which are radiated in the same way.

And so on and so forth. Various damping techniques have been applied to wheels and rails as well as controlled lubrication of the gauge corner and indeed the running surface but your assertion that these techniques will simpler or cheaper than barriers is not necessarily true. They could easily get in the way of maintenance or fault finding. The DBAG has installed, and is installing, many hundreds of kilometres of sound absorbing fencing on its network. I don't think it would be doing this if there were a cheaper and simpler alternative.

 

[route:oxford]

All this information can be obtained in a matter of seconds from the Oxford Mail website and assorted official sources by simply searching for her name and adding the words station building.

But don't let boring old facts get in the way of your ranting, will you?

Sadly Oxford City Council have the policy of removing correspondence about planning from the planning portal once a decision has been made.

Would be easier for you to find that way...

 

[Peter Sarf]

I suspect one advantage of a fence is that it provides visible evidence of the railway doing something - regardless of whether it helps or was even needed.

I also wonder, is noise more of a problem nowadays with modern rolling stock ?.

 

[jopsuk]

The OP's original observation was that snow dampens sound.

Which is true, yes, but you need much, much more than just the railway to be blanketed with snow for that to work. The railway can't go installing sound absorbing surfaces on nearby fields, houses, roads etc.

 

[Peter Sarf]

The OP's original observation was that snow dampens sound.

Which is true, yes, but you need much, much more than just the railway to be blanketed with snow for that to work. The railway can't go installing sound absorbing surfaces on nearby fields, houses, roads etc.

Good point.

Even worse is I live under one of the approach paths to Heathrow and the only help would be if I stayed indoors and arranged for the house to be buried by a huge snow drift. I just have to get used to it but fortunately Heathrow does not get used overnight - I notice when a late running flight is let in !.

I think a lot of rail noise is only a problem if something changes - like a new line or new service over a little used line.

 

[Phil.]

Perhaps it's the type of train. Residents along the line between Croydon and Coulsdon managed to cope with trains until the Gatwick Expresses (the original 73 + MkII coaches) started running then they started complaining about the noise. It was true, they were significantly noisier than the existing (VEP/CIG/BIG) trains.

 

[jimm]

Sadly Oxford City Council have the policy of removing correspondence about planning from the planning portal once a decision has been made.

Would be easier for you to find that way...

Not really, given how clunky their planning server seems to be at times. And none of which gets away from the fact that your statement was not true.

Another resident mentioned their solar panels in an Oxford Mail article but not the person you were so keen to have a go at.

http://www.oxfordtimes.co.uk/news/1...orary_building__put_on_hold_over_light_fears/

Funnily enough, someone calling themselves Andrew: oxford also has a go at the said person in a comment under that article. But I expect that's just a coincidence.

 

[RAGNARØKR]

The OP's original observation was that snow dampens sound.

Which is true, yes, but you need much, much more than just the railway to be blanketed with snow for that to work. The railway can't go installing sound absorbing surfaces on nearby fields, houses, roads etc.

Vegetation is an excellent sound absorber.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Perhaps it's the type of train. Residents along the line between Croydon and Coulsdon managed to cope with trains until the Gatwick Expresses (the original 73 + MkII coaches) started running then they started complaining about the noise. It was true, they were significantly noisier than the existing (VEP/CIG/BIG) trains.

Does anyone know what the explanation was?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

There has been much information published over the years on this subject in the railway technical press, such as Railway Gazette and more academic journals. A search in that area would have answered much of your question.

I am not an expert in this field but judging from what I have read, and understand from the physics of the process, the generation and radiation of sound from railway track and wheels has many causes and transmission paths. Solving one issue will not necessarily mean that perceived noise levels drop significantly although the frequency distribution of the sound can shift.

Noise can be generated by the distortion of the wheels and rails due to the their loading and unloading. The frequencies generated can then be radiated from the wheel disc acting as a loudspeaker membrane or from the rail web acting in the same way. There is also noise generated due to the surface roughness of the wheels and rails and the micro-slip which occurs under acceleration, braking and curving all of which are radiated in the same way.

And so on and so forth. Various damping techniques have been applied to wheels and rails as well as controlled lubrication of the gauge corner and indeed the running surface but your assertion that these techniques will simpler or cheaper than barriers is not necessarily true. They could easily get in the way of maintenance or fault finding. The DBAG has installed, and is installing, many hundreds of kilometres of sound absorbing fencing on its network. I don't think it would be doing this if there were a cheaper and simpler alternative.

Thanks. There may not be a better alternative to fencing at the moment, but it is uses a lot of material, is unsightly and attracts graffiti.

The principle of trying to absorb the sound energy closer to source seems worth looking into. It would be a substantial project to get the details right eg choice of materials, fixings and precise location but there is obviously a substantial need to judge from the amount of fencing that is going up.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

OK, where would your proposed dampening be located? If it's between the tracks, above the sleepers, that creates potential maintenance issues.

What would you propose it be made of?

Something durable, inert, and with the necessary energy-absorbing properties, capable of being fastened securely to a substrate, and preferably light in weight.

 

[Haydn1971]

Vegetation is an excellent sound absorber.

Actually, from experience it isn't, Highways England often get requests for trees to muffle the sound from motorway traffic, the vegetation does little to reduce the noise. Sound barriers are much better and much more cost effective - ugly mostly though