Welcome and Introduction
Tim Gilbert, Porterbrook
Vehicle/Structures Systems Interface Committee
‘Engaging with Gauging’
Annual Seminar 01 October 2013, London
Morning programme:
Time
Item
9:00
Registration
10:00
Welcome and Introduction – Who are we; why
are we; what are we doing?
Tim Gilbert, Chair, VS SIC
10:15
Dynamic gauges - What are they; how are they
used; what gauges are not dynamic.
David Johnson, Consultant
10:50
Q&A
11:00
Break
11:15
Lower sector gauge – What is it? Lower Sector
Vehicle Gauge (LSVG), Lower Sector
Infrastructure Gauge (LSIG); How did we get it?
Principles paper; What happens now?
11:50
Q&A
12:10
Suburban gauge – What is it? What have we
done? What next?
12:45
Q&A
13:05
Lunch
Lead
Paul Gray, RSSB
David Galloway, Network Rail
Sean Symons, Balfour Beatty
David Buckley, Balfour Beatty
Vehicle/Structures Systems Interface Committee
‘Engaging with Gauging’
Annual Seminar 01 October 2013, London
Afternoon programme:
Time
Item
Lead
13:45
National Gauging Database – What is it? How
does it work? How do I get hold of it? How do I
use it? 6’ data.
Tim Fuller, Network Rail
Vehicle Gauging Data – What data? Why? RIS;
Gauging Database.
David Johnson, Consultant
14:10
Robert Forde, Network Rail
Mark Molyneux, ATOC
14:45
Q&A
15:05
Break
15:15
What next? Current and future VS SIC projects –
what are they, why are they, when are they?
Nikhil Kapur, RSSB
15:50
Concluding remarks
Tim Gilbert, Chair, VS SIC
16:00
Close
Andrew Broadbent, RSSB
Vehicle/Structures Systems Interface Committee
‘Engaging with Gauging’
Annual Seminar 01 October 2013, London
The Vehicle/Structures SIC (V/S SIC) was established to help optimise the interface
between vehicles and the fixed infrastructure in the areas of physical clearance
(gauging) and vehicle loading (route availability).
Vehicle/Structures Systems Interface Committee
‘Engaging with Gauging’
Annual Seminar 01 October 2013, London
V/S SIC Members:
Name
Organisation
Representing
Status
Tim Gilbert
Porterbrook Leasing Company
Independent Chairman
Chairman
Graham White
DB Schenker Rail (UK) Ltd
Member
Ian Bucknall
Network Rail
Tim Fuller
Network Rail
David Galloway
Network Rail
Paul Gray
Tim Kendell
Sean Symons
John Roberts
David Johnson
Dean Taplin
Mark Molyneux
Euan Smith
RSSB
Department for Transport
Balfour Beatty Rail Technologies
Office of Rail Regulation
DGauge
Bombadier
ATOC
Angel Trains
Non-Passenger Train Operators
Network Rail and other Infrastructure
Managers
Network Rail and other Infrastructure
Managers
Network Rail and other Infrastructure
Managers
RSSB
DfT
Infrastructure Contractor
ORR
N/A
RIA
Passenger Train Operators
ROSCOS
Member
Member
Member
Member
Member
Member
Member
Member
Member
Member
Member
Vehicle/Structures Systems Interface Committee
‘Engaging with Gauging’
Annual Seminar 01 October 2013, London
T569 ‘Development of risk-based examination intervals for Network Rail bridges’
T610 ‘An assessment of the cost and benefits of adopting a standard uniform
platform height of 1115 mm’
T679 ‘The effects of railway traffic on embankment stability’
T741 ‘Design of railways structures to the Structural Eurocodes’
Vehicle/Structures Systems Interface Committee
‘Engaging with Gauging’
Annual Seminar 01 October 2013, London
On behalf of the V/S SIC, a guide has been produced of all research
managed by the RSSB research programme. The guide gives a
general overview of research in this area that has been completed
and also that which is currently in progress. Printed copies of the
booklet can be requested by emailing enquirydesk@rssb.co.uk.
More detail on all RSSB projects can be found at www.rssb.co.uk.
Vehicle/Structures Systems Interface Committee
‘Engaging with Gauging’
Annual Seminar 01 October 2013, London
The V/S SIC has produced a Guide to British gauging practice.
This guide is intended to help with some of the intricacies of fitting
trains (passenger and freight) on to Britain’s railways. Experience
has shown there to be many traps for the unwary – assumptions
made at an early part of a train building process leading to
expensive and costly upstream problems which have been
embarrassing to the industry
It is also provided as background to those undertaking infrastructure
works who may not be familiar with the gauging process. By
understanding the context of, for example, measuring bridges and
tunnels, better measurements may be taken and expensive
mistakes avoided. Measuring the height and width of an arched
bridge is of little use when trying to clear a rectangular container.
Dynamic Gauges
David Johnson – Consultant, DGauge Ltd
Dynamic Gauges
“The width clear between the rails will be
7ft, the height of the chimney as usual.”
Specification for Great Western locomotives, I K Brunel, 4th July
1836
Dynamic Gauges
1829
Dynamic Gauges
1837
Dynamic Gauges
1899
Dynamic Gauges
1927
Dynamic Gauges
1951
Dynamic Gauges
1999
Dynamic Gauges
2020?
Dynamic Gauges
1829
2013
Dynamic Gauges
Vehicle Gauge
Structure Gauge
Dynamic Gauges
Vehicle Gauge
Structure Gauge
Clearance
Dynamic Gauges
Static Gauge Line
Dynamic Gauge Line (2)
Dynamic Gauge Line (1)
W6a is (presently) a static gauge
Dynamic Gauges
Static Gauge Line
The maximum (upper) size of vehicle that may be
built to comply with the gauge, measured on straight
and level track. It may be width reduced if the vehicle
is longer, or has longer bogie centres than the gauge
permits.
For use by the rolling stock community, not the
infrastructure community.
Dynamic Gauges
Dynamic Gauge Line (1)
The maximum (lower) size of vehicle that may be built
to comply with the gauge, measured on straight and
level track, including ALL DYNAMIC MOVEMENTS.
For use by the rolling stock community, and the
infrastructure community who will apply the gauge
overthrow rules.
Dynamic Gauges
Dynamic Gauge Line (2)
The maximum (upper) size of vehicle that may exist
taking into account the MAXIMUM DYNAMIC
MOVEMENT, measured on straight and level track.
For use the infrastructure community, who will apply
the gauge overthrow rules
Compliance by the rolling stock community is
achieved through the use of ‘established suspensions’
at all conditions of speed and cant, not by reference
to the red line.
Dynamic Gauges
Static Gauges:
• Include allowance for suspension movement at maximum speed and cant
deficiency / excess.
• Waste considerable space when the vehicles are operated at below
maximum speed on cant deficiency / excess (for example on straight track)
• But they are simple(ish) to apply.
The majority of the network is not on high installed cants and does not
develop high cant deficiencies (and where they are this has generally been
allowed for). So we risk restricting our vehicle sizes, or route opportunity by
using a conservative gauge definition.
Dynamic Gauges
An Alternative – Absolute Gauging
•
•
•
•
Check the vehicle profile with
overthrows and local dynamic
movements against the
infrastructure
Makes best use of space
Vehicle specific
Can lead to introduction
issues / costs
Dynamic Gauges
Typical dynamic characteristics
•
•
Sway largely ruled by cant
150mm greater sway
movement on 150mm cant
than on 0mm cant
Dynamic Gauges
Another Alternative – Dynamic Gauges
•
•
•
Static Profile as before
Overthrow rules as before
Defined dynamic movements
Dynamic Gauges
Dynamic Gauge Line (2)
The maximum (upper) size of vehicle that may exist
taking into account the LOCAL DYNAMIC
MOVEMENT, measured on straight and level track.
For use by the infrastructure community, who will
apply the gauge overthrow rules and by the rolling
stock community who will ensure that the vehicle is
compliant with the published limiting dynamic
characteristics.
Dynamic Gauges
Advantages of Dynamic Gauges
•
•
•
•
•
Makes good use of infrastructure space, in line with the principles of absolute gauging
Rolling stock providers need only comply with gauge characteristics, which are clearly
defined
Infrastructure managers provide infrastructure compliance to the gauge, not the vehicles
complying with the gauge.
Only exception structures considered by conventional absolute gauging, not the entire
route.
Some new gauges…
Dynamic Gauges
Next Steps
•
•
•
Various new gauges being published as Dynamic Gauges
Gauge standard and guidance being updated with revised methodologies for gauges W6a
to W12
Characteristics of ‘established suspensions’ being published
Lower Sector Gauge
Lower Sector Vehicle Gauge (LSVG)
Lower Sector Infrastructure Gauge (LSIG)
Presented by:
Paul Gray (RSSB)
Sean Symons (Balfour Beatty Rail)
David Galloway (Network Rail)
Lower Sector Gauge
• What is it?
• How did we get it?
• What happens now?
Introduction and background
Analysis and refinement
Implementation
Lower Sector Gauge
What is it?
Lower Sector Gauge – Introduction/Background
What is lower sector gauge?
• Particular requirements for gauging and systems functionality
Railway Group Standard (RGS) requirements
Aspects for revision
• Needs to be a dynamic gauge (vary with cant), canted track
Lower sector structure infrastructure gauge (LSIG)
Lower sector vehicle gauge (LSVG)
Lower sector – area up
to/including 1100 mm above
plane of rail
Particular gauging/system
requirements
• Normal clearance of 50 mm
Platforms/bridge girders/signals
• Contact/close fit
Conductor rails/shoegear
Signalling system, train
stops/tripcocks
Guard/check rails
APC magnets
Railway Group Standard (RGS) requirements
GC/RT5212 Requirements for Defining and Maintaining
Clearances
• lower sector structure gauge
GM/RT2149 Requirements for Defining and Maintaining the
Size of railway Vehicles
• clearances to lower sector structure gauge and particular system
requirements (conductor rail, APC etc)
GE/RT8073 Requirements for the Application of Standard
Vehicle Gauges
• standard vehicle gauges (W6a, W7, etc)
Aspects for revision for LSIG
The LSIG should:
• Cover all infrastructure
• Document positions of all equipment
• Recognise that some equipment can
legitimately occupy same space
• Based on 915/730 platform position
with recess
• LSIG fits with LSVG
Aspects for revision for LSVG
LSVG should:
• Be the standard vehicle gauge
applicable to all new vehicles
(not freight or passenger)
• Recognise ‘flush’ platform walls
• LSVG should vary with cant
deficiency/excess to be optimal
for vehicle
• LSVG fits with LSIG, but there
are infrastructure exceptions
Vehicle Lower sector
on canted track
Platform
LSIG
• Covers all infrastructure in
lower sector – not only
structures
• Clarification for particular
equipment
• Detailed diagrams for
particular equipment
Lower Sector Infrastructure Gauge
Lower Sector Gauge
How did we get it?
Lower Sector Vehicle Gauge – How did we get it?
Investigation undertaken in 4 key stages comprising:
• Clearance analysis of proposed LSVG
• Dynamic clearance investigation
• Structure Review
• Defining the LSVG
LSVG – Clearance Analysis
Undertaken to:
•
•
•
•
Provide a comparison with existing gauges
Recognise existing systems
Understand existing infrastructure constraints
Achieve best vehicle size and fit with existing infrastructure
LSVG – Clearance Analysis
ClearRoute Vehicle Model created
Gauge clearance analysis undertaken
• UK Structure dataset*
• Only structures <1100mm ARL
Analysis included:
• Track and survey tolerances
Did not consider:
• Age of data tolerances
• Flange/rail clearance tolerances
* July 2012 NGD
LSVG – Clearance Analysis
Results:
• 139,614 structures
identified in ‘Lower Sector’
• 5,689 (4%) structures with
‘tight’ clearance
• Majority of clearance issues
against Platforms
• Further investigation
undertaken to consider
‘dynamic’ movements
LSVG – Dynamic Clearance Investigation
Why Undertaken:
• LSVG assumes maximum cant
deficiency/excess
• Majority of tight clearance structures
on track of lower deficiency/excess
Dynamic Gauge developed that
reduces laterally with CD/CE
• Movement tables established from
typical passenger vehicles
• Results in a reduced gauge line of
30mm on straight and level rack
LSVG – Dynamic Clearance Investigation
Analysis indicated:
• 2,540 structures have improved clearances
• Reported ‘Fouls’ reduced by 52%
“Dynamic gauging provides acceptable compromise between
vehicle size and route clearance”
LSVG – Structure Review
Review undertaken of 500 reported
tight clearance structures.
Each structure found to be either:
• Data anomaly
• Fixable exception
• Avoidable using alternative lines
• On a route unlikely to be used extensively
• A known ‘tight’ structure
LSVG – Structure Review
Undertaken to determine structures Close to Rail (below
200mm ARL)
Few structure identified that would limit vehicle operation. Rather than
restricting gauge envelope these would be exception structures.
LSVG – Vehicle Comparison
LSVG – Gauge Definition
Recommended that the Lower Sector Vehicle Gauge (LSVG) is included
within future publications of the Railway Group Standards
Lower Sector Gauge
What Happens Now?
• V/S SIC Implementation Policy
• ORR support
• Risks and Dependencies
• Potential Benefits
• Inclusion of LSVG in GM/RT2149 (consultation
2014)
• Inclusion of LSIG in GC/RT5212 (consultation 2014)
• Status of the Gauges & other Standards Change
• Impact on Network Rail
• Will Publish Exceptions
Structures
• Manage Tight Clearances
• Long-Term Clarity in this
sector
• Impact on the Vehicle Introducer
• Feasibility completed for the LSVG
• Clarity around likely costs
• Long-Term Clarity in this sector
Any Questions?
RSSB Project T978
Suburban Gauge (SG)
A Project Summary
David Buckley
Balfour Beatty Rail
Summary of Presentation
• Project Objectives
• Methodology
• Proposed Suburban Gauge
• Conclusions
and Recommendations
“An objective of V/S SIC is to provide a suite of standard gauges.
The Suburban Gauge is arguably of most interest of the standard gauges to define as
these vehicles carry proportionally more passengers and there is probably a higher
turnover/cascade of these vehicles”
T978 Project Objectives
• To develop a defined Suburban Gauge based upon
a 20m vehicle:
–
–
–
–
As large as reasonable practicable
Adjusts with cant excess/deficiency
Encompass existing suburban vehicles
Consistent with RGS and PRM TSI stepping requirements
• Identify constraints and trade offs that could lead to a
more optimised suburban vehicle gauge
• Propose the defined suburban gauge for GE/RT8073
• No detailed OLE study
T978 Project Inputs
• Typical Suburban Vehicle Geometry
20.38m length (throw optimised),
14.173m bogie centres
• Suburban Gauge Dynamic Envelope
• Designated “Suburban” Routes
(Excluding Thameslink)
• National Gauging Database (NGD)
• Existing Suburban Rolling Stock
models
62
T978 Methodology
• Stage 1 – Establishing a Limiting Space Envelope
• Stage 2 – Establishing the Suburban Gauge
• Stage 3 – Suburban Gauge Footstep Study
63
1.Establishing a Limiting Space Envelope
• KE Template Analysis
– Structure Profiles
Platforms Initially Excluded
– Suburban Gauge Dynamic Envelope
64
Bogie Wheelbase (m)
2.6
Bogie Pivot Centres
(m)
14.173
Body Length (m)
20.38
Body Width (mm)
3,200
Body Height (mm)
3,600
1.Establishing a Limiting Space Envelope
KE Template Simulation
Included
Excluded
Dynamic
Movements
Wheel/Rail Interface
Tolerances
(Already included in KE)
Curve
Overthrow
Track Tolerances
(Assuming the current
track position is valid)
Clearance
(0mm)
Survey Tolerance
(Assuming the current
survey is valid)
Wheelset
Lateral
Movements
Transitions
(Not applicable during KE
Template analysis)
65
1.Establishing a Limiting Space Envelope
66
2. Establishing SG – Optimisation
• “Smoothed”
Notional Gauge Profile
• Expanded in 25mm
increments
• Re-analysed over
>1000mm ARL structures
on Suburban routes
67
2. Establishing SG – Optimisation
Structure Category
0mm
+25mm
+50mm
+75mm
+100mm
Overbridges
65
110
160
256
368
Tunnels
19
29
45
65
89
Underbridges
6
10
14
18
23
Viaducts
4
6
10
12
14
Walls
4
5
12
17
22
Total
98
160
241
368
516
• Decision: Proceed with Notional Gauge Profile based
upon LSE (0mm)
68
2. Establishing SG – Gauge Height
69
2. Establishing SG – Solebar Area
• Platforms now included
• KE Template used again
to establish LSE
• Gauge profile modified in
solebar area
70
2. Establishing SG – Gauge Width
• Static comparison
• Existing Rolling Stock
2810mm max width
• 2820mm proposed
for Suburban Gauge
tested by analysis
71
2. Establishing SG – Gauge Width
Passing Analysis Undertaken
• 27 case virtual route to
Type A NR track standards
• Passing clearances
comparable with existing
rolling stock
Conclusions
• 2820mm width appropriate
• BUT all projections must
be within
72
• 3966mm max height and roof
defined by the maximum
dynamic W6a gauge and
infrastructure data
• Gauge shape between roof and
platform/solebar level is defined
by existing rolling stock
• 2820mm maximum width slightly
wider than existing suburban
• Platform/solebar level is defined
by platforms on the Suburban
routes
73
• 950mm lower boundary of the
gauge is to allow for interaction
with the Lower Sector Vehicle
Gauge
3. Detailed Footstep Study
74
3. Detailed Footstep Study
Gauge line within which a passenger footstep may be
designed to satisfy
• Lower Sector Structure Gauge
• Stepping distance to
730mm, 915mm platform
• Clearances to existing
suburban platforms
75
3. Detailed Footstep Study
76
3. Detailed Footstep Study
• Applicable between bogie centres +1m for footstep
width
• Allows for 1/3rd, 2/3rd and three door configurations
77
Final Proposed Suburban Gauge
78
Final Proposed Suburban Vehicle Gauge
SVG-3
79
Interaction with LSVG
SG begins at 950mm
LSVG ends at 1200mm ARL
80
Interaction with LSVG
81
Concluding Analysis
82
Concluding Analysis
 Re-analysis of Suburban Gauge on Suburban
routes (Excluding Thameslink)
 July 2011 NGD
 GC/RT 5212 tolerances
Number of Structures
Category
Definition
Suburban
Vehicle Gauge
(Dynamic)
SVG (Dynamic)
inc LSSG Ftsp
Gauge A
SVG
(Dynamic)
inc Plat Ftsp
Gauge B
Foul
≤ 0mm
272
1438
402
Special
Reduced
>0mm
< 25mm
≥ 25mm
< 50mm
222
1079
436
426
979
871
52625
50049
51836
53545
53545
53545
Reduced
Normal
83
≥ 50mm
Total
84
T978 – Conclusions and Further Work
• Suburban Gauge is proposed for RGS next year
• Suburban Gauge basis for design of new rolling stock
• Rolling stock subject to current compatibility processes
• Final implementation strategy to be determined
• Further analysis underway to extend to other routes
• Methodology suitable for other gauge developments
85
Thank you for your time
Any Questions…..?
Any Further Questions?
David Buckley
Balfour Beatty Rail
D.Buckley@bbrail.com
86
The National Gauging Database
Robert Forde, Examination Data Manager
(Network Rail)
Tim Fuller, Senior Gauging Engineer
(Network Rail)
What is the National Gauging Database?
Data Collection
Validation of data in The Quadrant:MK
The Data
Track Interval Database
How do I get the data?
• Bi-Monthly Cut of the NGD is issued to all approved
software houses, who in turn distribute it to their users
• A Copy can be issued to other software houses to assist
in software development
• Key-disk approval
• Future improvements
Why Measure It?
• The Industry has to understand how much room NR’s
infrastructure leaves for trains to run through.
• It’s part of Network Rail’s licence conditions
• It’s in the Group Standards
• NR infrastructure is very small compared to that in
Europe and the US. The industry uses all the room the
existing infrastructure provides.
Analysing the Data
Prove compatibility between
vehicle and infrastructure.
Different Users approach the
same problem from
different directions
But all are examining the
interface between vehicle
and infrastructure
This requires accurate vehicle
models
Analysing the Data
This tunnel profile
at Ryde on the IoW
is unremarkable
until the W6A
profile is added.
Analysing the Data
Coordinates of the structure:
– in the plane of the rail
– presented as if the viewer is
standing with their back towards
low mileage.
– relative to the running edge of
the left rail
Tight Structures
the structure is foul to W6A (black)
but the vehicle built to W6A (red)
can pass
Structure in the NGD
There are over 200,000 structures in the NGD including.
•
•
•
•
•
•
Bridges & tunnels
Buildings
Platforms and awnings
Fences, walls and rock cuttings
Signals and gantries
Signs, telephones, level crossings, S&T cabinets
Not in the NGD
Structures deliberately excluded from the NGD:
• OHL equipment – but
• stanchions with tight clearances are included
• structural portions of the OHL equipment, e.g. stove pipes, brackets,
return conductor brackets and insulators, and stanchions attached
to major structures are included.
Not in the NGD
Structures deliberately excluded from the NGD:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Rail lubricators, AWS and APC magnets, TPWS grids
Third and Fourth rails
Check Rails
Bridge guard rails
crossing decking and anti-trespass guards;
axle counters, point motors and rodding, S&T track circuit boxes
S&T cable troughing and runs, signal wires and their associated
posts and pulleys;
• rail laid on the sleeper end or in the four-foot during maintenance or
renewal operations
Security
• Encryption
– only the latest data cut is used
– approved software is used
– vehicle profiles are only used for Gauging purposes
• Asking permission to use the data
– NR need to understand what the data is used for so we can
continue to make it appropriate
– The system needs to be easier!
Vehicle Gauging Data
David Johnson – Consultant, DGauge Ltd
Mark Molyneux - Head of Engineering, ATOC
Background
• Infrastructure information has continually improved
• Transparently shared with the industry via the NGD
• But what of vehicle data?
• Situation is not so good.....
Vehicle Gauging Data – Present 1/3
• Initially there were “Wild West” days
- BASS501 KE sheets entered into ClearRoute
- Guesses made about missing information
• These evolved into “vehicle gauging libraries”
• Maintained by the respective software suppliers
• These contain profiles of various types of rolling
stock
• Some vehicle profiles are identical to gauge lines e.g.
W6A in the lower sector
Vehicle Gauging Data – Present 2/3
• Various versions of the same vehicle e.g. MkIII
• Not all vehicle classes are included
• No ownership of the information, nor any formal
procedures to keep these libraries accurate and
consistent
.....but......
• What we have now largely works!
Vehicle Gauging Data – Present 3/3
.....but......
• Makes “gauge compatibility” assessments more difficult
than it need be
• Does not support future vehicle cascades
• Could result in infrastructure works that are
unnecessary
• Add costs to the industry
Vehicle Gauging Data - Future
• V/S SIC Developed RIS-2773-RST
• Not mandatory
.....but......
• TOCs are being encouraged to specify this data format
for new rolling stock
• “R2” (Replacement for RAVERS) is being designed to be
able to store this information
• Future implementation of this will address existing
problems
Vehicle Gauging Data
Q: How would you calculate overthrow?
Vehicle Gauging Data
Vehicle Gauging Data
dgi = 125.((B+2x)2-B2)/R
Vehicle Gauging Data
dgi = Ki / R
Vehicle Gauging Data
Q: How would you calculate overthrow?
Vehicle Gauging Data
Q: Describe it to a computer
Vehicle Gauging Data
Non-standard format
•
•
•
•
How does a computer read it?
Human transcription errors
Different understandings
Software development cost / time delays
Standard format
•
•
•
•
Computer literate
No human transcription
Possible to describe fully
Only initial software development cost / time delay
Gauging Data Format
Gauging Data Format
Applies to:
•
•
•
•
•
Cross sections / gauge lines
Overthrows
Dynamic movements
Tolerances
General vehicle identification / quality data
Gauging Data Format
An Industry Standard
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Describes an industry approved standard
method of presenting vehicle gauging data
Uses an Excel workbook
Replaces informal standards (that have been
used for years)
Applicable to vehicles and gauges for use in
dynamic gauging
Software compatible
Includes guidance
Supports dynamic gauging methods
Supports quality management systems
Gauging Data Format
Benefits
•
•
•
•
•
Reduces possibility of error
Reduces misunderstandings
Reduces cost of vehicle input to computer
software
Definitive record
Traceable
Gauging Data Format
What it holds:
•
Data necessary to absolutely gauge a vehicle on a route
• Describes the profiles
• Describes the swept envelope
• Describes how the vehicle sways and drops in relation to dynamic forces
from curving and speed
• Additional allowances needed
Gauging Data Format
What it holds:
•
Data necessary to absolutely gauge a vehicle on a route.
• Describes the profiles
• Describes the swept envelope
• Describes how the vehicle sways and drops in relation to dynamic forces
from curving and speed
• Additional allowances needed
What it does not hold:
•
•
•
Vehicle design information
The VAMPIRE model
Unnecessary detail
VS SIC – Research Projects
What is being implemented?
What’s current and on-going?
What new and upcoming?
Nikhil Kapur
RSSB Research Manager
Research and Development
VS SIC – Research Projects
Mission:
The RSSB-managed rail industry research programme focuses
on industry wide and strategic research that no individual
company or sector of the industry can address on its own..
In addition, RSSB manages the rail industry strategic research
programme which has been specifically developed to support
industry and its stakeholders in the delivery of ‘step changes’ in
industry strategy in 10, 20 and 30 years time – as outlined in the
Rail Technical Strategy.
VS SIC – Research Projects
RSSB on behalf of the industry:
• 100 projects at any one time
• Over a 1,000 research projects completed
• Projects vary between £25,000 - £10,000,000
VS SIC – Research Projects
What’s implemented?
Research behind many
of the earlier topics
during today’s events
Project T942 Pantograph Sway
Acceptance
Requirements and
Methodology
RSSB Project T942Pantograph Sway Acceptance Requirements and Methodology
Background
Most EMUs sway 40 – 50 mm further than
the limits under the worst prescribed
conditions in the Standard. Such that that
many EMUs at the time did not meet the
sway requirements, however new EMUs
been accepted into service?
Objective
The T942 project enabled Vehicle builders to derive a
methodology which amends the standard GM/RT2149 and
allows them to employ methodology that reflects the
current real time sways and avoids the need for
derogations.
RSSB Project T942Pantograph Sway Acceptance Requirements and Methodology
.
Method:
The approach was to investigate the probability of excessive
pantograph sway, for EMU train types including those currently
non-compliant with the requirements of GM/RT2149 using
those routes where extreme conditions like high winds would
be a factor. Class 325s,365s, and 91s were chosen..
RSSB Project T942Pantograph Sway Acceptance Requirements and Methodology
Outputs
Consist of three reports:
1) Probabilities of Pansway Exceeding
GM/RT2149 Limits.
2) Risk of Dewirement.
3) 3) Infringement of Mechanical and
Electrical Clearances at Structures.
Benefits
As well as enabling the opportunity for Vehicle builders to
avoid the need for derogations, the research has enabled the
Infrastructure Manager to save cost on remediation works as
more realistic sway limits mean reduced risk of mechanical
infringements and electrical clearances running into millions of
pounds. The findings are also being used for the benefit of
IEP’s train design.
RSSB Project T942Pantograph Sway Acceptance Requirements and Methodology
Implementation
Network Rail are applying the method to
a number of Infrastructures including:
• Haymarket Tunnel
• Chorley Tunnel
• Farnworth Tunnel
• Scout Tunnel
• Stalybridge Tunnel
• Canal Tunnels
• Kings Cross Tunnel
Benefit
Approx £ 1-2 million in remediation
savings per structure
VS SIC – Research Projects
What’s current?
RSSB Project T1037 -Train
passenger footsteps
investigation to support
research into the reduction in
passenger stepping distances
and gauging constraints
T1037 - Train passenger footsteps investigation into the reduction in
passenger stepping distances and gauging constraints
Objective
This project will examine the
range of passenger footstep
positions for vehicles in GB in
order to inform options for how
to best improve stepping
distances in terms of
infrastructure works, vehicle
fleet deployment / cascade /
modification and new vehicle
design.
T1037 - Train passenger footsteps investigation into the reduction in
passenger stepping distances and gauging constraints
Also wider industry strategy to
tackle issues in managing
platform-train interface risk
Over the last decade platform /
train interface (PTI) risk has
consistently resulted in about
ten fatalities and weighted
injuries (FWI) to passengers
per year; around 20% of the
overall total passenger risk
T1037 - Train passenger footsteps investigation into the reduction in
passenger stepping distances and gauging constraints
• Issues at the platform / train
interface
• Accidents occurring when
boarding or alighting from
trains (PTI (BA) incidents)
• Boarding times, and therefore
station dwell times,
constraining capacity
• Provision of access for the
disabled and persons with
reduced mobility
• A legacy of platforms that do
not conform to the current
standard platform position, and
vehicles that have variable step
and floor heights
T1037 - Train passenger footsteps investigation into the reduction in
passenger stepping distances and gauging constraints
Method
The project is being done in two
phases.
Phase 1 will gather data from
TOCs and ROSCOs
Phase 2 will be undertaken using
the data collected in phase 1 to
analyse the stepping triangles
associated with the different
vehicles, and producing a range
of combinations into which
vehicles can be categorised
T1037 - Train passenger footsteps investigation into the reduction in
passenger stepping distances and gauging constraints
Outputs
Strategic value in support of
industry work on platform / train
interface in terms of how it affects
issues, including:
• Stepping distances and size of
gaps
• Rolling stock cascades
• Future infrastructure projects
• Specification of new rolling stock
And thus, to plan better in advance,
reducing the potential for needing
more expensive alterations to
infrastructure at a later date.
VS SIC – Research Projects
What’s next?
RSSB Project T995 - The
Development of a Locomotive
Gauge
The third in the suite of Gauging
development projects….
T995 - Development of a Locomotive Gauge
Background
This project is the third in the
series of the three gauging
projects run by RSSB on
behalf of the VS SIC.
This project specifically looks
at refining the proposed
locomotive gauge in order that
it can be applied for both sides
of the vehicle structures
interface.
T995 - Development of a Locomotive Gauge
Method
Includes the need to compare the
'refined' gauge with the class 66
loco gauge as the current industry
'go-anywhere' locomotive gauge.
The gauge should more accurately
define the dynamic movements of
the vehicle so that over
conservatism is not applied.
The refined locomotive gauge
needs to take into account the need
for various components for modern
locomotives (for example exhausts
silencers and buffers) and seek to
maximise the space available for
such equipment.
T995 - Development of a Locomotive Gauge
Benefits
Overall, a new Loco Gauge will
begin to correct the deficiencies
in Appendix L of GE/RT8073 and
provide the industry with a
standard locomotive gauge that
suits both the rolling stock
manufacturers and infrastructure
manager.
For rolling stock manufacturers,
they will be able to have access to
guidance which enables them to
size the vehicle design
VS SIC – “Not just Gauging…”
T679 Clay Embankment Stability
T1020 Wind Alerts on the East Coast
T1031 Side Wind loading and
Freight Gauging Requirements
T1028 Investigation of wind tunnel
ground configurations on aerodynamic
forces
VS SIC – ” Not just Gauging…”
Area 1
Research to help make better use of
available gauge capability to increase
the capacity of the network
Area 2
Research to improve utilisation of the
available capability of structures to
increase the capacity of the network
Area 3. Research to improve
understanding of the risks associated
with the vehicle to station interface to
improve management of the safety and
capability of the network
Area 4
Research to improve the understanding
of the relationship between vehicle
behaviour with track and structures to
ensure cost effective and safe operation
of the railway
Area 5
Research to understand the
environmental effects on the utilisation
of infrastructure,
Area 6
Research to gain a more accurate
understanding of the rates and modes
of deterioration to determine remaining
service life of structures and earthworks
Area 7
Research to better understand how
aerodynamics influence the interaction
between vehicles and infrastructure to
ensure cost effective and safe operation
of the railway
Further information
Further information
Further information
http://spark.rssb.co.uk/
www.rssb.co.uk/RESEARCH/Pages/
RANDDE-NEWSLETTER.aspx
VS SIC – Future Research Ideas
Your comments
Your Ideas
Your Questions
Closing remarks
Thank you for attending the V/S SIC Seminar ‘Engaging
with Gauging’