No more noise
Ask the residents located near a rail engineering or maintenance project why they might want to see noise reduction systems in place, and the answers are obvious. But, looking at the subject of minimising unwanted and excessive noise through the eyes of the contractor, do they see it as a necessary strategy to be built into their site management plans, or still an expensive and unnecessary added extra? Peter Wilson, technical director at Echo Barrier, explores the arguments.
S
ift through the commentaries behind one of the most talked-about rail construction projects
in the UK – HS2 – and again and again one issue rises to the surface. Noise!
Campaign groups have consistently cited the increase in noise and vibration as one of their greatest fears about the high-speed train initiative.
Such has been the angst on this one specific topic that the Department for Transport hired an engineering firm to demonstrate the potential noise by simulating sound levels.
Their research thus far suggests close to 5,000 homes will experience an increase in noise, though they have only indicated a need for added sound insulation for 150 properties.
This all highlights the prevailing feeling in society – in an age of obvious sensitivity about noise disturbance – of an increasing insistence on our right to acceptable peace, whether that be when we’re at home in our back garden, or on
86 | rail technology magazine Apr/May 14
our morning walk to the office. Noise attenuation measures
It’s therefore little wonder that contractors increasingly
recognise this factor when they
specify for key construction projects on their patch. More and more often, noise attenuation is featuring as an important element in the list of measures to be undertaken as part of project planning. Contractors are increasingly aware that this requirement is not yet more ‘red-tape’ or an over-the-top box-tick activity.
In fact, many of them now consider that the implementation of sound reduction technologies can provide major commercial and community relations benefits.
The Track Partnership, a partnership between London Underground and Balfour Beatty Rail, undertook track renewal works at Earl’s Court station between Christmas and New Year 2013. The area surrounding the station is a particularly
sensitive location in which to carry out work; it is densely populated, with many homes located close to the above-ground tracks.
The team were keen to ensure a peaceful Christmas for residents and commuters, so they erected over 500 Echo Barriers to reduce the noise levels coming out of the site.
Mark Hart, community relations manager for
the Track Partnership, commented: “Although works were carried out around the clock during the Christmas holiday period, there were zero complaints regarding the noise.”
The Track Partnership is now committed to using sound absorption barriers to mitigate noise from worksites across London.
Costain-Skanska were having trouble with a generator making too much noise on a Crossrail project in a residential area near Bow Road. After trialling several noise reduction products and not seeing the desired results, works
C.I.T.E. STAND
-E11-
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100 |
Page 101 |
Page 102 |
Page 103 |
Page 104 |
Page 105 |
Page 106 |
Page 107 |
Page 108 |
Page 109 |
Page 110 |
Page 111 |
Page 112 |
Page 113 |
Page 114 |
Page 115 |
Page 116 |
Page 117 |
Page 118 |
Page 119 |
Page 120 |
Page 121 |
Page 122 |
Page 123 |
Page 124 |
Page 125 |
Page 126 |
Page 127 |
Page 128 |
Page 129 |
Page 130 |
Page 131 |
Page 132 |
Page 133 |
Page 134 |
Page 135 |
Page 136 |
Page 137 |
Page 138 |
Page 139 |
Page 140 |
Page 141 |
Page 142 |
Page 143 |
Page 144 |
Page 145 |
Page 146 |
Page 147 |
Page 148 |
Page 149 |
Page 150 |
Page 151 |
Page 152 |
Page 153 |
Page 154 |
Page 155 |
Page 156 |
Page 157 |
Page 158 |
Page 159 |
Page 160 |
Page 161 |
Page 162 |
Page 163 |
Page 164 |
Page 165 |
Page 166 |
Page 167 |
Page 168 |
Page 169 |
Page 170 |
Page 171 |
Page 172 |
Page 173 |
Page 174 |
Page 175 |
Page 176 |
Page 177 |
Page 178 |
Page 179 |
Page 180 |
Page 181 |
Page 182 |
Page 183 |
Page 184 |
Page 185 |
Page 186 |
Page 187 |
Page 188 |
Page 189 |
Page 190 |
Page 191 |
Page 192 |
Page 193 |
Page 194 |
Page 195 |
Page 196 |
Page 197 |
Page 198 |
Page 199 |
Page 200 |
Page 201 |
Page 202 |
Page 203 |
Page 204 |
Page 205 |
Page 206 |
Page 207 |
Page 208