welcome and introduction - rssb symons balfour beatty rail technologies infrastructure contractor...

Welcome and Introduction

Tim Gilbert, Porterbrook

Vehicle/Structures Systems Interface Committee

‘Engaging with Gauging’

Annual Seminar 01 October 2013, London

Morning programme:

Time Item Lead

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?

Paul Gray, RSSB

David Galloway, Network Rail

Sean Symons, Balfour Beatty

11:50 Q&A

12:10 Suburban gauge – What is it? What have we

done? What next?

David Buckley, Balfour Beatty

12:45 Q&A

13:05 Lunch




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

Robert Forde, Network Rail

14:10 Vehicle Gauging Data – What data? Why? RIS;

Gauging Database.

David Johnson, Consultant

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

Andrew Broadbent, RSSB

15:50 Concluding remarks Tim Gilbert, Chair, VS SIC

16:00 Close




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).




V/S SIC Members:

Name Organisation Representing Status

Tim Gilbert Porterbrook Leasing Company Independent Chairman Chairman

Graham White DB Schenker Rail (UK) Ltd Non-Passenger Train Operators Member

Ian Bucknall Network Rail Network Rail and other Infrastructure

Managers Member

Tim Fuller Network Rail Network Rail and other Infrastructure

Managers Member

David Galloway Network Rail Network Rail and other Infrastructure

Managers Member

Paul Gray RSSB RSSB Member

Tim Kendell Department for Transport DfT Member

Sean Symons Balfour Beatty Rail Technologies Infrastructure Contractor Member

John Roberts Office of Rail Regulation ORR Member

David Johnson DGauge N/A Member

Dean Taplin Bombadier RIA Member

Mark Molyneux ATOC Passenger Train Operators Member

Euan Smith Angel Trains ROSCOS Member




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’




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 [email protected].

More detail on all RSSB projects can be found at www.rssb.co.uk.

http://www.rssb.co.uk/SiteCollectionDocuments/pdf/reports/Research/T931_guide_final.pdf

mailto:[email protected]

http://www.rssb.co.uk/




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.

http://www.rssb.co.uk/sitecollectiondocuments/pdf/reports/research/T926_guide_final.pdf

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

Structure Gauge Vehicle Gauge

Dynamic Gauges

Structure Gauge Vehicle Gauge

Clearance

Dynamic Gauges

Static Gauge Line

Dynamic Gauge Line (2)


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

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


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


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? Introduction and background

• How did we get it? Analysis and refinement

• What happens now? 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

Platform Vehicle Lower sector on canted track

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?

Investigation undertaken in 4 key stages comprising:

• Clearance analysis of proposed LSVG

• Dynamic clearance investigation

• Structure Review

• Defining the LSVG

Lower Sector Vehicle Gauge – How did we get it?

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

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


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

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

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

Undertaken to determine structures Close to Rail (below

200mm ARL)

LSVG – Structure Review

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

62

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

63

T978 Methodology

• Stage 1 – Establishing a Limiting Space Envelope

• Stage 2 – Establishing the Suburban Gauge

• Stage 3 – Suburban Gauge Footstep Study

64

1.Establishing a Limiting Space Envelope

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

• KE Template Analysis

– Structure Profiles

Platforms Initially Excluded

– Suburban Gauge Dynamic Envelope

65

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)


66


67

2. Establishing SG – Optimisation

• “Smoothed”

Notional Gauge Profile

• Expanded in 25mm

increments

• Re-analysed over

>1000mm ARL structures

on Suburban routes

68

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)

69

2. Establishing SG – Gauge Height

70

2. Establishing SG – Solebar Area

• Platforms now included

• KE Template used again

to establish LSE

• Gauge profile modified in

solebar area

71

2. Establishing SG – Gauge Width

• Static comparison

• Existing Rolling Stock

2810mm max width

• 2820mm proposed

for Suburban Gauge

tested by analysis

72

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

73

• 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

• 950mm lower boundary of the

gauge is to allow for interaction

with the Lower Sector Vehicle

Gauge

74

3. Detailed Footstep Study

75


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

76


77


• Applicable between bogie centres +1m for footstep

width

• Allows for 1/3rd, 2/3

rd and three door configurations

78

Final Proposed Suburban Gauge

79

Final Proposed Suburban Vehicle Gauge

SVG-3

80

Interaction with LSVG

LSVG ends at 1200mm ARL

SG begins at 950mm

81

Interaction with LSVG

82

Concluding Analysis

83

Concluding Analysis

Re-analysis of Suburban Gauge on Suburban routes (Excluding Thameslink)

July 2011 NGD

GC/RT 5212 tolerances

Category Definition

Number of Structures

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 222 1079 436

Reduced ≥ 25mm

< 50mm 426 979 871

Normal ≥ 50mm 52625 50049 51836

Total 53545 53545 53545

85

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

86

Thank you for your time

Any Questions…..?

Any Further Questions?

David Buckley

Balfour Beatty Rail

[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

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


• 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!


.....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


Q: How would you calculate overthrow?


dgi = 125.((B+2x)2-B2)/R


dgi = Ki / R


Q: How would you calculate overthrow?


Q: Describe it to a computer


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


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.


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


What’s implemented?

Research behind many of the earlier topics during today’s events

Project T942 - Pantograph Sway Acceptance Requirements and Methodology

RSSB Project T942-

Pantograph 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.

.

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 T942-


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 T942-


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

RSSB Project T942-



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.



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



• 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



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



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.


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.


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.


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

http://spark.rssb.co.uk/

www.rssb.co.uk/RESEARCH/Pages/

RANDDE-NEWSLETTER.aspx




VS SIC – Future Research Ideas

Your Ideas

Your comments

Your Questions

Closing remarks

Thank you for attending the V/S SIC Seminar ‘Engaging

with Gauging’