TRACK GEOMETRY STANDARDS FOR BG ROUTES ... - Indian …

GOVERNMENT OF INDIA MINISTRY OF RAILWAYS

Research Designs and Standards Organisation LUCKNOW-2260 1 1

TRACK GEOMETRY STANDARDS FOR BG ROUTES OF INDIAN RAILWAYS

(for different speed bands) TO FACILITATE PREDICTIVE

MAINTENANCE

0

REPORT NO. TM .- 97 cy m 1.: : C3

TRACK MACHINES & MONITORING DIRECTORATE

JANUARY 2006

This report is based on a study made by the Track Machines and oni it or in^ Dte. of RDSO. Although, every care has been taken in analysing it objectively, the views expressed in this report are subject to modifications from time to time in the light of fresh data. Further, they do not necessarily represent the views of the Ministry of Railways (Railway Board), Government of India.

This report is the property of the RDSO and is meant essentially for official use. It may not be loaned, reproduced in part or in full, or quoted as an authority without the permission of Director General, RDSO.

Direc Vijay !!k harrna,

CONTENTS

S.No. Description Page No.

1. Introduction 1

2. Overview of Track Geometry Standards 1

3. Track Geometry Measurement on Indian 7 Railways

4. Methodology adopted to evolve Track 8 Geometry Standards

5. Discussion of analysed data and laying 10 down of standards

6. Recommendations

7. Annexures 1 to 6

LIST OF ANNEXURES

Annexure Description No.

No. of Pages

--

I l l to 1/51 Correlation co-efficient and SD values 5 corresponding to the RI limit of 3.25 in various speed ranges

211 to 218 SD values of various track parameters 8 covering different percentage of track

311 to 315 Peak values corresponding to SD 5 values at the RI limit of 3.25 in various speed ranges

411 to 412 Parameter wise analysis of peak values

511 to 5116 Liner regression between acceleration and peak values of different track parameters in various speed ranges

611 to 613 Comparison of correlation coefficient for 2 degree polynomial & straight line

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

This report has been prepared under the guidance of Shri Vijay Sharma, EDTM by the team of following officers and staff:

1. Shri Ashish Bansal, DTM-IV

Data analysis work

2. Shri R.P. Tewari, Dy. Dir.TTM/UG 3. Shri K.N. Gupta ARE/TMS 4. Shri Virender Singh, SSRErrM 5. Shri Sandeep Agrawal, SSRErrM 6. Shri Suresh Kohli SSRE/TM 7. Shri S.B. Shukla , SRE/TM

Secretarial work

8. Shri S.P. Verma, Steno

TRACK GEOMETRY STANDARDS FOR BG ROUTES OF INDIAN RAILWAYS (for different speed bands) TO

FACILITATE PREDICTIVE MAINTENANCE

1.0 Introduction

The current system of preventive maintenance of tamping needs to be given a re- look There is need to adopt predictive maintenance At present the following tamping cycle is specified as per clause 5 7 4 (vi) of IRTMM (i) On PSC sleepers, once in two years or passage of 100 GMT of traffic,

whichever is earlier. (ii) On other than PSC sleepers, once in a year

For effective maintenance of track, it is essential to correctly assess the existing condition of track and prioritise the sections for attention. Track should be touched only when required.

Railway Board had issued instructions for monitoring quality of maintenance of track vide letter no. 94iTrack-IIYTW23 dated 30-12-1996. As per this letter, the grading of track was as under.-

In order to rationalize the maintenance and other track related activities, it is required that the track geometry standards are properly laid down in the form of standard deviations for individual track parameters. This will lead to predictive maintenance of track. I .o

Cu 0\ k-)

2.0 Overview of Track Geometry Standards o

S.No. : 1. l 2 .

3. 4.

2.1 Definition of strnd~rds

A survey of the tolerances prescribed by the various railway systems shows that tolerances have been categorized in different forms Some of the widely used track geometry standards definitions are as under

Within each band, the individual parameters were to be examined and studied. From repeated recordings, trends in deteriorations were to be studied to pre plan the action before entering the band widths between 50 to 36 and below 36. These instructions were circulated along with technical report TM-I I issued by RDSO in March 1997.

Band width of TGl TGI> 80 >50 < = 80 -- >36 <= 50 < 36

i) New track tolerances

Maintenance requirement of track No Maintenance Need based Maintenance Planned Maintenance Urgent Maintenance

This is the highest level of track geometry that can be achieved on a new or relayed track with new material. These standards are useful for controlling the quality of track renewals.

ii) Maintenance tolerances

These are the standards to which the track should be brought after maintenance. The maintenance tolerances are lower than the new track tolerances and the gap between the two increases with the passage of time as the maintainability of track goes down.

iii) Index or planning for maintenance tolerances

These are the tolerances at which planning for maintenance should be undertaken These standards are somewhat better than service tolerances.

iv) Service tolerances:

These are the standards up to which the track parameters may vary in time during service. These are the limiting standards that can be permitted in the track at any time for maximum permissible speed to have the minimum riding comfort. They always have certain margin of safety from the conditions of derailment or fracture of any component of vehicle or track. The track should be attended as soon as these limits are reached.

v) Slow down tolerances

These are the standards at which the permissible maximum speed should be reduced by imposing speed restrictions.

vi) Safety tolerances

These are the limits beyond which dangerous or unsafe conditions arise for the movement of rolling stocks. The unsafe conditions not only depend upon the condition of track, but also on the type of vehicle, their riding characteristics and maintenance standards. The matter of safety tolerances has been discussed in various meetings in the past and it has been opined that track geometry standards are very different from the tolerances for individual track components. The manufacturing and wear tolerances are already laid down for various permanent

C . 0 way components, but it would not be possible to draw any limits upto which track tolerances could be permitted. Unlike the case of rolling stock, which is largely assembly of shop manufactured components, for which limiting sizes a n d g clearances can be specified readily, the drawing up of limits of track irregularities, infringement of which would result in derailments, is not possible. Because of the very variable limits that could be permissible under different conditions of unevenness, alignment, type of rolling stocks and speeds, it is not practicable to determine any specific demarcation between safe and unsafe condition because the interaction of the track and the rolling stock is so intimately and complexly connected, that the derailment may be the result of the cumulative effect of a series of minor irregularities also. The factors governing the unsafe conditions are so variable and indeterminate that none of the railway systems in the world

have laid down safety tolerances While the safety tolerances of track cannot be codified or described as hard and fast rule, yet workable standards can be evolved which would correspond to recommendations or good practice based upon ride comfort.

2.2 Studies regarding Track Geometry Standards

2.2.1 Tolerances as per report no. C-58 (1 968)

The Amsler track recording car. imported in 1964 was used to collect track geometry data over various routes. About 114 kilonleters of data representing good, average and poor sections were processed to obtain cumulative frequency distribution (CFD) for different track geometry parameters. Service tolerance was fixed at a level, which corresponded to the mean + 2SD of the population on the CFD plot and a systematic maintenance tolerance was fixed at the 50% level of the CFD plot. The table below shows these standards as recommended in the RDSO report no. C-58.

.- Table- I

Toleranccs recommended in RDSO report No. C-58 Parameter

-. . Track Gauge

a) Sbaight track

I I

The standards prescribed in report no C-58 were based on existing track quality as achieved in the tield without considering the vehicle ride To account for vehicle ride, detailed studies were undertaken in 1967-68 at the time of introduction of Rajdhani Express on New Delhi-Howrah route. New set of tolerances were prescribed which were based on track geometry and vehicle parameters as under: i) Unevenness and primary spring deflection ii) Unevenness and vertical acceleration iii) Alignment and lateral forces

Unevenness (on 3.6 m chord) I - + 4 m n ~

Superelevation on curves) Tmist (on 3.6 m base) Alignment (on 7.2 m chord)

a) Straight track b) Curved track

Systematic maintenance tolerance

- + 3 mm

- + 8 ~nm

Limiting service tolerance

- 4 t o + 12mm b) Cunsed track - 3 to + 5 mm

Variation of gauge in a section as 6 mm

V )

2.2.2 Standards as per report no. C&M-I (1969) 0

-

- +I mnlln~

+ I .5 mm - + 2.0 n1m

I a; :,i;+m12 mm , Variation of gauge in a section

Cross lcvcl (variation in I - +6mm 1 5 m -

- + 2 m d m -.

- + 3 mni - +5mm -

k CU 0.

iv) Alignment and lateral acceleration v) Cant deticiency and onloff loading vi) Cant deficiency and lateral forces

The table below shows the tolerances as recommended in RDSO's repon number C&M-1

- - +

a. On straight and curves h. On transitions

Alignment (7.5 m chord) a) On straight track b) On curves

* As an immediate heginnirig,/or the introdrction of higher ,speed, these 1irnit.s mny he rela.red upto 10 mm in general and 15 mm,for isolared locations.

lsolated Location 10 mm

Parameters Unevenness* (3.5 m chord) Twist (3 5 m base)

Gauge and Cross level

2.2.3 Para 607(2) of IRPWM (CS-45)

General 6 mm

2.0 mmlm 1.0 mmlm

5 mm - +5 mm over average

The C&M-I tolerances were included in Indian Railway Permanent Way Manual (IRPWM) 1986 by advance Correction Slip No 45 (CS-45) to paragraph 607(2) The same are as under

3.5 mmlm 2.1 mmlm

10 mm +7 mm over

versine No special

specifications

- - - . . - . -- - - Tolerances recommended in RDSO repon -. Yo C&I\l-I

average versine No special

specifications

Parameters I General 1 Isolated locations (not

Twist (3.5 m base) a) On straight and curves b) On transitions Alignment (7.5 m chord) - a) On straight track b) On curves

/ exceeding 10 per km)

2.0 mmlm 3.5 mmlm 1.0 mmlm

Unevenness (3 5 m chord)

5 mm 10 mm + 7 mm over average + 5 mm over , - -

10 mm 15 mm

Gauge F-- average versine

specification NO special

versine NO special

specification Maximum limits as per

Cross level No special tolerance limits

paragraph 224(2)(e) No special tolerance

limits

2.2.4 Tolerances in Standard Deviation form (59" TSC)

i) Based on more trials in 1985 and 1986 in which the vehicle ride of locomotive and freight wagons were correlated with track geometry parameters measured by TRC, tolerances were worked out for various types of rolling stock at different speeds. The geometrical tolerances, in standard deviation form, were set in relation to ride criteria The acceptable limits of the ride index were laid down as under

The tolerances were worked out in the form of standard deviation for various rolling stocks at different speeds. Following tolerances were prescribed with normal limits of peaks as 5*SD and attention to all peaks above 3*SD value.

Service Limits Urgent Maintenance

or Maximum off loading 90% at spring level - whichever is critical.

Coach 3.50 3.75

Table-5 Standard Deviation form of Tolerances (59'h TSC)

LO ii) Track Geometry Standards for new relaying have been laid down as under: 0

Table-6

New Track (Relaying) Standards

Train Stock

Passenger

Passenger

Freight

I Parameter I SD Value (in rnm) I

Locomotive 4.00 4.25

Unevenness on 3.6 m chord Unevenness on 9.6 m chord Twist on 3.6 m base Gauge, sleeper to sleeper variation 1 0 0 Ali nment on 7.2 n~ chord 1.50

Wagon 4.50 4.75

Speed

> l I0 kmph to 130

0.

k~nph <I00 k~nph

Typc of tolcrance

Urgent rnaintenancc Plan maintenance DTM maintenance Urgcnt maintenance Plan maintenance DTM maintenance Urgent maintenancc Plan ma~~itenance DTM maintenance

SD (mm)

2.4 3.6 3.0 2.4 4.5 3.4 . 2.3 .

Short Chord

2.4 4.2 3.8 3.3 4.5 3.4 2.3

UN 3.6 3.6 3.0

Long chord AL 7.2 3.0 2.8

2.3 3.6 2.9 2.3

TW X 6 3.8 3.4

UN 9.6 6.2 5.5

Gauge

3.6 2.9

2.5 3.0 2.8 2.5

4.8 7.4 6.5 5.5

OI CU

2.2.5 Track lavine standards as per IRPWM

Para 316 of lRPWM prescribes laying standards of track geometry as good practice. These are for; primary renewals and to be measured in floating condition after 3 months of raising the speed to normal.

(a) (b)

(c)

(d) (e) ( f )

On curves of Radius more than 600 m on 20 M. Chord. Variation over theoretical versines

1 1 / reference to approved longitudinal 1 I I

2 mm. 2 2 mm

2 mm

Gauge Expansion gap

Joints

Spacing of sleepers Cross level Alignment

+ 5 m m -

(g) , Longitudinal level

Sleeper to sleeper variation Over average gap worked out by recording 20 successive gaps Low joints not permitted High ioints not more than

2.2.6 Transmark Report

- .

Squareness of joints on straight With respect to theoretical spacing To be recorded on every 4"' sleeper On straight on I0 M. Chord

On curves of Radius less than 600 nl on 20 M. Chord. Variation over theoretical versines Variation in longitudinal level with

I I 1 sections.

A consultancy project was taken up with MIS Transmark of U.K. by Railway Board in 1991 to assist lndian Railways in setting revised track geometry standards for different speed ranges. MIS Transmark submitted second stage report in 1997 containing the recommendations on various track geometry standards. Subsequently, a Committee was nominated by RDSO to study this rn report and give consolidated recomn~endations for adoption on Indian Railways. 0-

123 These recommendations were made based on second stage report received from 0 M/s Transmark and are contained in the Research Report No. R-82. Both these reports have been referred in relevant paragraphs.

+I0 mm - + 20 mm - + 3 m m - + 2 mm

- + 10 mm + 50 mm 1

J

2.3 Vehicle RidetAcceleratio~~ Standards of Indian Railways

l'he final aim of setting track geometry standards is to provide a standard ride for - - rolling stock (passengers). Therefore, initially the acceptable ride standards in terms of ride index/RMSg/acceleration peaks are required to be set The Criteria

Committee (3rd) of RDSO has laid down various parameters of ride and acceleration criteria, which should be met with. Norms in brief are as under:

i The variation in vertical and lateral wheel loads should not reach levels where the wheel can derail by mounting the rail. The derailment coefficient found in the form of ratio between the lateral force (Hy) and instantaneous wheel load (Q) continuously over a period of 1/20th second should not exceed 1.

. . 11. The magnitude of lateral forces lasting for more than 2 meters should not exceed

Prud Homme's limit for ensuring lateral stability oftrack.

. . . 111 The oscillation of the vehicle on track should be such that the passengers travel in

generally satisfactory level of comfort The human body response to vibration is dependent on the frequency of vibration On Indian Railways, ride index is calculated after applying the factors for various ranges of frequency. The following values of ride index and accelerations have been laid-down as per recommendations contained in the Criteria Committee (3"1) report

7 Table - 8 1 -

As per Criteria Committee (3rd)

Stock

Coachcs

Locomotivcs Wagons Break down

3.0 Track Geometry Measurement on lndian Railways N 0.3

TI The upgraded track recording cars (TRCs) of lndian Railways are based on 0. Lo inertial system of measurement. The body of the vehicle is used as inertial mass a

measuring the track profile as displacement from this mass. The alignment is also measured by similar method, but the connection between rail and vehicle body is measured by a system of feelers. The system is sensitive to the speed of the vehicle. The effect of very long wavelengths is removed by using speed dependent spatial filters. The raw track geometry recording data of vertical profile is converted into versines on two chords i.e. 3.6 meters & 9.6 meters for unevenness and that of alignment is converted into versine on 7.2 meters chord. The versine-based system has the advantage of being directly related to the

crane Dcpartmcntal vehiclcs

3.75 4.25 4.25

Ride Index

4.25

Prcferablc 3.25

Acceleration

DMU) 4.00 4.50 4.5

Limiting 3.30 - -

(4.0 for EMU &

4.5

Lateral

0.30 g 1 0.35 g Not spccified

1 0.5 g

Preferable 0.30 g

Vertical

0.30g 1 0.35g Not specified

0.5 g

0.55 g

Limiting 0.35 g

Preferable 0.30 g

Limiting 0.35 g

-

0.6 g 0.55 g

-

0.6 g

measurements from the track and the system has been in use on Indian Railways for more than 3 decades satisfactorily for the speeds prevalent on system

3 2 The TRCs provide the standard deviation of track irregularity for every 200 meters of track for all the parameters In addition, worst 8/10 peaks or defect exceedences in a kilometer for all the parameters are also provided

3.3 The upgraded track recording cars (Phase-11) also provided ride index vertical and ride index lateral for every 200-meter stretch. The worst 8/10 acceleration peak exceedences for a kilometer are also provided for vertical and lateral acceleration

4.0 Methodology adopted to evolve Track Geometry Standards

4 1 For economical maintenance of track, it is required that the track is neither under maintained nor over maintained To achieve this objective, geometry standards have to be different for different speeds of trafficlroutes, as maintaining high level of geometry on low speed routes will not be an economically viable decision Therefore, in view of the prevalent speeds on Indian Railways, following speed bands are considered appropriate

i . Upto 75 kmph (575 kmph) (for branch line sections) . . 11. More than 75 and upto 110 kmph (>75 & 51 I0 kmph) (for main line

sections) i i i . More than l I0 kmph and upto 130 kmph (>I10 & 5130 kmph) (for high

speed routes)

4.2 Regular track geometry recording of Indian Railways is done using the track recording cars, which are ICF all coil coaches The recording speed normally ranges from 36/50 kmph to 100/110 kmph depending upon the TRC. For the purpose of this study, the geometry and ride data of these cars is being considered For speeds beyond 110 kmph linear relationship between RUSD and speed is assumed The recomn~endations of Transmark & R-82 have also been referred for working out the tolerances for different track parameters

4.3 For aniving at the relationship between Rl (V), Rl (L) and the different track geometry parameters, graphs are plotted as under:

. . 11. . . . 111.

iv. v. vi.

vii. viii.

ix. x.

xi.

RI (V) vs. SD of unevenness (average of left and right rail on 3.6m and 9.6m chords) cu

m Rl (V) and RI (L) vs. twist (3.6m and 4.8m base) O.

Lo R1 (L) vs. alignment (average of left and right rail on 7.2ni and 9.6m chords) a Acceleration (V) vs. unevenness peaks Acceleration (V) vs. twist peaks Acceleration (L) vs. alignment peaks Acceleration (L) vs, gauge peaks SD (UN) vs. max. peak value of UN in the block SD (AL) vs. max. peak value of AL in the block SD (TW) vs, max. peak value of TW in the block SD (G) vs. max. peak value of G in the block

4.4 These graphs are prepared for different track sections and for different speed bands and the relationship equation is obtained. From these, the SD values for different parameters corresponding to specified ride index values are arrived at.

4.5 The maintainability of the above SD threshold values is checked on majority of routes of Indian Railways by plotting cumulative frequency diagrams for the different track geometry parameters and checking for the percentage track, which can be maintained as per the above limits

4.6 For arriving at the values for peak exceedences, which need to be attended. following two options were tried: - (i) At present, 8/10 peaks of verticals and lateral acceleration each are recorded in

a kilometer. Corresponding to these acceleration peaks the defects of unevenness, alignment, twist and gauge were identified and tabulated from the TRC results. Graphs were prepared for different sections between acceleration and track parameter peaks. Regression analysis was done between two values and relationship equation was obtained. Hoael~er, the correlatim, befiveer~ ~~erticaI/la/eral accelerntioti peaks and d(ffertv1t track parameters wcrs fol~rld to he exlrenlely poor. Typical graphs of MGS-NDLS section are placed at Annexure-5. So this method cannot be employed for laying tolerances in form of peaks.

(ii) Graphs were plotted between SD of various track parameters and maximum peak value in that block for different routes. From these graphs, peak exceedence values corresponding to SD (tmck parameter) values for RI 3.25 and 3.5 were arrived at.

Analysis of different routes of Indian Railways was done to arrive at minimum, maximum, mean and most frequent peak exceedence values for different track parameters. From this analysis, the maintainability of peak standards as checked.

4 7 Linear regression has been adopted to establish relationship equation between two values. Regression with two and higher degree polynomials was also tried. However there was no appreciable change in the correlation coefficient. Table showing comparison between correlation coefficients as obtained with two- degree polynomial and a straight line is placed at annexure 6

Therefore linear regre.~siot~ has beet1 adopted

4.8 Definition of standards

It is not realistic to have one level for the standards There is always a time lag between recording of irregularities and subsequent maintenance operations and there are stretches of track under maintenance with very poor quality where trains may run at lower speeds. It is possible to set many levels of standards based on vehicle ride, average condition, maintenance limits, speed, etc. For Indian

Railways, following two levels are considered appropriate for track geometry standards in Standard Deviation form.

i . Prioritv-l level

Any track at or below this level should be maintained urgently. As 5 to 10% of the track is under maintenance, requiring urgent maintenance or under lower speed restrictions, normally 90% track should be better than this level, based on cumulative frequency distribution

. . 11. Priority-I1 level

This is the normal level at which maintenance should be planned. Maintenance may not be required if the rate of deterioration is low. Track below this level may require planned maintenance if it is known to deteriorate rapidly.

Standards for isolated peak exceedences and manual measurements are required for spot attention to track and avoiding unsafe situations frorn developing. 7hese 1e1~el.s are t~o t for plannit?g, but are a means of control only. Priority-I and Priority-I1 levels have been proposed for peak tolerances.

5.0 Discussion of analysed data and laying down of standards

5.1 Vertical - Unevenness

Perturbations in vertical plane directly affect the riding of rolling stock directly as wheel is always in touch with rail in vertical direction. For unevenness, standards for SD and spot exceedences are to be laid down.

5.1.1 Standard Deviation for Unevenness

a) As per various studies, following has been recommended in various reports of IR.

6 b) Studies were done by M/s Transmark which submitted its report with o, recommendations. Subsequently. a committee of Directors of RDSO went Lo through the Transmark report and made additional recommendations in report R- 0 82 These are summarized on the next page.

I Track Geometry Standards for Versines (SD in mm) 1

c) The regression analysis of average SD (UN) of lefl and right rail on short and long chord vs. RI (V) was done for different routes. Data, where correlation coefficient is less than 0.5 has not been considered. For the rest of the data, coefficient of correlation for short chord and long chord varies from 0.509 to 0.76 and 0.607 to 0.901 respectively. The best fit line was drawn in the regression plots and the average SD values corresponding to R1 of 3.25 and 3.50 both for short chord and long chord were calculated from the best fit line equation. Correlation coeficient and SD values for various parameters corresponding to N(V) of 3.25 & 3.5 for different speeds and routes have been tabulated in Annexure-1 . For unevenness. these are summarized below.

8 9 10

MCT-MTJ NAD-BPL ERS-TVC

2.70

3.53

2.83

2.83

3.35 3.37 3.28

4.30

3.30

3.40

3.96 4.06

d) To ascertain the maintainability and achievability of standards in field, cumulative frequency diagram for block wise average SD for different parameters were plotted for different routes. The values of SD corresponding to 5. 10, 50, 80. 90, 95 and 100-percentile track are tabulated in Annexure-2. For unevenness, these are summarized below.

- Table-1 3

High Speed Routes I

I-Iigh Speed Routes CFD TABLE FOR UN-9.6 m

e) From the above, standards for unevenness on 3.6 m chord and 9.6 m chord can be proposed for routes having speed upto I10 kmph. The standards for routes in speed group of >I 10 & <I30 kmph have been proposed assuming an approximately linear relationship between RI/SD of track irregularity & speed. Recommendations made in 'Transmark report, R-82 report, recotnmendations of 59th TSC and the SD of unevenness achievable in different speed bands have also been considered.

The existing standards have not been relaxed - although the specified Ride Index is being achieved with relaxed standards- and the standard Cr, deviations presently being achieved in different speed bands have been 2 considered for laying standards with respect to unevenness. From the above: ~r, following standards are proposed for UN-3.6 & UN-9.6 for use on IR. 0

I Unevenness Standards (SD)

SPEED upto-75

>755110 >110c130 - -~

2.00 I I 2.60

- - - - .. . UN-3.6m Priority-ll I Priority-l

UN-9.6m

3.00 Priority-ll

6.70 6.50 5.10

3.80 Priority-l

8.00 7.40 6.20

3.00 3.60 -

5.1.2 Spot peak exceedences for unevenness

a) Individual peak exceedences are important from safety point of view as even one large value peak can contribute to unsafe situations. Therefore, isolated peaks require monitoring and spot attention as control and remedial measure As per various studies, following has been recommended in various reports of IR.

Table- 1 8 Report ( l'ype I Unevenness peak exceedences. C-58 / Svstematic / - 4 to +4 mm (3.6 m chord)

C&M-I (3.5 111 chord) (Speeds > I00 kmph) Para 607(2) of IRPWM (3 5 m chord) (Speed >I 00 kmph)

Maintenance Tolerances Liniiting Service l'olerances General Isolated

b) Studies were done by MIS Transmark and subsequently a Committee of Directors of RDSO made additional recommendations in Report No. R-82. These are summarized as under:

(3 6 m chord)

- 8 to +8mm (3 6 m chord)

6 mm (to start with I0 mm) I0 mm (to start with 15 mm)

General Isolated

10 mm 15 mm (upto 10 peaks in a km).

0\ c3

- - - - . . - - Table-1 9

Vertical (Max. versine mm)

0. 1 1 ) 0

c ) Graphs were plotted between SD(UN) values of the block vs. maximum peak exceedence value of that block for different routes. From these graphs, peak exceedence values corresponding to the SD(UN) values for RI 3.25 and 3.5 were arrived at. These are tabulated in Annexure-3. The summarized values for unevenness are tabulated on the next page.

Speed ( k m ~ h ) 0-100

100-120 120-140 140-160

UN-3.6 UN-9.6 Urgent

12 12

-

Urgent 22 22

~ ~ 20 16

Maximum 15 I5

-

Maximum 25 25 23 20

d 0. lr)

d) Analysis of different routes of Indian Railways was done to arrive at minimum. 0 maximum, mean and most frequent peak exceedence values for different parameters and is placed at Annexure-4. Summarised values for unevenness are tabulated on next page.


17 .

25 26

17 17 19

2 1 15 -

2 1 A ~

- .

29 27 3 6

I0 26 32

29 22

3 0 - -

. . . -

29.0 15.9 14.5 KAN-SNT 4 22.0 11.25 10.5 I I 34 24.6 22.5 JU-MJ LJN-STP

e) From the above, standards for unevenness on 3.6 m chord and 9.6 m chord can be proposed for routes having speed upto 110 kmph. The standards for routes in speed group of >I 10 & 5130 kmph have been proposed assuming an approximately linear relationship between RI/SD value & speed. Recommendations of Transmark report, R-82 report, existing standards-as given in paragraph 607(2) of IRPWM and the limits corresponding to three times and five times the standard deviation for Priority-I have been considered for laying the peak tolerances. The following standards are proposed for UN-7.2 and UN-9.6 for use on IR.

Y T? 0\

3 3

L r ) a -. Table-23

Unevenness standards (Peaks) Speed

Upto 75 >75 51 10 > 1 1 0 ~ 1 3 0

12.5 12.5

6.7 6.5

U N Peak - 3.6 m Priority-11 Priority-1-~'

12 10 8

UN Peak - 9.6 m

5.5 6.5

18 15 13

Priority-I1 24 22 20

Priority-I 28 25 23

6 5.5

20 24.5

11.0 12.6

9.5 1 8 1

5.1.3 New Track (Relaving) Standards for unevenness:

a) Track geometry standards are very important while laying new track i.e. primary renewal, new laying, gauge conversion, etc. The new track standards depend upon achievability and maintainability of standards in field. The standards prescribed at present are as under:

1 UN (9,6 m chord) 1 2 5 mm 1 Para 3 16 of LRPWM

Table-24 59Ih TSC Standards

SD UN (3.6 m chord) 1.2 mm

Longitudinal level (Variation with reference to approved longitudinal section)

b) From achievability and maintainability point of view. various sections were analysed and cumulative frequency diagram prepared. The values of 5, 10, etc , percentile track are tabulated in Annexure-2. These are further sumrnarised and discussed in para-5.1.1 Minimum, mean, mode exceedence values are tabulated in Annexure-4 and discussed earlier in paragraph 5 1.2. Based on above the

250 mm

Low joints 1 High joints not more than

following new track standards are proposed.

Not permitted 2 mm

5.2 Lateral - Alignment nl w

Although, the wheel flange is not in continuous contact with the gauge face of Lr, rail, the alignment is important from ride point of view For alignment, standards a

for SD and spot exceedences are to be laid down for maintenance and for new track

.~ .

Table-25 New rack Standards - Unevenness

Primary Renewal .

Parameters UN (3.6 M chord) UN (9.6 M chord)

SD (mm) 1.2 2.5

Max. 'Peak (mm) 5 12

j 2 . 1 Standard DeLliation forA!i- l a) As per various studies, following has been recommended in various reports of IR.

..

b) Studies were done by Mls 'lransmark, subsequent to which a Committee of Directors of RDSO went through the Transmark Report and made additional recommendations in Report R-82 These are summarized below.

Table-26

c) The regression analysis of average SD of left and right rail alignment on short and long chord vs. R1 (I,) was done for different routes. Data, where correlation coefficient is less than 0.5 has not been considered. For the rest of the data. coefficient of correlation for short chord and long chord varies froni 0.50 to 0.78 and from 0.507 to 0.75 respectively. The best-fit line was drawn in the regression m plots and the average SD values corresponding to RI of 3.25 and 3.5 for short and long chord were calculated froni the best-fit line equation. SD values and a

V, correlation coefficients corresponding to R1 3.25 & 3 .5 for different routes and speeds are tabulated in Annexure- I . For alignment, these are summarized on the nexl page.

~l';ol-d = 7.2 m Chord = 9.6 m -7 - I ~ l a n n e d j ~ r ~ e n t DTM

2 . X . . 2.5 . . .- 2.8

Planned Urgent - <

1 3.0 7.0

2.8 2.8 4.0

+ 3.0 3.0

-- 5.0 i

Table-31

CFD TABLE FOR AL-7.2 rn

e) From the above, standards for alignment on 7.2 m chord and 9.6 m chord can be proposed for routes having speed upto 110 kmph. The standard for routes in speed group of >I 10 & 5130 kmph have been proposed assuming an approximately linear relationship between N/SD value & speed. Recommendations of Transmark report, report no. R-82, existing standards laid down by 59'h TSC and the SD of alignment achievable in different speed bands have also been considered. The existing standards have not been relaxed in cases where the specified ride index is being achieved with relaxed standards - and the standard deviations presently being achieved in different speed bands have been considered for laying standards with respect to alignment. , Following standards are proposed for AL-7.2m and AL-9.6m for use on IR.

5 2 . 2 S ~ o t Peak Exceedences for Alignment

. - Table-34 Alignment Standards (SD)

a) As per various studies, following have been recommended in various reports of IR.

Curved C-58 Systematic k1.5 mm +2.0 mm (7.2 m chord) maintenance

AL - 9.6 m Speed Priority-I1 I Priority-] 1 Priority-IT 1 Priority-I

AL - 7.2 m

tolerance. C&M- I General +5 mm over (7.5 m chord) average versines (Speed >I00 +7 mm over

tolerance. Limiting service 1 53.0 mm - +5.0 mm

Paragraph 607(2) of IRPWM (7.5 m chord) (Speed >I00 kmph & 5 140 kmph)

General

Isolated (upto ~. I0 peaks in a km)

5 mm

1 Omm -

average versine. Total change in versine from chord to chord should not exceed 10 mm.

average versines k5 mm over

average versines +7 mm over

h w 0. Lr) 0

'I. f.2

& fl

r :p . - *

. .- 4 -

b) Studies were done by MIS Transmark and subsequently a review of the report was done by a committee of Directors of RDSO, which made additional recommendations in Report No R-82 These are summarized below.

c) Track recording results of MTJ-MCT section were analysed for the period March 2000 to December 2002 in Technical Report no. TM-55. It was concluded in this report that "There is vast difference in the maintenance requirement worked out on the basis of SDlindices based track standards and peak based track standards. Maintenance requirements worked out on the basis of SD based standards fall in the range of 9% to 23% where as on the basis of peak-based standards, this falls in the range of 47% to 73%. The main contributing parameters for increase in maintenance requirements worked out on the basis of peak-based tolerances are gauge and alignment. This indicates that the peak based tolerances for gauge and alignment are very tight and there is a need to review them".

This conclusion has been taken in view while laying peak tolerances for alignment.

Table-36 I Alignment (Max, versine tnm)

Speed (kmph) 0- 100

100- 120 120-140 140- 160

d) Graphs were plotted between SD (AL) value of the blocks vs, maximum peak exceedence value of that block for different routes. From these graphs, peak exceedence values corresponding to the SD value for RI 3.25 and 3.5 were arrived at. These are tabulated in Annexure-3. For alignment, these are summarized below.

. Table-37 AL Peaks for RI = 3.25

AL-72m Urgent I Maximum

16 I 20 16 I 20 13 . .. 17 10 15

AL-96m

section

Urgent 18 18

16 1 12

AL Peaks - 7.2 1 AL Peaks - 9.6 71-80 1 81-90 / 91-100 1101-110 ! 71-80 I 81-90 191-100 1101-1 10

Maximum 22 22 20 17

1 ERS-TVC - < -

d) Analysis of different routes of Indian Railways was done to amve at the minimum, maximum, mean and most frequent peak exceedence values and are in Annexure-4. For alignment, these are summarized below.

ERS-TVC LKO-MB MB-LKO LKO-BSB

! ASN-MGS MGS-ASN KYN-PA 3.0 22 8.8 7 5 21 10.5 1 0 (3 PA-KYN 5 20 11.6 8 *.f SC-WD 3.5 4 19 10.0 8 0.

WD-SC 3.0 22 4 19 9.9 8 - Ln 0

WD-RU 2.5 21

JU-MJ

2 2.0 3.0 4.0 3.0 3.0 --

32 I X 23 18 26 30

6.1 1 7 ! - I I

8.1 9.6 14.1 8.6 8.6

6 7 I6 7 8

2 1 2 1 23 21 18

A

3 5 6 4 3 . .. ..

5.6 6.7 7.7 6.9 7.8 ~-

1 5 5 6 6 5

e) From the above, standards for alignment on 7.2 m chord and 9.6 m chord can be proposed for routes having speed upto 110 kmph. The standards for routes i n speed group of >I10 & <I30 kmph can be proposed assuming an approxin~ately linear relationship between Rl/SD of track irregularity & speed. Recommendations of Transmark report, R-82 report, existing standards-as given in para 607(2) of IRPWM and the limits corresponding to three times and five times the standard deviation for Priority-[ have also been considered for laying the peak tolerances. , Following standards are proposed for AL-7.2m & AL-9.6m for use on R.

5.2.3 New Track (Relavincl) standards for Alignment:

-Alignment Standards (Peaks)

a) Following has been prescribed on IR

Speed I

Upto 75 >75 < I 10 >I10 5130

i) On straight on 10 m chord + 2 m m I - I

AL - 9.6 n~

I AL (7.2 M) I AL (9.6 m)

Para 3 16 of IRPWM

Priority-ll 20 18 16

AL - 7.2 m

1.50 I I

.

Peaks (mm)

Priority-I 26 22 20

Priority-11

.-. 12 10 9

ii) On curves of R>600 ni on 20 m chord - variation over theoretical versine.

0 1:->

b) The values of SD (AL) corresponding to 5, 10, 50, 80, 90, 95 & 100 percentile O,

track have already been discussed in earlier paragraph 5.2.1. Minimum, mean, 0 most frequent peak exceedence values are tabulated in Annexure-4 and discussed 0

earlier in paragraph 5.2.2. Considering these, standards for new relaying are proposed on the next page.

Priority-I 20 16 15

5 mm

1 iii) On curves of R<600 m on 20 m chord ; - variation over theoretical versine. 10 mm

5.3 Twist:

New Track Standards - Alignment I

The relative unevenness of let? and right rail gets reflected in the form of twist parameter It is controlled by the standards of unevenness and a uniforni cross level difference between the two rails reflects in zero twist. The twist parameter is important from ride as well as onloff loading point of view.

5.3.1 Standard Deviation for Twist:

Peak (mm) 6 12

a) As per various studies, following has been recommended in various reports of IR.

SD (mm) 1 5 2 5

Primary Renewal

b) Studies were done by MIS l'ransmark and subsequently a Committee of Directors of RDSO went through the Transmark Report and made additional recommendations in Report R-82 These are summarized below:

Parameters AL (7 2 m chord) AL (9 6 m chord)

R-82: Standard for Twist 3 6 n~ (SD in-m-1 k m p h ? & g e n t maintenance I Short term Long term

The regression analysis of SD (TW) on short and long base vs. RI (V) and RI (L) was done for different routes. Data, where correlation coeficient is less than 0.5 has not been considered. For the rest of the data. coefficient of correlation for short base varies from 0.509 to 0.72 for RI (V). The correlation between SD (TW) and RI (L) was found to be less than 0.5 for most of the data. Therefore this data has not been used for derivation of track tolerances for twist. For long base, the coefficient of correlation varies from 0.500 to 0.73 1 for RI (V). The coefficient of correlation between SD (TW) and RI(L) was found to be less than 0.5 for most of the data and has therefore not been taken in consideration for derivation of track

<60 60-80 80-100

tolerances The best fit line was drawn in the regression graphs and the average SD values corresponding to RI of 3 25 and 3 5 both for short and long base were calculated from the best fit line equation and are tabulated in Annexure-l Summarised values for twist are tabulated below

From SD (TW-3.6) vs RI 01)

- level 4.5

- .- 4.3 4. I

maintenance level 3.7 3.5 3.4

8 9 10

maintenance level 3.0 2.9 2.8


4.18 4.40

-

4.52 3.84 4.85

4.99 1 4.87 3.47 1 -

- I -

5.15 5.24

-

5.29 4.68 5.96

5.91 4.24

-

5.82

To ascertain the achievability and maintainability of standards in field, cumulative frequency diagram for block wise SD (TW) on both short and long base were plotted for different routes. The values of SD corresponding to 5, 10, 50, 80, 90, 95 and 100-percentile track are tabulated in Annexure-2. For twist. these are summarized below

. .

. . . . . . -

Other Routes

CFD TABLE FOR lW-4.8 m

From the above, standards for twist on 3.6 111 base and 4.8 m base can be proposed for routes having speed upto 1 10 kmph. The standards for routes in speed group of > I 10 & <I30 kmph have been proposed assuming an approximately linear relationship between RIISD value & speed. Recommendations of Transmark report,R-82 report, existing standards laid down by 59"' TSC and the SD of twist achievable in different speed bands have been considered. From above, following standards are proposed for TW-3.6 and TW-4.8 for use on 1R.

Table-52 : Twist Standards (SD) ,

Soeed T W - 3 6 r n T W - 4 8 m

5.3.2 $01 Peak Exceedences - Twist

a) As per various studies, following has been recommended in various reports of 1R

Para 607(2) of IRPWM (3.5 m base) (Speed >I 00

kmph)

- . Table-53

Report Type I - - - -- Twist Standards

1- ,- curves. General 2.0 mm/m (7 mm) on 1.0 mtnlnl (3.5 mm)

straight - . . R: -- - curves. - . - on transition. Isolated X 5 mm/m (12.25 2.1 m d m (7.35

mm) on straight and tnm) on transition.

I I curves. 1 -. I

Curved track

~ - - -

1.0 mmlm (3.5 mm) on transition.

2.1 mm/m (7.35 mm) on transition.

C-58 (3.6 m base)

~~

b) Studies were done by MIS Trat~smark and subsequently by Committee of Directors of RDSO which made additional recommendations i n report no R-82 These are sunlmarized below

.- -- -- - -

Table-54 Twist (Max twist mm)

Straight track Systematic I; - t l mmlm maintenance (i 3.6 mm) tolerance. Limiting ! i- 2 mm/m setvice i (k7.2 mm) tolerance.

0.. c) Graphs were plotted between SD (TW) and maximum peak exceedence value of

that block for dtfferent routes Frotn these graphs, peak exceedence values 0 corresponding to SD (TW) values for R1 (V) of 3 25 and 3 5 were arrived at These are tabulated in Annexure-3 The summarized values for twist are tabulated on the nevt page

-~ ~ .

2.0 mmlm (7 mm) on straight R: curves. 3.5 tnndm (12.25

mm) o n straight and

C&M- I (3.5 m base) (Speed >I00 km!Jh)

Speed (kmph) 0-100 --

100- 120 120-140 140- 160

General

Isolated (upto 10 peaks in a

.~. TW - - 3.6 I TW - 4.8 Urgent

12 1 1 10 9

Urgent 14 13 12

- -

10

Maximum 15

~ - - . ~

14 13 I I

Maximum 17 -.

16 14 12

26 3 1 2 1

22 25 26 2 1 17 . -

ERS-TVC 24 .~ - . - -~ -

- -- - - -. - -- Tdblc-SO '

- 1

d) Analysis of differeni routes of Indian Railways was done lo arrive at the r, tninimum, tnaxin\um. mean and most frequent peak exceedence values. These are placed at Annexure-4. Sunimarised values for twist are tabulated on the next O' page.

0 0

- - -- Tw~s t Peaks for - RI(V) Section - r- Base - .; 6 n~

= 3 5 - 1

Base - 4 8 m 71-80

-- - [k@- BPL-Tim 17 -- - TKU-BPL NDLS-MGS / 20

81-90 / 91-100

- - - kmph !knyh 1‘2 - - - 2 1 - 28

71-80 101-110 kmph

- 18 25

81-90 91-100 i 101-110 kmph kmph kmph

- kmph I

. I , - , - ---I

27 1 I - 2 1 1 29 1 30

18 1 29 !

~ ~- ~-

Section TW Peak on 4.8 m chord

BPL-TKD- 3 12 TKD-BPL 3 MGS-ND1.S 3

MGS-HWH 3 7 1 3 17 1 7.9 HWH-MGS 7 4 23 10.4 MTJ-MCT t 2 21 7.9 MCT-MTJ 3 7.9 7 NAD-BPL 5 6 - 1 - ERS-TVC 3 18 i 7.8 i 8 '

LKO-MB 4.0 20.0 ( 8.5 7.0 1 20 10 MB-LKO 4.0 17.0 ! 7.0 4 7-1 , 9

L,KO-BSB 4.0 24.0 l O l / 8.0 8 23 13.9 14 ASN-MGS 3.0 29.0 I00 / 6.0 5 20 10 9 1 I

MGS-ASN 4.0 330 1 9.0 5 20 10.2 8 1,: t I KYTU-PA 1 5.0 23.0 9.0 6 21 13.4 -1 12 / PA-KYN 1 6.0 20 0 : I 1 4 10 0 8 22 14 4 13 ,

SC-WD 4.0 1 19.0 1 9.4 8.0 j 6 1 22 12.6 1 12 I

4 21 11.6 12 M'D-RU I

RU-WD --- --- 14 13 .2 i 3

JU-MJ 4 5.8 2 - ! , - - - -- I

1 I

e Frurl~ the above, standards Tor twist on 3.6 ni base and 3.8 m base can be proposed fvi- routes having speeds upto 110 kmph. The standard for routes in speed group of >I 10 & < I 30 kmph have been proposed assurning an apprositnately linear relationship between RllSD value & speed. Recommendations of l'ransniark repoi?, K-82 report, existing standards-as given in paragraph 607(2) of IRPWM and the limits corresponding to three times and t've times the standard deviation for I'riority-l have been considered for layi the peak tolerances. From above, following standards are proposed for TW-3.6 and T 4.8 for use on 1R.

d L O 0

Speed I Base - 3 6 - -- 1 Base - 4 8 Maximum Maximum (kmph) Urgent

I - - - . - --

15 -. . - - -- - 17

- - - 16 -4 --

14

<75 --.75 5 l lo

;I l o 5130

12 - -- - . - . I I - -- -- - - - -.

- 7

- 5.3..3 Track Renewal Standards Tor Twist

a) Following is prescribed at present.

- - - -. - - - ---

L-- -- Table-59 1

Twist Standards ----- 59 TSC Stands& i

I SD (m) I

I I

I Twist on 3.6 m base 1.75 I

ii) Para 3 16 of IRPWM Peaks (mm) - 4 I i / Cross level - To be recorded on every I

t 3 m m 1 4'" sleeper I (i .e 1.25 mm/m

: or 4.5 mm on 3.6 ni base) L - _ - _ - i ~.~

The values of SD (TW) corresponding to 5. 10. 50, etc. percentile track have already been discussed earlier in paragraph 5.3.1. Minimum, mean. most frequent values of twist peaks have been discussed earlier in paragraph 5.3.2. Considering thcsc track-rclaying standards for twist are proposcd as under.

7.- -- Table-69 i -_ - - _ _ _ _ - -- - - - - - --

' Track RelayingStandards -Twist 1 - - - .- -- . -. - - - - - . . - - -~~ ~ -

! SD(mm) Peak (nlm) / I'rimary Renewal T W ( 3 6 m ) 1.75 I _s

1 --E- TW (4.8 m) I 2.5 10 _ - - ---- -- --.--_I--- --- - -

The nominal gauge for BG track of Indian Railways is 1676 mm. I t is desirable to maintain generally uniform gauge rather than llaving frequent variations.

5 .41 Standard deviation Tor qa~ l re I

0. Uniformity of gauge over certain stretch is more important than actual value I )

0. of gauge. Description of parameter variation over a stretch is best described 1.n by "Standard Deviation". 0

a) As per various sludies, followi~lg has been reconiruended in var io~~s reports of l R . 1

b) As per available information from various world railways nothing is specified with respect to SD for gauge on BR, SNCF, DB, JNR and M R .

-- - .~ --- Tablc-6

c) The regression analysis of SD (G) vs. RI (L) was done for different routes. Coeflicient of correlation varies from 0.20 to 0.661 i n different speed ranges. A correlation coefficient above 0.5 was found only in four cases. This sho~r's a poor c:~~rrelnlion he/~tteen .'il.) ( ! [ ~ ( ' ( I I I ~ ( < : ( ? I I I ~ ride irrdex (l~iteral). Thus any conclusion tu fix tolerances for gauge on ride criterion will not be logical.

- Urgent

I maintenance -

3.6 3.6 3.6 3.6

Upto I00 kmph 2.3 2.9

TRC I - - - - - 1 . - - - - Transmark tN~thl&soecif ied. 1

1 1 I0 to 130 kn~ph TM-I I & Upto 105 kmph

Cumulative frequency diagranl Tor block wise SD (G) was plotted Tor 'A' routes and other routes. For 'A ' routes, 95% track falls in the SU range of 2.1 to 2.45 with a mean and SD of 2.34 and 0.12 respectively. For other routes, it falls in the SD range of 1.61 to 4.15 with a mean and SD of 2.78 atid 0.59. Based on these values, Priority-1 values can be fixed for two speed bands i.e. for speeds greater than 75 kmph and below I10 kmph and speeds greater than 110 kmph and less than 130 kmph. The Priority-11 values can be based on 80% levels of SD achievable. The values of SD corresponding to 5, 10. 50, 80. 90. 95 & 100 percentile track have been ~abulated below Trom Annesure-4.

-- - - -. - . - . - - - - - ---- - Table-62 1

--I CFD for Gauge (SD) 7

10%

adopted in 1 110 to 130 knivh 1 . i 2.9

. 2.3 -

50% ' 80% ' 90% / 95% / 100% -

2.9 2.9

0.80 0 90 1.30 , 1.70 2.00 2.30 1 - 4.0 BPL-TKD 0.80 0 8 5 1.30 1.80 2.10 2.40 4.8

, MTJ-MCT 0.65 4.4 I

5.2 5.2

I 2.45

e) From the above, standards for gauge have been proposed for routes having speeds greater than 75 and upto 1 10 kmph, and speeds greater than 1 10 kmph & less than 130 kmph. The standard for routes in speed group < 75 kmph can be proposed assuming an approximately linear relationship between RI/SD value & speed. and R-82 report. From above, following standards are proposed for Gauge for use on IR.

I .. . ~ ~~ . ~- - .. I Gauge Standards (SD) I Speed 1 Priority-11 T+ ! Priority-l

5 4 . 2 Spui Peak E ~ c e e d e f ~ ~ e b L~ur- G-ILKILI

a ) As per various studies, following has been recommended in various reports of IR.

i - - - -. . - - . - - - - - . - - - - - ---- T,IC,~;

I - -

- ~ t r a i r h t 1 - - - - - - - - - + - . - - . -- . -- Con,cd c-.:3 - +? mm t \ - - 3 1;i5 mn; I Systematic Maintenace 1 (Variation ofgauge in a (Variation of gauge in a ! Tolerlu~c~s si i t iot~ as 6 iii111) / section as I I i n~u) 1

! - - - - - - - - - - - - .

, Liniiling Service / -4 lo tl?, mni i -4 to + 12 mm i

1 Toicranccs I (Variat~on oiga~igc 111 a I ; (Variat~on of gaugc in a 1

sccrion . , 6 rnnt) -4 - - .- .2'? -,--- J-- sccrion as I I mm) C&M-I ( No special spec~ficat~on I No special specification Para 607(2) as per CS-45 ! No spcctal spec~fication. / No spec~ai spec~fication. to IRPWM-1986 Max. limits as per p a n

I - - -. -. - . - .- 224(2)ie). i I - - -

r~ara 224(2)(e) of ' It 1s practicc to work \vithin following toleranccs of / / IRPWM-19x6.

I 1 gauge. Pro\.ided generall! uniform gauge can bc I / n~an~~facturcd o\;cr !on:: Icngths. i

I (a) StraieJil I

i -6 to +6 mni

i (b) Cunes xith R:.350 m (<5") I

-6 mrn to + l 5 1111n (C) Cun:cs nith Rc350 m (>5") 1

; Uplo -20 mm. - J

b) On various world railways, as per available information, following has been prescribed with respect to gauge peaks:

- - - ~ - - -

Tablc-hh : + -- - --- - - - .. - . - - - - .- -. - ' Alncrican Kailronds (Federal Keglster lY9S) - -1 1, CGSS -1 - - - i G c F - 1 G ~ U ~ C 1- Call@ \%ariation (from 1 I or I - -- - - - - . - nominal or 1435 llllll.l , - - -- i Track r %tau - - 1 ~ a s s k n ~ i i t Min"n~uo ; MLY. - r - ~ i & - T Slack - ] I / I0 mpl~ t 3 X mnl I

I

I

t32 nnn

I

- - - - _ . _ . . _ ~ a h l e - 0 4

I A~~lcsicaii Rai;rwads (Fcdcsal RcgisIcr. - ---- 1998) ~- - /Class/-

7- Mas. speed I Gausc

I of ! I + .-:- non~in;~l of 1.435 mm. I

Track L- I*~K -T L s s e G c r M~IIIIIIUIII r Mas. I 'w I ~ l n c c / - - - 4.F ! ? 1 125 ~ I D I I 125 111~11 I JEC"-*I ! r u n ~ d ~ 0 ~ 1 ' I I ) 2 I 2 I 1 (1 454 itl t t l) 1 I .-+- --

Y I6U mph I 160 nlph I 4'8" 4.7 %" / - l i m l ~ i / +l:,min

I-. - - - -. .- - - 1 ~ r i t G h ~ a i l w a ~ s - - -. 7- ----

Class of I Speed L---

(huge i

I Track !' I Tight (nun) y a T ( "1;) -

I I 1.1 L2 i

1,l 1

. - -. - . . - .-t . - . - -. . . ! L . .A A ~ l ~ O t o 1 2 5 r n ~ 1 l i , -3 ii .

i ! ( I60 to 2U0 i;nYli) B

- - - I 75 to 99 niph I

I ~ (120to159kmpIi ) I 'I r?-- E 0 t o 7 4 n G h - J r - *-~ - q

I j (80 t" I 19iimph) t - .- -t x3-- : I----- I I D !

j I t;

i I

I I i 1 LI - Llndesirable but no immediate attention. i

L2 - lnl~lied~ate attention needed. I- - - - - - -. - . - -

---- - - -- I - - - -

~able-6g7, - -- - - .

- - - -- I Gauge

j t - - - - - - - . - - 4 - - , Finishing target value. I +2 mm

-4 to +6 mm -4 to +6 mm

t - - - - -

- 1 control. (200 kmph 70 limph) - ~ -

i

1

-3 i,, +lr 111111 (IJ.IO-I ~ i o rnm) sro~ncbil!? liner

I - _ I

and \' 100 k s ~ p h -30 rnlu at, secondaq i

rnnl rnntcnula and secondary lines. t - I

- < L 111111 ~ 7 5 ~ r n t ~ c 1.471 111) t - 2 n1111

,,.I . . . s . , n ! - 5 anini 11.4311 111) ', 5 inioi s~c~ptr \ ICSI than I n1111 1 - - - _ ~ c ~ j r ~ ~ o n he~ween 2 .;~ccpi.is less t h m I mw _ _ _ 1 - - 2 111111 wilh OPW mnteriills 1 -35 a(, lu 3 tn~m un , - ! ~ n m ultll old n>alcrialv i standard P.tiirc 1iiil.s

- \tcuucli'rl rlcu&wrr 1433 2 btil~. u;wh x:..rusr 117U il;tr. 1pc111118llblc JY, ~ i c t ~ ~ n hi.I~\.vta 2 ~ I ~ ~ p c ~ ~ - 2 111111

2 a,a, i rnlll I k c . : 1,13E

- -- 1,1111 - - -- - - - . -- .- . - I

I k l ~ v e z a 2 slcqwra -1 ,I,m ( \ ' 100 kmb) -4

2 rnm ( \ _ IOU knlh) I I

Vcrsud s ~ o c dc~~at tunr nt th cl i ird nL 213 m a '.= ,"..i*, 8 ,<v.. , " I

! 4 i L k - V ItWhnrl, 1 4 ' ' I " ,, I:,.,. ,iJl I+,,,, .",. v 11111 , I, I^,,!, , : . , 1

I '\. Wkmh / 1 143:-147u 1 i 5 m m

I (X, tracks when' tmck rccirditlg rnach is no1 "sod. !hi. t n r k e n w a l ~ $ s ~ c > b t Lent Iwliieeli 1132 and 1470

d! Analysis oTdiIl'eren1 r-uuirs V T IR \vab dolie to arrive at [he minini~rl~i. ~i iasirnu~~t , mean aild mode of peak e.~crede~ice balues (i\~itlexure-4) Summar~sed values Ibr gauge are tabulated bclow. Iirom the analysis of different routes of Indian Railways, it is found that tlie gauge on the upper side varies in the range of 20-25 mm and on the lower side varies in the range of 2-4 mm.

i - ~

I - ?able-7q - - ~ a u g e peak (mrn)

I I

Mi11 Max. 1 ~ e a n I Most'.' 1 -- .--i - - -. - -.

Frequent I TKD-BPL ; 2 i 27 5.6

I RPL-TKD 1 2 i7 1 5 . 7 ~ ~ 4 I

L - I - - - - + ~ - - -

I MGS-KDLS 1 - 1 17 I 4.5 i I

4 I NDLS-MGS / 2 1 2 1 4.8 - - - . . - . -

'-i -

MGS-HWH 1 - 7 2 1 I 22 5.3 I 4 I I Q 5.4 ! 1 I -7 I -- --

4 i

2 I 24 2 1 21 1 5.2 4

I

! UB-LKO 3 1 37 I +.. - - - i - - -,.- -- 6.4 - 1 - 5 I 1 LKOBSB- - i 2 I I I S , 6.2 5- 1

ASN-MGS ! 2 6.1 5 I 22 1 ! HGS-ASN 2 I 3 3 1 8.4 1 5.5 1 I KYN-PA 26 9.6 PA-KYN 1 19

I 1 2 5 8

8 WD-RU 18 6.4

3 20 2 12 4.1 3

LJN-STP I 16 ! L -- 3 ..A- - ~1 65,l

c ? V ) Calculaliur~s for c lea lar~~cs arid play will1 respec1 lo gaugt: for ricw wlieel/rail and a W O I ~ I wheelirail are in I.'igul-e. 1 Standad play with liew rail, new wheel arid a

LO exact track gauge (1676 mm) is 17 mm. Thin flange permitted is 16 mm for speeds 1100 ktnph and 22 iiim tbr speeds >I00 kmpli. For thin flangc condition, the play is 35.5 nim and minimurn clearance for wheel to drop between rails is 65.5 mm. in thin flange condition of a wheel slack gauge will aggravate lateral f e~ces and tight yauyr wiil reduce it. Slack gauge lro\vever wili help when the flange is new. 1-br tigl~t g~rr~gc, iiw tolertnlcc,.~ l~rriw bee// ,fied considering rho1 u u / i t I ' I 1 1 I 7 i t . This rurther reduces to 14 nini Tor PSC' bleepers. ~vliele tr~ach gauge is ~iiai~itiii~~?<l at 1673 l l i r i l .

NEW WHEEL & RAIL 1711

m.5

NEW WHEEL & RAIL

T-Ik-? ~m +2/-1.5- FOR M & w m W N WHEEL & M I L

Maximum ploy (Clearance) 'a'= 1676-(10+16+1598.5+16) = 35.5mrn

Minimum Clearance '8' for wheel to drop = 1676-(16+1598.5+127) = 65.5mm

g) Recommendations as given in para 607(2) of RPWM and the limits corresponding to three times and five times the standard deviation for Priority4 have been considered for laying the peak tolerances. Also the recommendations of Technical report no. TM-55 have been kept in view

Following standards for gauge peaks are proposed:-

54.3 N e w a a c k (Relaying) Standards for Gauge:

Table-7 1

a) Following is prescribed at present:

Priority-1

-10, +20

Route speed (kmph)

< 75 -

Priority-11

-8, +12

Table-72 Gauge Standards 59fi TSC Standards - SD (mm) Para 3 16 of IRPWM - Sleeper to sleeper variation

1 00 2 mm

b) The values o rSD (G) cor req~v~~ding {LI 5, 10. 50, r'ic percentile {rack have already been discussed earlier in paragraph 5.4, I . ;ilini~nuiii, mean, mode of gauge peak values have been discussed earlier in paragraph 5.4.2. Considering these, standards for new relaying are proposed as under.

j Renewal 1 1 I

Recomniendatious

Based upon the discussion above following track seornetry standards are proposed for BG routes of IR

6.1 SD Based Standards

~. . .-. ~. -~ ~ ~ - - SD bascd Track Slandards (mnl)

1 Pan~~i~cccr

s C ; I I C V ~ I I I I ~ ~ ~

Twist

Alignmcnl

Chord1 ~ J S C (In)

. ~1.6 ' '1.6

3.6 4.8 7.2 0.6

G:~uge i ~-

upto i S k ~ ~ l p l l

~ r i o r i - I 1 P r i o r - 1

/hCn,.* E d l k * ) ', + ~ n . , i r . , ~ ~ v r ~ l u ~ i r ~ , / ,,. 3.l~:~:: "I- - -? .>. 6.2 Spot Peak Erceedences Standards, 9+ '

2.6 6.2 , 3.8 4.5 3.U 4.0

3.6 _ j

3.0 ___$ 3 . , 7 I! j T6 2.0 I

6.7 Y.:l I I> .> 7.4 j 5.1

3.2

4 . 0 2.5 3 . 5 6

4.2

4.5

* . @

- . > . X

2 .0

1.2 3.4 . - >.> ' 1.3

6 .8

4.2 2.4 5.0

5.11 3.2

6.5

i X 2.3 1

- - -~ - - - -

I -. - ~ - Table -- 761 ..

/ Parameter Primay Renewal

i - . SD (nm) I Max. Peak (mm) Uncvcnncss 1 2 5

-, - - .? + - - - ~- I2

5 !

' - - . _ _ ST$, i 1.75 7 _1

i 4 x I I 10 L -- - - L

2 5 I - 2

! -.~ A l i g n ~ n t / - -- 7.2 1;s 7- 6 I I 2 5 !

6* 12 + t -- 1 Ciauge - ~ -- i C 4 1

I

Annexure-111 Correlation co-efficient and SD values correspondi~lg to the RI limit of 3.25 in various speed ranges

Correlation co-eflicient and SD values corresponding to the RI limit of 3.25 in various speed ranges

Annexure-112 Correlation co-efficient and SD values corresponding to the RI limit of 3.25 in various speed ranges

Correlation co-efficient and SD values corresponding to the RI limit of 3.25 in various speed ranges

TKD- BPL

TKD- BPL

71- 80 81 - 90 91-100

101-110

.315 ,466 ,523 ,320

3.350 3.050 3.100 3 . 6 1 0

,463 ,607 ,701 ,706

6.060 6.010 6.040 5.980

,708 ,667 ,652 .672

3.010 2.550 2.160 2.780

,508 ,669 ,640 ,623

5.578 2.988 2.114 2.056

.439 463 ,397 ,518

3.260 2.520 1.990 1.530

,496 -449 ,526 ,590

3.802 4.239 4.060 3.573

,530 ,430 ,464 ,568

5.746 6.275 4.812 4.074

,501 ,500 .505 494

4.070 3.430 2.660 2.160

,293 ,331 458 .459

7.648 3.692 2.234 2.173

Correlation co-emcient and SD values corresponding to the R1 limit of 3.25 in various speed ranges


Annexure-114 Correlation co-efficient and SD values corresponding to the RI limit of 3.25 in various speed ranges


MTJ- MCT

7 1 - 8 0 - 8 1 - 9 0 91-100

101-110

0.64 0.68 0.64 0.56

3.21 3.07 3.19 2.99

0.86 0.82 0.84 0.81

7.19 7.36 7.21

0.50 0.48 0.64

1.34 , 0 .63

3.95 3.05 2.26 1.91

,755 ,470 .555 ,745

5.538 4.172 2.942 2.208

0.41 0.48 0.39 0.39

3.65 3.05 2.10 1.68

0.63 0.65 0.64 0.59

4.65 4.47 4.64 4.14

.731

.635 ,638 .660

3.338 4.031 3.707 3.152

0.36 0.48 0.50 0.49

5.12 3.18 2.68 2 .14_ .491 2.152

,558 .485 ,392

5.180 3.588 2.867

Annexure-115

Correlation co-efficient and SD val~res corresponding to the R[ limit of 3.25 in various speed ranges


TVC 9 1 - 1 0 0 1 - I - I - - I - - I - ~ - I - I - ~ - I - 1 0 1 - 1 1 0 1 - I - ! - I - ! - I - 1 - 1 - 1 - 1 -. - 1 - 1 -

SD VALUES OF VARIOUS TRACK PARAMETERS COVERING DIFFERENT PERCENTAGE OF TRACK

Section : TKD - BPL

I Value of / UN -3 6 I UN-9.6 ' TW-3.6 1 TW-4.8 I AL-7.2 , AL-9.6 / GA 1

Section : BPL - TKD

Value of 1 UN -3.6 I UN-9.6 , .TW-3.6 I TW-4.8 / AL-7.2 ' AL-9.6 1 GA I

Section : MTJ - MCT

Seclion : MCT - MTJ

Section : HWH - MGS

1 Valueof I UN -3.6 1 UN-9.6 TW-3.6 I TW-4.8 / AL-7.2 / AL-9.6 I GA I

Section : MGS - HWH

Section: NDLS-MGS

G 3 Section: R4GS-NDLS 0

Section : ERS - TVC

Value of I Uh -3.6 1 UN-9.6 1 TW-3.6 1 AL-7.2 I G A

Section : NAD - BPL

Section : LKO-MB

Section : MB-LKO

Section : LKO-BSB

Section : ASN-MGS

I Value of I UN -3.6 I UN-9.6 , TW-3.6 I 1W-4.8 1 AL-7.2 : AL-9.6 I GA (

Section : MGS-ASN

I Value of I UN -3.6 1 UN-9.6 TW-j.6 I TW-4.8 : AL-7.2 AL-9.6 / GA

Section : BSL-NYN

Section: h%-BSL

1 Value of I UN -3.6 ) UN-9.6 I TW-3.6 / TW-4.8 1 AL-7.2 / AL-9.6 I GA I

Section: KYN-PUNE

I Value of I UN -3.6 I UN-9.6 1 TW-3.6 I TW-4.8 , AL-7.2 I AL-9.6 I GA 1

Section : PUNE-KYN

Section : SC-WD

Section : WD-SC

I Value or I UN -3.6 ( UN-9.6 ( TW-3.6 I TW-4.8 ' AL-7.2 I AL-9.6 I GA ]

Section : ADl-BRC

Section : BRC-AD1

Section : KGP-NGP

Section : NGP -KGP

Section : KAN-SNT

I Value of 1 UN -3.6 1 UN-9.6 / TW-3.6 I TW-4.8 AL-7.2 I AL-9.6 I GA 1

Section : WD-RU

Section : RU-WD

Section : JU-MJ

Section : LJN-STP

Annexure-3/1

Peak Values corresponding to SD Values at the Rl limit of 3.25 in various speed ranges

Annexure-312

Peak Values corresponditig to SD Values at the R1 limit of 3.25 in various speed ranges

Peak Values corresponding to SD Va111es at the RI limit of 3.25 in various speed ranges

Peak Values corresponding to SD Values at the RI limit of 3.25 in various speed ranges

Peak Values corresponding to SD Values at the RT limit of 3.25 in various speed ranges

Anoexure-3/4 Peak Values corresponding to SD Values at the R1 limit of 3.25 in various speed ranges

Peak Values corresponding to SD Values at the R1 limit of 3.25 in various speed ranges

Peak Values corresponding to SD Values at the R1 limit of 3.25 in varions speed ranges

TVC 91 -100 1 - - - - - - - - - - 101 -110 1 - - . I - - . - . - -

Peak Values corresponding to SD Values at the RI limit of 3.25 in various speed ranges

Parameter wise Analysis of Peak Values

Linear regression between VACC AND UN 3.6m Section :- MGS-NDLS Speed range- 101 to 110 Krnph

UN3.6 PEAK VALUE

Linear regression between VACC AND UN 3.6m Section :- MGS-NDLS Speed range- 91 to 100 Kmph

0.00 J--- . ..+ - - . - . , ~ - - ~ < . I

0 2 4 6 8

I UN-3.6 PEAK VALUE


I 0.00 --- --1. +--- - --4- -- - --+. - - - ---,.-----I

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14

UN3.6 PEAK VALUE


: - - - -_- , -__ - - _ - - - - . , 4 6 8 10 12

UN3.6 PEAK VALUE

Annexure- 513

. -*.

. Linear regression between VACC AND UN 9.6rn Section :- MGS-NDLS Speed range- 101 to 110 Krnph

0 00 -+-- - +-+----+-----a 1 j 0 5 10 15 20 25 30

I

I UN-9.6 PEAK VALUE I

Linear regression between VACC AND UN 9.6m Section :- MGS-NDLS Speed range- Ql to 100 Kmph

0 0 0 - - - ~ . . L - . . - , - - - - .- . . ~ .~ ,

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

UN-9.6 PEAK VALUE


0.00 -I ---+ + + I 0 5 10 15 20 25

UN-9.6 PEAK VALUE


- -+ - - - -~ - - ' . .- . - . ---'

10 15 20 25

UN-9.6 PEAK VALUE

Linear regression between VACC AND TW 3.6m Section :- MGS-NDLS Speed range- 101 to I 10 Kmph

TW3.6 PEAK VALUE I

I

Linear regression between VACC AND TW 3.6m I I

Section :- MGS-NDLS Speed range- 91 to 100 Kmph 1 I

0.00 T- - - - - 2 - - .. .- . . . - - * . - . - . - + - . ~- - I O 2 4 6 8 10 12 14

I TW-3.6 PEAK VALUE

Linear regression between VACC AND TW 3.6m Section :- MGS-NDLS Speed range- 81 to 90 Kmph

o.ooL-_. _ _ - - . . . . - ---2-

6 8 10 12 14 0 2 4 i

TW3.6 PEAK VALUE

_ -- _ - _ - _ . - - _ - - _ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - . .


! ! TW-3.6 PEAK VALUE

1 ~ . - - -. - -


0 0 0 C : + I--- + - - - - ,--.- - 0 2 4 6 8 10 12

i 14

TW4.8 PEAK VALUE

. ........ .. ~ .....

Linear regression between VACC AND TW 4.8m Section :- MGS-NDLS Speed range- 91 to 100.Kmph

0.00 ---,- . -- , ... L .......... -2- ... .. ... ' - I

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 '

TW4.8 PEAK VALUE

Linear regression between VACC AND TW 4.8m Section :- MGS-NDLS speed range- 81 to 90 Kmph

t-- - --_I--- - +---

0 2 4 6 8 10

TW-4.8 PEAK VALUE

Linear regression between VACC AND TW 4.8m Section :- MGS-NDLS Speed range- 71 to 80 Krnph

, , W I

. . . . ' I . . . . . I ,

8 ,

I > I y = 0.0029~ + 0.0909 I I I I 0.02 1- R' = 0.1071

I ! I

I 0.00 1 - - -- - - 4. . . :. . . - , - - . .. - - -

i I

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 I 14 I

TW-4.8 PEaK VALUE

Linear regression between LACC AND AL 7.2m Section :- MGS-NDLS Speed range- 101 to 110 Kmph

y = 0.0046~ + 0.1014

15

-+. *- 0 5 10

AL-7.2 PEAK VALUE

--

_ -- - - - - . - . ~ . r i Linear regression between LACC AND AL 7.2m

Section :- MGS-NDLS Speed range- 91 to 100 Kmph I

_ - - _ -_ / 0.30 -- ~ --

i I i

0.25 1 ' L U

1 3 . . I I . I I I I O Z O I I i . . . . . i I

I I 1 2 0.15 1 I 1 I . . . I I I g I . ! I

U 010 4- I

I G I I i y = 0.0027~ + 0.1055 . , ' 0.05 1 R' = 0.0765 , I

I I I i I

J - . ~ - , .. 4-- - -,~ A I i I

0.00 + - , - - - 7 - - , I

6 8 10 12 14 16 I 2 4 18 2 0 1 0 I

AL-7.2 PEAK VALUE I

- - - .. . - . - -. . - - _ - - _ _-


0.00 I--- ----- +---- - +.--

0 2 4 6 8 10 -4

12

AL-7.2 PEAK VALUE


~- - - ~. ~ .- ~ - - --

1

Linear regression between LACC AND AL 9.6m 1 Section :- MGS-NDLS Speed range- 91 to I 0 0 Kmph

I

I I

-... ~ ~ . ~ - .- ~

-_ -- -- -- 0.30 r--- - 1 : I I I 1 I , I I 0.25 - I W I

i I 3 -1

; 2 0.20 . I Y

a . . . . I :

i i I W a 0.15 !

' 2 I ! 0

: 2 0.10 4- ! I I

6 I ! y = 0.0033~ + o.oQ91

1 ' 0.05 1 ~ ' = 0 . 1 1 6 6 1 Q\

! ' 0. I . . -- -, ; I : ' ) O,(,OL - "

8 10 12 14 16 4 6 18 I;

0 2 I AL-9.6 PEAK VALUE I

. - . - - ~- ..- -- - -- . - - - - -

Linear regression between LACC AND AL 9.6m Section :- MGSNDLS Speed range- 81 to 90 Kmph

0.00 1- +--- 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 rn

AL-9.6 PEAK VALUE

Linear regression between LACC AND TW 3.6m Section :- MGS-NDLS Speed range- 101 to 110 Kmph

.

. . .

I I

y = 0.0038~ + 0.0998 I

0.05 ' R' = 0.0812 I I 0.00 -,-. - . - 4- - - +--- $--+- -----4

10 12 14 16 0 2 4 6 8

TW3.6 PEAK VALUE

_ - _ . _ _ - - - -

I ___.- _ _

_ - . .~ .- _ _ - .. - - - .- -

Linear regression between LACC AND TW 3.6m I

Section :- MGS-NDLS Speed range- 91 to 100 Kmph I

TW3.6 PEAK VALUE

Linear regression between LACC AND TW 3.6m Section :- MGS-NDLS Speed range- 81 to 90 Kmph

0.00 i__,- -- i - .& ---- _-L___i_

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14

TW-3.6 PEAK VALUE

Linear regression between LACC AND GAUGE Section.:- MGS-NDLS Speed range- 101 to 110 Kmph

-! L +----,- --- 4- 0.00 - 15 20 25

0 5 10

GAUGE PEAK VALUE

. - - . _. _ _. - _. - -. - _ _ . - - -- - - - .- -- _ __ -_ -- ,

Linear regression between LACC AND GAUGE I

Section :- MGS-NDLS Speed range- 91 to 100 Kmph I I I

, -*-.---+- ! I- . . . . .. . -. 10 12 14 16 18 0 2 4 6 8 20 1

GAUGE PEAK VALUE I 1

Linear regression between LACC AND GAUGE Section :- MGS-NDLS Speed range- 81 to 90 Kmph

GAUGE PEAK VALUE

TRACK GEOMETRY STANDARDS FOR BG ROUTES ... - Indian …

Documents

Transcript of TRACK GEOMETRY STANDARDS FOR BG ROUTES ... - Indian …