graeme templer - atrs

7/05/2014 Presentation Title - to change this title go to: View >

Header & Footer 1

The WPR2000 Wheel profile Lessons

learned from introduction

into the DIRN in 2001

21 May,2014 Brisbane Hilton Graeme Templer


Header & Footer 2

History of Railway Mistakes


Header & Footer 3

ARTC process of lessons learned

• ARTC has a process to review all finished projects to evaluate for implementing continuous improvement.

• The process involves evaluation of projects where things go wrong and putting in place processes so the mistakes of the past are not repeated in the future.

• To go forward the process involves looking at the past mistakes.

• The findings are put into a document called lessons learned and the findings are relayed to everyone in ARTC.


Header & Footer 4

Why Did ARTC investigating the

WPR2000 wheel profile

• Damaged freight Sydney to Perth

• Loss of business and market share in the

most profitable corridor

• High maintenance costs of rollingstock on

the interstate network

• Abnormal damage to track components.

• Repeat what this means to ARTC


Header & Footer 5

Summary of lessons learned

With the WPR2000 wheel profile

• A prototype profile was designed then implemented with inadequate stability testing of the profile design on freight wagons

• Normal scientific method was not followed; come up with a hypothesis then by rigorous testing prove the hypothesis

• There was no stability testing of freight vehicles at high speed on the interstate network

• Quote from the wheel rail committee minutes • “ Brian Turnbull indicated that high speed testing of freight

vehicles would not serve any purpose” • Quote from the wheel rail minutes of locomotive instability • “Effective tight gauge could be the cause of dynamic

instability and that once the new profiles were installed the problem may be reduced.”

• Full copies of the minutes handed out.


Header & Footer 6



• Existing standards for tight gauge limits were not evaluated for the WPR2000 profile. What is the effect on stability for freight vehicles at speed with tight gauge, what are the limits of tight gauge for stability

• The grinding tolerances necessary for the profile to be stable were not determined

• For a correct grinding profile the lateral shift tolerance of the profile to become unstable was not determined.

• No cost benefit was carried out Sydney to Albury, Sydney to Queensland border Sydney to Broken Hill the cost of maintaining the NCOP profiles versus the savings in rail and wheel life.

• No assessment was made of the effect of stability of worn wheel profiles running on primarily tangent track.

• No assessment was made on the effect of variable gauge on stability at speed.


Header & Footer 7



• No assessment was made on whether the correct rail profile would stabilise the WPR2000 wheel when a slight track defect had caused instability

• No assessment was made on the effect of changing one aspect of the wheel rail interface and the effect on all existing procedures and existing standards.

• No assessment was made on the practicality of being able to apply a perfect ground rail profile on 10,000 kilometres of primarily interstate standard gauge tangent track.

• The profile was designed for curves and applied to tangent track

• Little investigative work was done on the tangent track rail.

• Every wheel profile has a critical instability speed the day it is first drawn on paper, this is an accepted design theory for all rail wheels that has been around and unchallenged for a very long time,

• The critical instability speed for the WPR2000 was never determined, for tangent track and freight Vehicles

• There was no documented proof that freight vehicles would track correctly


Header & Footer 8

The WPR2000, I in 10 conicity with a Worn

Sydney Metro Profile in the corner

The high conicity is designed to pull the high outer wheel

from the high rail and reduce wear of both wheel and

rail

The thickening of 7mm total in the gauge corner gives the

wheel more metal to wear

The 1 in 10 conicity allows this profile to go around tighter

curves than the ANZR1 profile without wheel creep


Header & Footer 9

The WPR2000 has been thickened

at the contact zone in the gauge corner

compared to the ANZR 1 profile


Header & Footer 10

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140

-30

-20

-10

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

WPR2000 wheel profile

Millimetres

Mill

imet

res

or c

onic

ity 1

:n

WPR2000 shape

Conicity, 1:n

Variable Conicity of the

WPR2000 Profile


Header & Footer 11

Conicity of the ANZR1 profile

• The conicity of the ANZR1 wheel is 1 in 20

over the tread when new


Header & Footer 12

Condition of NSW track at the

time the WPR2000 was introduced

• Parkes to Broken Hill

• 53 kg rail no grinding at all, no profile

• MacArther to Albury

• Only the curves had been ground, Tahmoor to Albury no tangents ground

• Newcastle to Queensland Border

• Only the curves had been ground Stratford to the Queensland border

• Basically all tracks unground and gauge corner flow creating tight gauge


Header & Footer 13

Examples in NSW, rail cascaded to the

freight lines and transposed Wheel/Rail position at

556.578km Werris Creek to

Boggabrai

Railmate at 556.578km Dn rail showing a lip of 5.9mm


Header & Footer 14

NSW condition of rail in freight

lines Werris Creek to Boggabrai

Railmate at 556.578km Up rail showing a lip of 6.3mm


Header & Footer 15

More examples of cascaded

rail and transposed


Header & Footer 16

Broken Hill to Parkes 609 kms


Header & Footer 17

Broken Hill to Parkes 605kms


Header & Footer 18

Broken Hill to Parkes 603kms


Header & Footer 19

New 53 kg rail with new ANZR1 wheels

12mm clearance, 5mm below rail head the fillet radii is 11 mm


Header & Footer 20

Add a lip and a square gauge corner to gauge corner

As occurs in places between Parkes to Broken Hill

Worst case illustrated


Header & Footer 21

Add WPR2000 Wheel profile with

effective tight gauge of 7 mm

2.5mm clearance, 5mm below rail

head


Header & Footer 22

Add 5mm tight gauge


Header & Footer 23

Actual conditions as measured at

the 813 kms on the Broken Hill Line


Header & Footer 24

Add Lip plus 7mmTG WRP2000

plus 5mm tight gauge

0mm clearance, 5mm below rail head, continuous flanging and possibility of uplift.


Header & Footer 25

NSW track gauge. The AK car measures

gauge electronically 16mm from rail surface.

This is the track ARTC inherited in Sept 2004


Header & Footer 26

The motion of a conical wheel set

Called the klingel movement 1883


Header & Footer 27

The motion of a conical wheel set

describes a sinusoidal path as

the wheel set moves along the track


Header & Footer 28

What happens to the klingel movement

when the gauge is tightened

As per the videos


Header & Footer 29

What was happening in NSW when

the WPR2000 was introduced in 2001

• The previous slides demonstrate what existed in

NSW on the Nth Sth and East West mainlines

when the WPR2000 was introduced in year

2001

• i.e. no grinding of tangent tracks and no

allowance for the thickening of the gauge corner

of the WPR2000 wheel and the gauge corner

flow creating effective tight gauge


Header & Footer 30

NSW standards that existed at the

time the WPR2000 was introduced

• ARTC inherited these standards

• C2009

• C2012

• Base operating standards

• At 11 mm tight gauge apply a 20 kph

speed restriction

• Or Fix the problem


Header & Footer 31

Slightly worn WPR 2000

Is unstable i


Header & Footer 32

The WPR2000, I in 10 conicity with a Worn

Sydney Metro Profile in the corner

The high conicity is designed to pull the high outer

wheel from the high rail and reduce wear of

both wheel and rail

The thickening of 7mm total in the gauge corner

gives the wheel more metal to wear

The 1 in 10 conicity allows this profile to go around

tighter curves than the ANZR1 profile without

wheel creep


Header & Footer 33

Vee crossing up end Leeor Loop


Header & Footer 34

WPR 2000 on Unground Rail

Nth sth and east west mainlines

in NSW in 2001 except the metro

Note All Loading is in the gauge corner leading to rapid formation of

Rolling contact fatigue and other surface defects


Header & Footer 35

WRP2000 Wheel on unground 53 kg rail

Broken Hill to Parkes and most of

MacArthur to Albury in year 2000 and at take up

Very Very high stresses in gauge corner, 4000 MPA plastic flow

occurs quickly. Rail behaves likes plasticine stresses are 4 times

failure stress


Header & Footer 36

Plastic failure in the gauge corner creating

untestable railCorrugations, Shelling,

Flaking, Squats, RCF


Header & Footer 37

Independent report for

ARTC by Monash

• Contained in this report

• The WPR2000 has wheel hollowing and flange wear

• This gives the following undesirable results

• On perfectly ground curves the high rail (H2 profile) suffers high gauge

corner contact stress.

• On tangent track the effective conicity will increase beyond a worn ANZR1

and beyond a new WPR2000 and will be unstable

• When an ANZR1 travels around a curve with a perfect H2 profile. The rail

will suffer more side wear

• The ANZR1 wheels will suffer more wear with the H2 profile.


Header & Footer 38

In an ideal World

• If the gauge was perfect

• If the Grinding profile was perfect

• Track geometry was perfect

• Initial investigation has shown by ARTC’s consultants the WPR 2000 profile

to be unstable when even slightly worn. New wheels borderline.

• Once instability is initiated it stays in an unstable condition until it hits a

curve or set of points.

• The profile is not commercially correct

• The WPR2000 becomes unstable when it encounters – A weld not properly ground off

– Slightly misaligned rail

– Slightest variation in gauge

– All the above are OK by the NSW standards ARTC inherited

–


Header & Footer 39

Inference that the WPR2000 instability

was due to the rail profile not being

installed correctly

• ARTC will now address the wheel rail issues in the following manner

following the inference that stability is due to rail not being ground correctly

• Check stability of the wheel profiles on the rail for tangent track. – Check effective conicity for new and worn ANZR1 wheels on ground rail and worn rail

profiles.

– Likewise for the WPR 2000 new and worn profiles on ground and worn rail.

– If necessary will model bogie behaviour with the various mixes of new and worn wheel; and

rail profiles.

– Tests prototype profiles on real wagons before full introduction.

• Calculate contact stresses for the various new and worn wheels on ground

and worn rail profiles. – Curves - Check both hollow tread ( leading to gauge corner cracking of rail) and flange worn

wheels ( two point contact on the rail) – cannot assume perfect conformal contact.

– Tangent – check contact stress, including the effect on development of squats.

• .


Header & Footer 40

What ARTC is addressing

• Check the curving performance of new and worn wheels on the proposed high and low leg rail profiles.

• Any other issues that the experts consider need addressing.

• Assess the costs and benefits to above and below rail operations.

• ARTC will not be skipping the analysis phase and go directly to testing. The cost of analysis is significantly below the cost of testing. Testing will be used to validate modelling so that we can readily assess a wide range of wheel profiles on the various rail profiles for the various wagons. We may suggest follow up testing on the critical combinations

• Any above or below rail CEO will not be accepting a proposal to introduce our next “good idea” and then wait and see what happens. We will need a very sound analysis for the next proposal.


Header & Footer 41

Inference that Newcastle to Brisbane

is stable because of rail profile

• The WPR2000 is stable on curves (where it was designed to operate) at speeds up to 115kph

• Irrespective of the rail profile, is stable on unground rail, incorrectly ground rail and on rail with a good profile (on curves).

• The WPR2000 becomes unstable on tangent track at speeds above

• 94 kph

• ARTC business administration course. The confirming evidence trap: don’t seek supporting information only.

• Newcastle to Brisbane is predominantly curves, very few places freight trains can exceed 94 kph. Hence the accelerations will not be as high as elsewhere on the interstate network


Header & Footer 42

The Way forward

• A new rail profile has been developed by

RISSB

• The effect of tight gauge has been

considered.

• Stability has been considered

graeme templer - atrs

Engineering

wpr2000 profile

presentation title

wpr2000 wheel profile

profile design

anzr1 profile

correct rail profile

prototype profile

view header footer