BALLASTLESS TRACK SYSTEMS

EXPERIENCES GAINED IN AUSTRIA AND GERMANY

Dieter Pichler
FCP Fritsch, Chiari & Partner ZT GmbH
Diesterweggasse 3, 1140 Vienna, Austria
+43 1 90292 1127, pichler@fcp.at

Jörg Fenske
Porr Bau GmbH
Absberggasse 47, 1110 Vienna, Austria
+43 1 50 626 2258, fenske@porr.at

Number of Words: 1.749

ABSTRACT

The railway companies in Austria and Germany use ballastless track systems for many years.
Due to their experiences it is obvious that such systems show a lot of advantages compared to
ballasted tracks.

Their experience demonstrates that such systems have substantial advantages when compared
with ballasted tracks. Especially, on high-performance and high-speed routes, ballastless track
systems like elastically supported slab track ÖBB-PORR are installed to ensure maximum
track availability and minimum maintenance needs.

INTRODUCTION

Since the middle of the 20th century, several countries across the world have adopted and
developed the use of ballastless slab-track systems.

The major reasons for these developments came as a result of increased levels of track traffic,
which in turn restricted track maintenance time; this was coupled with the fact that train
speeds increased up to 300 km/h.

In the last 50 years many different types of ballastless track systems have been developed in
different countries. The reason that each country developed its own system was due to
different applications. Some countries focused on tracks in tunnels or on bridges, others
focused on high speed lines and earthwork. The main types of systems are:
x Compact systems
x Baseplate systems
x Block systems
x Embedded rail systems
x Prefabricated slab systems

Depending on the different aspects such as gained experience with the system and local
circumstances the choice for one system is driven by determining the applicability and the life
cycle costs of the system [1].

© AREMA 2013® 81
 DEVELOPMENT IN AUSTRIA

Within the national network of the Austrian Federal Railways (German: Österreichische
Bundesbahnen, ÖBB) the use of slab track systems initially began in the 1980s.

As traffic loads, permissible travelling speeds and availability increased, it was proven that at
least in tunnel routes the slab track has numerous advantages over ballasted track. Therefore
in Austria, for new tunnel routes over lengths of 500 m, the installation of slab track is
preferred.

Between 1982 and 1995 several types of ballastless track system were tested on the ÖBB
network [2], which focused on the three main groups of systems:
x Monolithic systems (compact systems)
x Rubber booted sleeper systems (block systems)
x Prefabricated slab systems

After this first trial period, a concrete-based slab track system with elastically supported
precast slabs called system ÖBB-PORR was identified as most suitable for applications for
the ÖBB network.

This system consists of prefabricated reinforced concrete slabs which are placed with a
40 mm wide open joint between two adjacent slabs. The slabs are coated with an elastic layer
to separate them from the under poor concrete. This design principle compensates for any
deformations caused by creeping, shrinking and temperature changes. Furthermore the elastic
coating leads to reduced noise and vibration levels. The system comprises two elastic layers:
the highly elastic rail fasteners type 300-1 and the elastic coating.

82 © AREMA 2013®
 Figure 1: Elastically supported slab track system ÖBB-PORR

Since 1995, nearly all ÖBB ballastless tracks have been equipped with the elastically
supported slab track ÖBB-PORR system. Since the first installation of the system near
Langenlebarn, 25 years of experience has been gathered. The main result of this experience is
that ballastless track systems like ÖBB-PORR are nearly maintenance free permanent ways.
The only regular maintenance work needed is rail grinding, similar to what is needed for
ballasted tracks.

© AREMA 2013® 83
 Figure 2: System ÖBB-PORR in Langenlebarn (first installation in 1989)

For reduction of ground-borne noise and in particular vibration emission, modifications of

slab track in the form of mass-spring-systems (floating track slab systems) have been
developed in the past years. With such systems the emissions can be reduced far below the
level of ballasted track systems even with sub-ballast mats. For sensitive urban areas, the
above-mentioned elastic-layered slab track system ÖBB-PORR alone is insufficient to
mitigate against vibration. Therefore, a mass-spring-system constructed continuously from
in-situ concrete without joints was developed. Since 1996, such mass-spring-systems are
under operation in the railway network. At that time the new design principle of continuous
concrete troughs carrying the ballastless track system ÖBB-Porr was installed in the
Römerbergtunnel. Until now, many additional installations of that design have been realised,
e.g. in the Wienerwaldtunnel and Lainzer Tunnel in Vienna.

84 © AREMA 2013®
 Figure 3: Mass-Spring-Systems with ballastless track system ÖBB-PORR

BALLASTLESS TRACK SYSTEM ÖBB-PORR IN GERMANY

The Deutsche Bahn, the German railway company, installs slab track systems not only in
tunnels and on bridges but also on earthwork sections. Since 2001 the ÖBB-PORR system is
also used by Deutsche Bahn in the area of the main station in Berlin. There, the system is
installed on a large number of bridges on the East-West corridor and also in the north-south
line tunnels, partly on mass-spring-systems. For the design of these mass-spring-systems the
experience in Austria was taken into account.

Ballastless track Floating slab track

Figure 4: System ÖBB-PORR in Tunnels of North-South Corridor in Berlin

More than 150 km of double track ÖBB-PORR slab track system are currently under
construction on the corridor VDE 8 – the high speed line between Berlin and Munich. Beside
earthwork these sections contain a large number of bridges and tunnels.

© AREMA 2013® 85
 The different types of bridges as e.g. short bridges (L < 25 m), long bridges and large viaducts
for crossing valleys resulted in different solutions for the ballastless track on these bridges.
Figure 5 shows for example the design principle for a double track long bridge.

The interaction between bridge and track superstructure leads to special ballastless track
design on the bridge and causes transition elements for the expansion joints at the ends of the
bridge decks. At the ends of the bridge superstructure, the track system has to resist the
movements and rotations between bridge and abutment. These movements and rotations lead
to an increase of rail stresses and forces on the rail fasteners adjacent to the bridge joint.
Movements occur in longitudinal and lateral track direction, rotations lead to vertical pressure
and tension forces on the rail fastening system. Figure 5 shows the impacts on the track
system at bridge joints.

Figure 5: Transition bridge superstructure – abutment [3]

86 © AREMA 2013®
 Figure 6: Cross-section of bridges with ballastless track system

© AREMA 2013® 87
 Figure 7: Cross-section of tunnel with ballastless track system

Figure 8: Cross-section of earthwork with ballastless track system

88 © AREMA 2013®
 Due to the very high train operation speed, additional investigations were made to ensure a
well-tempered dynamic system behaviour avoiding resonance effects. These investigations
proof that the dynamic adjustment of the elastically supported slabs is very well suited for
train speeds up to 330 km/h.

MAINTENANCE, REPAIR AND LIFE CYCLE COSTS

Experience shows that following parts of ballastless track systems may need maintenance
works during lifetime of the system:
x Rails: grinding or milling, repair of welds, exchange of rails
x Rail fasteners: adjustment works, exchange of angled guide plates,
exchange of elastic pads, exchange of clips, exchange of screws
x Drainage system: cleaning of pipes, trenches

Long-term studies from ÖBB and extrapolations of these results show that the concrete
elements of ballastless tracks will have a lifetime of about 80 years without maintenance
needs caused by environmental conditions and regular train operation.

ÖBB-experiences concerning maintenance costs per km track are published in [5]. In

comparison to ballasted tracks, figure 8 shows the break-even point for the total track costs
after 24 years of operation based on a daily track loading of about 70,000 gross-tons.
Thereafter, the payback of the higher initial investment costs of ballastless track is achieved.

Figure 9: Comparison of costs for ballasted and ballastless track per km

Beside these results for regular train operation, it has to be considered that extraordinary
situations can occur. E.g. derailment of train may lead to severe damage on the track system.
Therefore, the ease of reparability of a track is of major importance. It is obvious that
ballastless track systems are more difficult to repair than ballasted tracks. The development of

© AREMA 2013® 89
 the elastically supported slab track ÖBB-Porr was particularly driven by the repair ability
aspect. The system allows the following repair measures:
x Repair of rails, rail-welds, a.s.o. and exchange of rails (see above mentioned
maintenance needs)
x Repair/exchange of Rail fasteners (see above mentioned maintenance needs)
x Repair of concrete slabs, e.g. of seats/shoulders for rail fasteners (e.g. after derailment
of boogies/trains)
x Repositioning/replacement of concrete slabs (e.g. in case of large settlements of sub-
construction)

For every single repair measure, detailed consultations have taken place and the required
time-span for each measure has been investigated. Therefore, in case of repair, minimum
investment in time is required to conduct the works. This ensures maximum availability of the
track.

Step 1 Step 2

Step 3 Step 4

Step 5 Step 6
Figure 10: Exchange of slabs

90 © AREMA 2013®
 CONCLUSIONS

The ballastless track system ÖBB-PORR is used for many years on earthwork as well as on
bridges and in tunnels. The system is proven for usage on high-performance lines as well as
on high-speed lines and shows many advantages in comparison with other types of ballastless
and ballasted track systems.

REFERENCES

1) UIC Project Ballastless Track “Report about the application and the experience with
ballastless track” version 2005-11-03, not published.
2) Schilder, R., 2005: “Experiences in Ballastless Track gained on ÖBB”, European Slab
Track Symposium, Bruxelles.
3) Eisenmann, J.; Leykauf, G., 2000: “Feste Fahrbahn für Schienenbahnen“, Betonkalender
2000, p. 291 – 326. Verlag Ernst & Sohn (German).
4) Adam, C., 2011: “Expertise concerning the dynamic performance of the ballastless track
system ÖBB-PORR” (German), not published.
5) Mach, M.: “Zustandsbewertung und Nutzungsdauerprognose von Festen Fahrbahn
Systemen im Netz der ÖBB”, doctor‘s thesis certified at Vienna University of
Technology 2011 (German).
6) Lichtberger, B.: „Track Compendium“. 2nd Edition 2011, Eurailpress.
7) Pichler, D.; Fenske, J.: “Interaction Structure – Track Exemplified on the High-Speed
Line VDE 8”, Innsbrucker Bautage, Austria.

FIGURE CAPTIONS

Figure 1: Elastically supported slab track system ÖBB-PORR

Figure 2: System ÖBB-PORR in Langenlebarn (first installation in 1989)
Figure 3: Mass-Spring-Systems with ballastless track system ÖBB-PORR
Figure 4: System ÖBB-PORR in Tunnels of North-South Corridor in Berlin
Figure 5: Transition bridge superstructure – abutment [3]
Figure 6: Cross-section of bridges with ballastless track system
Figure 7: Cross-section of earthwork with ballastless track system
Figure 8: Cross-section of earthwork with ballastless track system
Figure 9: Comparison of costs for ballasted and ballastless track per km
Figure 10: Exchange of slabs

© AREMA 2013® 91
92
Ballast-less track systems
Experience Gained in Austria and
Germany
Dipl.-Ing. Dr.techn. Prok. Dipl.-Ing. Dipl.-Ing.(FH)
Dieter PICHLER Jörg FENSKE
FCP Fritsch Chiari & Partner ZT GmbH PORR Bau GmbH,
Railway Department

September 29 – October 2, 2013

Indianapolis, IN

© AREMA 2013®
 General General
Ballastless Track The Main Construction Principles for Ballastless Track
Heavy concrete sleeper Ballasted track
track Elasticity without subsoil
(uniform European track)

Ballast substructure
40%

Rail fastening
Rail pads
60%

September 29 – October 2, 2013 September 29 – October 2, 2013

Indianapolis, IN Indianapolis, IN

General Practical Examples in Austria

The Main Construction Principles for Ballastless Track Development in Austria
Compact Systems 1982 – 1995: FIRST PERIOD OF TESTING DIFFERENT SYSTEMS

(Monolithic systems e.g. System Rheda, Project

Großer
Year System Feature Length

System Rheda 2000)

1982 Rheda Tunnel rehabilitation 480 m
Türkenschanzparktunnel
Hausrucktunnel 1985 JOARB 112 Tunnel rehabilitation 638 m

Baseplate Systems
FJB Wien – Gmünd
1989 Slab track ÖBB-PORR Embankment 264 m
Bereich Langenlebarn

(e.g. Vossloh, DFF21, Pandrol VIPA) Dürrebergtunnel 1989 Züblin Tunnel rehabilitation, embankment 576 m

Booted sleeper 3 491 m

Block Systems Arlbergtunnel 1990/1991
Rheda
Tunnel rehabilitation
145 m

(Booted sleeper systems e.g. System Stedef, System LVT)

Slab track 2 629 m
Tauerntunnel 1992 Tunnel rehabilitation
booted sleeper 4 196 m
Sittenbergtunnel 1992/1993 Rheda New tunnel, light MSS, 4 turnouts 9 010 m

Embedded Rail Systems Helwagstraße 1993 Slab track Bridge 52 m

(e.g. Edilon-Sedra EBS, CDM-Track)

Sonnbergtunnel 1994 Züblin New tunnel, embankment, bridge 1 150 m

Total length 22 631 m

Prefabricated Slab Systems

(e.g. System Bögl, System ÖBB–PORR)
September 29 – October 2, 2013 September 29 – October 2, 2013
Indianapolis, IN Indianapolis, IN

Decision-making of ÖBB Decision-making of ÖBB – Construction

Slab Track System in Austria System ÖBB-PORR
1 Holes for spindles

1. Construction (space requirements,...) 2

3
ÖBB-PORR slab
Elatomeric layer
4 Concrete joint sealing compound

2. Method (sensitivity of laying,...) 5

6
Rail support seat
Long rail
7 Concrete base

3. Quality (track set, acoustics,...) 1

5

4. Economy 4 6

2
3 1

Ÿ System ÖBB–PORR is the STANDARD SYSTEM

4
7
in Austria

September 29 – October 2, 2013 September 29 – October 2, 2013

Indianapolis, IN Indianapolis, IN

© AREMA 2013® 93
 Decision-making of ÖBB – Construction
System ÖBB-PORR

9 High degree of
Tunnelachse
Gleisachse

prefabrication
9 Low construction
1.600 1.700

86.0
1.520
66.0 1.730
3.300
1.570 74.0
1.680
94.0 height
Schotterauffüllung
Gleistragplatte

Cross-section through SOK ±0.00

+0,18
Cross-section beside
45.5 32.5
78.0

pouring aperture Vergussbeton

-0.60
pouring aperture
Vergussbeton Vergussbeton

>43
40
40

September 29 – October 2, 2013 September

Sept ember
embe
ber 29 – Oct
Octo
O
Oc
October
ct beer 2
er 2, 2
2013
01
13
13
Indianapolis, IN Indianapolis,
In anapolis
Indi anap
polis
oli , IN
N

Decision-making of ÖBB – Method Criteria: Quality

Structural Implementation Results of the Track Recording Vehicle

Ballastless track

September 29 – October 2, 2013 September 29 – October 2, 2013

Indianapolis, IN Indianapolis, IN

Criteria: Quality Criteria: Quality

System Comparison System Comparison
3

KB Comparison of structural-borne noise –

A
Slab Track vs. Ballast Track
B
Comparision of evaluated Slab Track – Type A Slab Track – ÖBB-PORR
Ballastless track

2
vibration emission KB C dB (A)
20
dB (A)
20

D
between the ballast track 15 15
ÖBB-PORR
and different slab track 10 10

systems in ÖBB. 1
5
Level
5

0 0
Ballast
-5 -5

-10 -10

-15 -15
0
10
12,5

16

20

100

125

160
80
25
31,5

40

50

63
160

200

250

400
315
40

50

63

80

100
25

31,5

125

0 1 2 KB
Ballasted track

September 29 – October 2, 2013 September 29 – October 2, 2013

Indianapolis, IN Indianapolis, IN

94 © AREMA 2013®
 Decision-making of ÖBB – Quality Decision-making of ÖBB – Quality
Acceptance Certificate Precision of Track Base Plate
Frequency distribution of deviations
Example 638 measurement points, specifications in % 9 +/- 0,3 mm tolerance for precast
Moving chord Moving chord
Deviation Position Hight Cant Gauge
position height
-4 0.2
[%]
-3.5 0.6 95 %
-3 1.3 32,9

-2.5 4.4
-2 0.2 10.5 29,3 26,3 0,1
-1.5 0.2 18.5 1.1 21,8
3,0
-1 9.1 21.9 5.8 45,1 1,1 10,3
-0.5 46.4 19.9 21.8 19,0 23,3
0 37.5 14.3 32.9 22,7 60,9 30,0
8,6
0.5 6.6 5.6 26.3 5,8 18,1 19,3
1 0.2 2.5 8.6 2,8 0,2 7
1.5 0.2 3.4 7
-1,0 -0,5 0 +0,5 +1,0
2 6
2.5 0.2

September 29 – October 2, 2013 September 29 – October 2, 2013

Indianapolis, IN Indianapolis, IN

Decision-making of ÖBB – Economy Decision-making of ÖBB – Summary

Life-Cycle-Costs (LCC) System Comparison
Settle-
Track Repair ment Installa- Invest- Mainten-
System Space Safety Vibration Proven
Quality Concept Adjust- tion ment ance
ment

Rheda
+ + ++ -- -- +/- + + + +
2000

LVT + + + ++ -- ++ +/- - ++ +

Bögl + ++ ++ - -- +/- - - ++ +

ÖBB –
++ ++ ++ + + ++ + + ++ +
Porr

Ballast - +/- - ++ ++ + ++ ++ - ++

++ very good +/- satisfactory

+ good - below satisfactory
-- unsatisfactory

September 29 – October 2, 2013 September 29 – October 2, 2013

Indianapolis, IN Indianapolis, IN

Decision-making of ÖBB Decision-making of ÖBB

September 29 – October 2, 2013 September 29 – October 2, 2013

Indianapolis, IN Indianapolis, IN

© AREMA 2013® 95
 Special Soulutions for Ballastless Track Special Soulutions for Ballastless Track
Mass-Spring-Systems Mass-Spring-Systems
Modification of superstructure for ground born noise Example Römerbergtunnel
and vibration attenuation single bearing

Ÿ Mass-Spring-Systems (floating track slab systems)

470.
2.5 70. 260. 70. 70. 260. 70.
[=0 surface bearing
D... dynamic maginification factor
[=0.25 [... damping ratio
2.0
E... frequency ratio
[=0
concrete trough (mass)
1.5 [=0.50

rail carrying bearing

elements P (t) prefabricated slabs
tunnel portal reinforced concrete trough
1.0 in 366m

bearings [=1.00
m 0.5 tunnel portal
(springs) [=0 longitudinal in 56m
(wheel, track, sleeper, [=0.50 securing device
base (e.g.: tunnel concrete track)
[=0.25 ballasted track surface bearing single bearing surface bearing ballasted track
bottom floor) 0
k F (t)
c 0.5 1 —2 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
E
open construction cut-and-cover mining method open construction method
method method
348.00

September 29 – October 2, 2013 September 29 – October 2, 2013

Indianapolis, IN Indianapolis, IN

Special Soulutions for Ballastless Track Special Soulutions for Ballastless Track
Transistions Transistions
Ballastless Track vs. Ballasted Track Section A-A Ballastless Track vs. Ballasted Track – Germany, Berlin
Austria RZ 17220
65 65 60
Section A-A Section B-B Section C-C
65 60 60 60 60 60 regulation plate elastic
regulation plate
auxiliary track baseplate
Track base plate
Concrete joint sealing compound
Track base plate
Concrete subbase elastically
concrete joint sealing compound
bonded ballast
Slab Track Ballast Upper edge concrete subbase HGT HGT
of foundation Elastic bond ballast
upper edge
FSS
Slab Track Ballast FSS upper edge of foundation
Special track baseplates (ÜKO-GTP) 25 reinforced concrete sleepers, 2.60 m long 20 concrete sleepers for turnouts of foundation
Slab track 2 straight or USP ks=0,3 N/mm³ USP ks=0,3 N/mm³ Ballast with
Track base plate 4 bent 15.00 m 15.00 m standard sleepers Slab track Ballast

Rail form 60E1(E2) Auxiliary rail: rail form 60E1(E2) Slab track
Slab track Track base plate 25 components B 320 W60 Ü 44 components 6 components
60 60 60 Track base plate Auxiliary tracks on L=5 m 15.00 m B320 W60 B70 W60 Ballast
HGT 10 m

C Rail Form 60E1(E2) Auxiliary rail: rail form 60E1(E2)

60 60 60
2.795
2.400

A A
2.795
2.400

A A B B

65 65 60 60
Elastically bonded ballast 30.00 m - 35.00 m
Partial bonding: 1. Rail foot 0.7-0.8 m wide, 0.15 m deep
Full bonding 2.60 m wide, approx. 0,15 m deep 2. Every second space 0.15 m deep 65 65
7.2 m t22.8 m C
Elastically bonded ballast
Surface bonding includes strip along sleeper ends, 0.2-0.3 m wide and 0.2-0.3 m deep
30.00 m - 35.00 m Full bonding Partial bonding GS und RB Partial bonding GS
15 m 15 m 15 m

September 29 – October 2, 2013 September 29 – October 2, 2013

Indianapolis, IN Indianapolis, IN

Special Soulutions for Ballastless Track Special Soulutions for Ballastless Track
Transistions Transistions

September 29 – October 2, 2013 September 29 – October 2, 2013

Indianapolis, IN Indianapolis, IN

96 © AREMA 2013®
 Practical Examples in Austria Practical Examples in Austria
Development in Austria Langenlebarn – First Installation in 1989
1982 – 1995: FIRST PERIOD OF TESTING DIFFERENT SYSTEMS
Project Year System Feature Length
Großer
1982 Rheda Tunnel rehabilitation 480 m
Türkenschanzparktunnel
Hausrucktunnel 1985 JOARB 112 Tunnel rehabilitation 638 m
FJB Wien – Gmünd
1989 Slab track ÖBB-PORR Embankment 264 m
Bereich Langenlebarn

Dürrebergtunnel 1989 Züblin Tunnel rehabilitation, embankment 576 m

Booted sleeper 3 491 m

Arlbergtunnel 1990/1991 Tunnel rehabilitation
Rheda 145 m
Slab track 2 629 m
Tauerntunnel 1992 Tunnel rehabilitation
booted sleeper 4 196 m
Sittenbergtunnel 1992/1993 Rheda New tunnel, light MSS, 4 turnouts 9 010 m
Helwagstraße 1993 Slab track Bridge 52 m
Sonnbergtunnel 1994 Züblin New tunnel, embankment, bridge 1 150 m

Total length 22 631 m

September 29 – October 2, 2013 September 29 – October 2, 2013

Indianapolis, IN Indianapolis, IN

Practical Examples in Austria Practical Examples in Austria

Development in Austria Lainzer Tunnel
1996 – ONGOING: PERIOD OF SLAB TRACK ÖBB-PORR (EXTRACT) Ballastless Track on Floating Track Slab
Project Year System Feature Length
New tunnel, light MSS,
Galgenbergtunnel 1996/1997 Slab track 11 040 m
embankment, bridge, 4 turnouts
New tunnel,
Römerbergtunnel 1997 Slab track 638 m
Light and heavy MSS
New tunnel,
Zammertunnel 1998/1999 Slab track 4 477 m
Light and heavy MSS
Wolfsgrubentunnel/ New tunnel, medium-weight MSS,
1999/2000 Slab track, passable with cars 3 730 m
Arlbertunnel 6 turnouts

Siebergtunnel 2000/2001 Slab track New tunnel 12 902

Birgltunnel 2004 Slab track passable with cars New tunnel, 6 turnouts 2 650 m

Arlbergtunnel 2005/2007 Slab track passable with cars Tunnel rehabilitation, 8 turnouts 20 812 m
New tunnel, light, medium-weight
Lainzer Tunnel 2010 Slab track 18 075 m
and heavy MSS
High-speed line, new tunnel, light,
Kundl/Radfeld – Baumkirchen 2010 Slab track 69 879 m
medium-weight and heavy MSS
High-speed line, new tunnel,
Wienerwaldtunnel 2010/2011 Slab track bridge and embankment, light, 26 406 m
medium-weight and heavy MSS

Total 580 031 m

September 29 – October 2, 2013 September 29 – October 2, 2013

Indianapolis, IN Indianapolis, IN

Practical Examples in Austria Practical Examples in Austria

Wienerwaldtunnel Wienerwaldtunnel
Light Mass-Spring-System (MSS) Heavy MSS with strip layers

9 t/m, 8 Hz
4.4 t/m, 18 Hz

September 29 – October 2, 2013 September 29 – October 2, 2013

Indianapolis, IN Indianapolis, IN

© AREMA 2013® 97
 Practical Examples in Austria Practical Examples in Germany
Wienerwaldtunnel Development in Germany
Heavy MSS with single layers Project
Lehrter Bahnhof
Year System Feature Length
14 extenxion joints,
2001/2002 Slab track 4 216 m
(Connection East-West) total length on bridge
Lehrter Bahnhof approx. 10 000 m light,
2002/2006 Slab track 14 200 m
(Connection North-South) medium-weight and heavy MSS
VDE 8.2 High-speed line, tunnel,
2012/2013 Slab track 179 352 m
Erfurt – Leipzig/Halle embankment and bridge

VDE 8.1 High-speed line, tunnel,

2012/2013 Slab track 87 860 m
Ebensfeld – Erfurt, Lot 2 embankment and bridge
VDE 8.1 High-speed line, tunnel,
2012/2013 Slab track 43 840 m
Ebensfeld – Erfurt, Lot 3 embankment and bridge

Total length 329 468 m

9 t/m, 7.5 Hz

September 29 – October 2, 2013 September 29 – October 2, 2013

Indianapolis, IN Indianapolis, IN

Practical Examples in Germany Practical Examples in Germany

North-South Corridor in Berlin North-South Corridor in Berlin Schallabsorber

Track Equipment
Schnitt A-A

Accessable Gleismagnet Gewindestange Adapterplatte

Ausgleichsplatte
Führungsschiene

noise absorbers Ankerstange

Grundplatte
Elastomere Ausgleichsplatte

Guard rails Elastomere

Ausgleichsplatte

Track magnets Schnitt B-B

Buffer stops Stromschienenträger REHAU

Fahrsperre

höhenverstellbar Adapterplatte

Power rails Elastomere Ausgleichsplatte Ausgleichsplatte

Adapterplatte
Elastomere Ausgleichsplatte
Ausgleichsplatte

Schnitt C-C Beschichtete Bewehrung

z.B. mit AGROVAN 209 in FTGS-Bereichen

September 29 – October 2, 2013 September 29 – October 2, 2013

Indianapolis, IN Indianapolis, IN

Practical Examples in Germany Practical Examples in Germany

North-South Corridor in Berlin North-South Corridor in Berlin
Cross-section Tunnel Structural Implementation

September
b 29 – OOctober
t b 2 2, 2013 September 29 – October 2, 2013
Indianapolis, IN Indianapolis, IN

98 © AREMA 2013®
 Practical Examples in Germany Practical Examples in Germany
North-South Corridor in Berlin High-speed Line VDE 8
Structural Implementation

VDE 8.1.2
VDE 8.1.3
VDE 8.2

ő!NPtrack with
ÖBB-PORR System

September 29 – October 2, 2013 September 29 – October 2, 2013

Indianapolis, IN Indianapolis, IN

Practical Examples in Germany Practical Examples in Germany

High-speed Line VDE 8 High-speed Line VDE 8
Cross-section on Embankment Cross-section
section Bridge
Brid
dge
g Se
SSector
ccttorr

September 29 – October 2, 2013 September 29 – October 2, 2013

Indianapolis, IN Indianapolis, IN

Practical Examples in Germany Practical Examples in Germany

High-speed Line VDE 8 High-speed Line VDE 8
Cross-section Tunnel

September 29 – October 2, 2013 September 29 – October 2, 2013

Indianapolis, IN Indianapolis, IN

© AREMA 2013® 99
 Practical Examples in Germany Practical Examples in Germany
High-speed Line VDE 8 High-speed Line VDE 8

September 29 – October 2, 2013 September 29 – October 2, 2013

Indianapolis, IN Indianapolis, IN

Practical Examples in Germany

High-speed Line VDE 8

Ballast-less track systems

Experience Gained in Austria and
Germany
Dipl.-Ing. Dr.techn. Prok. Dipl.-Ing. Dipl.-Ing.(FH)
Dieter PICHLER Jörg FENSKE
FCP Fritsch Chiari & Partner ZT GmbH PORR Bau GmbH,
Railway Department

September 29 – October 2, 2013 September 29 – October 2, 2013

Indianapolis, IN Indianapolis, IN

100 © AREMA 2013®