Commission Decision of 28 July 2006 concerning the technical specification of interoperability relating to the subsystem ‘rolling stock — freight wagons’ of the trans-European conventional rail system (notified under document number C(2006) 3345) (Text with EEA relevance) (2006/861/EC) (repealed)

6.1. INTEROPERABILITY CONSTITUENTS

6.1.1. ASSESSMENT PROCEDURES

The assessment procedure for conformity or suitability for use of interoperability constituents shall be based on European specifications or specifications approved in accordance with Directive 2001/16/EC.

In the case of suitability for use, these specifications will indicate all the parameters to be measured, monitored or observed, and will describe the related testing methods and measuring procedures, whether in a test-bench simulation or tests in a real railway environment.

The manufacturer of an Interoperability Constituent (IC) or his authorised representative established within the Community shall draw up an EC declaration of conformity or an EC declaration of suitability for use in accordance with Article 13.1 and Annex IV of the Directive 2001/16/EC before placing ICs on the market.

The assessment procedures for conformity of ICs defined in Section 5 of this TSI shall be carried out by application of modules as specified in Section 6.1.2

Assessment of conformity or suitability for use of an IC shall be carried out by a notified body, when indicated in the procedure, with which the manufacturer or its authorised representative in the Community has lodged the application

The modules shall be combined and used selectively according to the particular constituent.

The modules are defined in Annex Q of this TSI.

The phases for the application of the conformity and suitability for use assessment procedures for the interoperability constituents as defined in Section 5 of this TSI are indicated in Annex Q, Table Q.1 to this TSI.

6.1.2. MODULES

6.1.2.1. General

For the conformity assessment procedure of interoperability constituents within the rolling stock subsystem, the manufacturer or his authorised representative established within the Community may choose:

a)

the type-examination procedure (module B) for the design and development phase in combination with a module for the production phase: either the production quality management system procedure (module D), or the product verification procedure (module F),

or alternatively

b)

the full quality management system with design examination procedure (module H2) for all phases,

or

c)

the full quality management system procedure (module H1)

Module D may only be chosen where the manufacturer operates a quality system for production, final product inspection and testing approved and surveyed by a notified body of its choice. Assessment of welding processes shall be carried out according to national rules.

Module H1 or H2 may only be chosen where the manufacturer operates a quality system for design, production, final product inspection and testing, approved and surveyed by a notified body of its choice.

The conformity assessment shall cover the phases and characteristics as indicated by “X” in the Table Q1 of Annex Q to this TSI.

6.1.2.2. Existing solutions for Interoperability Constituents

If a existing solution for an interoperability constituent is already on the European market before this TSI enters into force, then the following process applies.

The manufacturer shall demonstrate that tests and verification of ICs have been considered successful for previous applications under comparable conditions. In this case these assessments shall remain valid in the new application.

In this case, the type can be considered as already approved and an assessment of the type is not necessary.

In accordance with assessment procedures for the different ICs, the manufacturer or its authorised representative established within the Community shall:

• either apply the internal production control procedure (module A),

• or apply the internal design control with production verification procedure (module A1),

• or apply the full quality management system procedure (module H1).

If it is not possible to demonstrate that the solution is positively proven in the past, the Section 6.1.2.1 applies.

6.1.2.3. Innovative solutions for Interoperability Constituents

When a solution proposed to be an Interoperability Constituent is innovative, as defined in the section 5.2, the manufacturer shall state the deviation from the relevant section of the TSI. The European Railway Agency shall finalise the appropriate functional and interface specifications of the constituents and develop the assessment methods.

The appropriate functional and interface specifications and the assessment methods shall be incorporated in the TSI by the revision process. As soon as these documents are published, the assessment procedure of the interoperability constituents may be chosen by the manufacturer or his authorised representative established within the Community, as specified in the section 6.1.2.1

After entry into force of a decision of the Commission, taken in accordance with Article 21(2) of Directive 2001/16/EC, the innovative solution may be used before being incorporated into the TSI.

6.1.2.4. Assessment of suitability for use

Whenever an assessment procedure is started based on in-service experience for an interoperability constituent within the rolling stock subsystem, the manufacturer or his authorised representative established within the Community shall apply the type validation of in service experience procedure (module V).

6.1.3. SPECIFICATION FOR ASSESSMENT OF ICS

6.1.3.1. Structures and mechanical parts

6.1.3.1.1. Buffers

The buffers are to be assessed against the specification contained in section 4.2.2.1.2.1 buffers paragraph buffer characteristics.

6.1.3.1.2. Draw Gear

The draw gear shall be assessed against the specification contained in section 4.2.2.1.2.2 draw gear, paragraph “draw gear characteristics” and section 4.2.2.1.2.3 interaction of draw- and buffing-gear, paragraph “draw gear and buffing gear characteristics”.

6.1.3.1.3. Marking of Freight Wagons

The decals for marking are to be assessed against the specification contained in Annex B

6.1.3.2. Vehicle track interaction and gauging

6.1.3.2.1. Bogie and Running Gear

The integrity of the structure of the body to bogie connection, bogie frame, axle-box and all attached equipment shall be assured. This assurance shall be generated by use of sufficient appropriate methods, such as demonstration by bench tests, validated modelling, comparison with an existing design approved by or on behalf of national approval regime, which is used in similar service and condition or other methods.

The test conditions applicable for bogies running on standard gauge track under normal conditions of speed and track quality are defined in Annex J. They represent only the common part of the full range of tests to be performed on all types of bogie frames.

It is not possible to specify tests of a general nature for each specific bogie component, in particular for the axle bearings, the connection between bogie and body, the dampers and the brakes. Such tests shall be drawn up case by case, using the tests defined above as a guide. The objectives and the parameter definitions of the tests already specified are detailed below.

This remark also applies to the case of bogie frames intended for service on track with a different gauge, or under clearly different operating conditions, or bogies with a novel design.

The three tests described in Annex J Sections J1, J2 and J3 have been defined in order to:

• optimise the construction of the bogie frame (weight, speed)

• supplement the information obtained from calculations

• ensure that the bogie frames are suitable for withstanding the in-service loads without the occurrence of permanent deformation or cracks that would reduce safety or result in high maintenance costs.

If there is no comparable solution available, experience has shown that three tests are required: two static tests (Annex J sections J1 and J2), and one dynamic test (Annex J section J3).

The two static tests shall be performed first; they allow, in particular, for any bogies that do not meet the minimum strength requirements to be rejected.

The dynamic test (fatigue test) is designed to verify whether the bogie design is sound, and whether fatigue cracks might be expected to occur in service.

The load values that have been used for the definition of the tests have been derived in particular from running tests.

The tests in Annex J section J1 are considered to represent the maximum loads that can occur in service, without taking the loads due to accidents into account.

The tests in Annex J sections J2 and J3 are considered to represent, on average, the aggregate total of variable loads occurring during the bogie service life.

The number of cycles in the fatigue test was selected to simulate an overall service life of 30 years at a rate of 100 000 km per year. If this is not representative of the intended life cycle, the load cases shall be revised.

The distribution of these cycles over three distinct load stages was done with a view to optimising bogie frame structures. In particular, the possibility of the occurrence of cracks during the last load stage provides a means to identify the most highly stressed zones, to which special attention shall be paid during manufacture, production testing and maintenance operations.

To ensure the validity of the tests defined in Annex J sections J1, J2 and J3, particular attention shall be paid to their practical implementation. In particular: -

For the static tests of Annex J sections J1 and J2, the bogie frames shall be equipped with uni-directional strain gauges in those locations where stresses occur with a single clearly defined direction; in all other locations tri-directional strain gauges (rosettes) shall be used.

The active part of these gauges shall not exceed 10 mm.

Strain gauges and strain rosettes are attached to the bogie frame at all highly stressed points, in particular in zones of stress concentration.

The test set-up shall be defined so as to reproduce the forces acting on the bogie frame, and its deformation, as they occur in service. Particular attention shall be paid to the transmission of the vertical and transverse loads that in certain cases are distributed over several elements (e.g. pivot, springs, stops...).

The static tests shall be performed on a complete bogie, equipped with its suspension. In most cases, this arrangement is not feasible for the fatigue test for practical reasons; a separate study shall be conducted to define the test set-up.

The bogie frames used for the three tests shall be complete, and equipped with all their connecting elements (for dampers, brakes, etc.). They shall conform fully to the production drawings, and they shall have been manufactured under the same conditions as series-produced bogie frames.

If cracks or fractures occur during the fatigue test, originating from manufacturing defects that were not detected during the preceding static testing of the bogie frame, the test shall be repeated with another frame. If the defects are confirmed, the design shall be considered as unsatisfactory.

6.1.3.2.2. Wheelsets

The assessment of the wheelset is described in Annex K.

6.1.3.2.3. Wheels

The assessment of the design and of the product is described in Annex L.

6.1.3.2.4. Axle

The assessment of the design and of the product is described in Annex M.

6.1.3.3. Braking

See Annex P.