Arguments for impregnated wooden sleepers
- It is impossible to exchange single wooden sleepers by concrete ones, the entire track has to changed at the same time
- Because of their conductivity (signal systems) wooden sleepers can not be treated with salt based wood preservatives
- In case that wooden sleeper will be replaced by concrete sleepers, the entire substructure has to be strengthened; this will cause very high costs. Compared with wooden sleepers, concrete sleepers require a much thicker layer of ballast.
- Replacement of wooden sleepers by concrete ones is impossible in old tunnels with a low profile, new tunnels have to be build
- The alternative use of untreated sleepers, made from tropical wood, is causing concerns regarding the sustainability of the sources
- Wooden sleepers on railroad bridges can not be exchanged against concrete sleepers (because of static, noise emission, difference in height)
- Wooden sleepers are resistant against breaking, therefore they are preferred in areas and tracks with a high risk for derailments (heavy load cargo tracks & marshalling yards)
- Wooden sleepers have a special damping behaviour regarding noise and vibration; therefore they are preferably used on bridges and in populated areas.
- Wooden sleepers are the only alternative in narrow curves and mountain tracks
- Wooden sleepers are indispensable for turnouts
- Cost- and environmental friendly thermal utilization of worn out sleepers, no contamination with heavy metals
- Creosote is highly active wood preservative with a special performance against Termites which have already migrated into southern Europe
- Wooden sleepers are made form local and sustainable grown local sources
- Wooden sleepers have a positive CO² balance regarding the climate change