Project

On

Implications & Solutions for running of Freight Trains at 100 Kmph on existing routes of IR
By

Sunil Kumar Gupta

&

Prem Prakash Verma

CONTENTS

S.No 1.0 2.0 3.0 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.4.1 3.5 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0 10.0 10.1 10.2 11.0 12.0 13.0

Topic Introduction World Scenario Implications of increasing the speed of freight train to 100 Kmph Effect of dynamic augment Rail Stresses Rail Wheel Contact Stresses Fatigue criteria Fatigue Strength of Rail Rail Grinding Effect of Track Geometry and structure Effect of Wheel flats Effect of bad welds Effect on Sleeper Effect on Ballast Effect on Formation Effect on Bridges Effect on Super Structure Effect on Sub Structure Increase in track maintenace costs International approval of 22.5 t axle load at 100 KMPH Conclusions.

Page Num ber 3 3 4 4 5 6 7 9 9 10 12 14 15 16 17 17 18 21 22 23 23

1.0 INTRODUCTION: 1.1 As per Integrated Railway Modernization Plan (20052010), Indian Railways would be handling 776 million tones of freight traffic. 1.2 To meet this ambitious growth rate of over 6% in Freight traffic, it has been planned to run higher axle load wagons at an increased speed of 100 Kmph. 1.3 Further emphasis has been given on development of improved rail-port connectivity and dedicated freight corridor. 1.4 The running of 100Kmph freight train will be primarily started on high density golden quadrilateral and its Diagonals connecting the four metropolitan cities. 1.5 The scope of this presentation is limited to the implication of increasing the speed of freight train to 100 Kmph. 1.6 2.0 World Scenario

2.1 In various advanced countries like America, Australia, Japan etc., the freight train are already running at 100 120 Kmph. 2.2 In these countries the freight trains runs on a dedicated lines, but in Indian Railways same infrastructure has to carry both goods and passenger traffic 2.1.1 .
2.1.2

3.0 Implications of increasing the speed of freight train to 100 Kmph. Effect on dynamic augment Effect on rail stresses Effect on sleepers Effect on ballast Effect on formation Effect on Bridges Effect on Track Geometry Increase in track maintenace costs Effect of wheel flat Effect of bad welds 3.1 Effect of dynamic augment On Indian Railways. the value of dynamic augment is adopted on the basis of results reported in C-100 report published in 1971. In C-I00 report tests for speed effect were conducted on Ambala-Ludhiana section of N. Railway, Bhusawal-Badnera section of Central railway and Allahabad -Mugalsarai section of N. Railway .The track consisted of 90 R rails with standard fish plated section on CST -9 sleepers and the vehicles selected were steam locomotives (WPR, W'P1), Diesel electric loco (WDM4, WDM2, WDM1 , I electric loco (WAM1 & W AG4 ), Bogie Coach (all coiled IRS ) Bogie wagon (BOX MK-1, BCX MK II etc) 4 wheelers (OH/CR) Based on the data collected during the trial, envelope curves have been drawn for the following three categories : 1. 2. 3. Locomotive Passenger coaches Bogie wagons

The value of dynamic augment for locos, coaches and wagons is calculated from these enveloping graphs. These values suffers inadequacies on following two accounts. 1. 2. The vehicles have changed and their suspension is materially different from the once provided on stock used for C-100. Presently the track consists of mainly 52Kg/60Kg rail laid on PSC sleepers against 90R on CST-9 used in C100. This is expected to cause a change in track response. Though the value of dynamic augment has been adopted as per the values given in C-100 but it is recommends that these values must be revised based on present rolling stock and latest track structures. RAIL STRESSES: On Indian Railways, Rail stresses are calculated by theory of Beam on Elastic foundation (BOEF) treating rail to be continuous beam supported on closely spaced elastic supports. The effect of stiffness and yield ability of tie (sleepers), ballast and roadway is represented by a single factor called Track Modulus, which is load per unit length of rail, required to produce unit depression on the track. The calculations takes into consideration the factors like effect of adjacent wheel, speed effects (parasitic motions of pitching, bouncing, rolling and hunting etc.), leading wheel effect, eccentricity of vertical load, effect of lateral loads and wear on rails etc. The bending stress in rail for axle load of 20.32 t & 22.84 t for BOXN wagon for 52 kg & 60 kg rails have been calculated for 75 kmph & 100 kmph and shown in following table

6 S.No. Rail Section Axle load Maximum Rail Stress at different speeds (Kg/mm2)

1.

52 Kg

20.32 t 22.84 t 22.84 t

75 Kmph 21.26 23.52 20.41

100 Kmph 22.64 25.20 21.41

2.

60 Kg

Permissible stresses 72 UTS 90 UTS 19.25 (LWR) 25.25 (LWR) It can be concluded from the above that stresses for speed of 100 Kmph on 52 Kg (90 UTS) and 60 Kg (90 UTS) with sleeper density M+7 are found with in permissible limit. RAIL WHEEL CONTACT STRESSES: The contact between rail and wheel flange should be theoretically a point. Hertz theory explains that in practice the elastic deformation under high axle load results in deformation of steel of wheel and the rail creating an elliptical contact area. Contact stresses are determined by the normal force on the contact area, while the ratio of the ellipse axes a and b depends on the main curvatures of the wheel and rail profiles. Inside the contact area a pressure distribution develops which is semi-elliptical in shape. with highest contact pressure occurring at centre.

Fig.1 Shear stress distribution at railhead

The concentrated load between wheel and rail causes a shear stress distribution in rail head as shown in figure above. The contact problem is most serious in case of high wheel loads or relatively small diameters. Eisemam has devised a simplified formula to calculate the maximum shear stress in railhead, which is as follows. Where
MAX=

4.13 (Q/R)

max= maximum shear stress in railhead. (Kg/mm2) Q= Wheel load + load due on loading due to curves. (kgs) R= Wheel radius (mm).

Maximum shear stress occurs at a depth of 5-7mm below the rail surface. The permissible shear stress is restricted to 30% of UTS; hence it is 21.60 kg/mm2 for 72 UTS rails and 27.00 kg/mm2 for 90 UTS rail. The contact stresses for BOXN would be as under (UIC bogies) Wagon Wheel load Q (tonnes) BOXN 11.42 3.4 Fatigue Criteria In IR, so far existing rail stress calculation procedure was not following fatigue criteria. For the design of a component, which undergoes fluctuating stresses, fatigue criterion needs to be applied. As far as induced stresses to be considered for fatigue criteria is concerned a decision needs to be made about the forces to be taken into account. The maximum lateral Worn wheel diameter (mm) 813 Contact shear stress (Kg/mm2) 21.91

force being estimated is an upper limit and will be reached infrequently, if at all at the same point of rail section. For fatigue criteria the loads which come frequently are to be considered for working out rail stresses and these induced stresses are to be compared with the permissible values for the material. For working out induced stresses, the value of lateral forces to be considered, is to be decided. It was discussed with I.I.T., Delhi also and an assessment needs to be made. For working out the permissible values in fatigue studies were conducted in RDSO and reported in M&C report K- 80 of 1970 & K-109 of 1976. These tests were conducted on samples make from 72 UTS rails and tested for full reversal of loads. Certain more studies were also conducted on full rail section and weld & reported in TM Dte's report No. TM- C-247 & C-276 of 1994. As the residual & thermal stresses are always existing in the rail section. The permissible value in fatigue need to be worked out from the values of results reported in above mentioned reports considering the constant stresses equal to thermal and residual stresses. For this purpose modified Goodman diagram is used. It is proposed to work out permissible fatigue strength corresponding to different constant level of stress (thermal and thermal + residual) for the edge of rail foot and centre of rail foot respectively. As at present, data for fatigue strength are available for 72 UTS rails/welds only, it would be desirable to conduct the tests for determining the fatigue strength of 90 UTS rails/welds also. Hence it would be worth while to point out that data available for the strength of weld joints are corresponding to the joints fabricated in controlled condition and it is most of the time not feasible to have specified conditions. The fatigue strength of weld executed in normal service condition may show lower values. It would be worth while to conduct test on joints executed in field under normal working conditions.

3.4.1 Fatigue Strength of Rail From the analysis of bending stresses and contact stresses it may though appear that 52 Kg 90 UTS rail may suffice the requirements of increased speed, but in practice, the above stresses coupled with thermal stresses and residual stresses set up cyclic stresses. From the theory of fatigue, it is evident that such cyclic stresses may result in failure of material at a stress level lower than what would normally require for failure. So far fatigue test data was not taken into consideration for design calculation of rails and limited fatigue test data is available with RDSO. Therefore it may be desirable to have further test data at various strength levels of rails for both 72 UTS and 90 UTS rails to arrive at standard fatigue test data for limiting design stresses. A project is under finalization with RDCIS, Ranchi for characterization of new as well as old rails. The project is aimed at determining important characteristics of rail steel like fatigue strength and fracture toughness. RAIL GRINDING: Rail grinding will remove the plastic deformation on railhead thereby removing the surface cracks before they propagate uncontrollably into the rail section. It also helps in progressively lowering the point of maximum shear stress thereby increasing the life of rail and preventing generation of subsurface cracks due to fatigue. American rail roads are now adopting preventive grinding programm aimed at minimizing the occurrences of internal rail defects, before they have form in rails. This new, more scientific approach to rail profile grinding have proved to extend the rail surface life.

10

Rail grinding programs are primarily intended to: Shift the wheel loads from the gauge corner of rail running surface by asymmetrical grinding pattern Prevent areas of high localized contact stresses by grinding the corrugated profiles more conforming to wheel geometry, thereby distributing internal stresses more uniformly, into the rail cross section and Grinding at predetermined intervals and rates shifts the critical internal stresses, thereby not allowing time for micro cracking and subsurface failure to occur. 4.0 EFFECT OF TRACK GEOMETRY AND CURVATURE: 4.1 Dynamic effects of 22.5 tonnes axle loads have been reported in ORE 161 studies for different speeds, track quality and radius of curvatures. The track quality was expressed in terms of standard deviation of vertical profile and alignment. Track with standard deviation less than 1 mm was considered to be very good that with 1-2 mm good and more than 2mm moderate. The important results of the above studies are: i). The Dynamic wheel force increases with the increase in speed and a poorly maintained track will have most pronounced effect, where increase in the wheel force can be up to 22 % of axle loads for speed ranging between 60 to 100 Kmph. Dynamic component of wheel Load vs. axle load, speed and track quality

11

ii) The lateral rail- wheel force (Ya) increases with increase in curvature and deterioration of quality of maintenance. iii) Stability of track depends upon the total lateral track load especially that part which is present over a length of at least 2 m. This lateral load referred to as Y2m increases with increase in curvature. For the lateral stability of track, its limiting value can be ascertained from Prudhomme equation implying thereby that Y2m < 0.85 (10+ Q/3)

Dynamic Lateral load in curves From the figure above it can be observed that the lateral force Y2m increases with increase in curvature and deterioration of quality of track maintenance. Though it is not possible to apply the above studies directly to Indian Railway conditions because of difference in rolling stock and track, but it gives a fair insight into the disturbances in geometry caused due lateral forces on sharp curves. From the figure above it can be seen that the Prudhomme limiting value is likely to be reached for curves sharper than 450 m radius. Thus the curves in general and with radius sharper than 450 m in particular will require a greater care of track geometry with increase in speed.

12

5.0 EFFECT OF WHEEL FLATS: The largest loads applied to the track from vehicles are those, which arise from irregularities on wheel such as wheel flat. ORE 161.1/RP 3 reports of the tests carried out on flat tyres measuring the effects of speed, size, sleeper type and axle loads. The results reveal: i). The forces at frequencies above 500 Hz referred to as P1 forces increases continuously with speed, while the forces at frequencies below 100 Hz, referred to P2 forces are more of less independent of speeds. The P1 forces have bearing on wheel rail contact stresses. This force, which causes most of damage to rails and concrete ties, increases with increase in speeds.

13

iii). The relationship between the flat size and force is almost linear. iv). The increase in Dynamic wheel force is more for concrete sleepers than for wooden sleepers. Studies have also revealed that movement of wheels with flats can generate dynamic forces, as high as six times the normal static load, in extreme situations. The Dynamic forces increase with increase in speed and axle loads. On Indian Railways, the effect of rail/ wheel defects and vehicle suspension, on static wheel load, is represented by a speed factor which can assume a maximum value of 1.75 for locomotives and 1.65 for wagons. Such occasional high loads may result in higher rail stresses reducing the fatigue life of rails and causing fracture of rail/ welds in extreme cases. The problem assumes alarming proportions incase of thermit welds (which have the impact strength of 7-10% of parent rail) in LWR territories, during winter season, when the full tensile stresses are present in rail section. According to UIC leaflet 510-2, flats on wheel with diameter of 1000- 630 mm should be restricted to a length of 60 mm and a depth of 0.9- 1.4 mm.

14

On Indian Railways, the permitted sizes of wheel flats are 50mm for locomotives and coaching stock and 60mm for goods stock. so far as the permitted size of wheel flats are concerned, it is sincerity of detection and enroute detachments of wagons with flats. Another possible solution could be use of more flexible rubber pads, which has potential of reducing the impact loads. 6.0 Effect of bad welds Even relatively small vertical deviation in weld geometry can cause huge dynamic forces on passage of a wheel. Misalignments are specially responsible for this. In order to confine these dynamic load geometrical deviation in welds should be limited to a few tens of a millimeter. An example of load distribution as a function of time during passage over a poor weld, the behavior is small like sharp peak of some millisecond i.e. force which only has a local influence on wheel/rail contact stress much broader which penetrates the whole construction. The dynamic application of the force q during passage of a poor weld presented in figure as a function of speed. High frequency dynamic load due to poor weld, corrugation and wheel flats are very detrimental to the track. Concrete sleeper in particular are very susceptible to these loads.

15

7.0 EFFECT ON SLEEPER: The primary function of a sleeper is to transmit the load of rolling stock to the formation through ballast, while maintaining the gauge, cross-levels and alignment. On Indian Railways the sleeper has been standardized to 60 Kg PSC monoblock sleeper. Rational design of sleeper is difficult as the load on rail seat, which govern the design of a sleeper, is dependent on a number of factors like dynamic wheel load, sleeper spacing, and condition of track expressed as track modulus and bending stiffness of rail. The design of sleeper has therefore been evolved on the basis of simplified loadings and extensive field trails on the sleepers so designed. The present design of 60 Kg PSC monoblock sleeper has been evolved for an axle load of 22.5 tonnes. To understand the implications of increase in speed on sleeper, it is necessary to know the load transferred at rail seat by the axle load, which is given by the following expression: W=Qs(U/64EI)0.25 Where W = Load at rail seat of the sleeper Q= Static wheel load S= spacing of sleepers U= Track Modulus E= Modulus of elasticity of rail section I = Moment of inertia of rail section. The static wheel load so worked out is increased by 150 % to account for dynamic wheel load For the axle load of tonnes, the value of static wheel load at rail seat for 52 kg rail section with a spacing of 65 cm, with a track modulus of 75 Kg/cm/cm for first 4t and 300 Kg/cm/cm for the remaining, works out to 5.232 tonnes, which is no different from the design static load of 6 tonnes. Hence the present design of 60 Kg PSC monoblock sleepers will suffice for the increase in speed to 100 Kmph.

16

8.0 EFFECT ON BALLAST: The support beneath the rails is a critical factor for effective transfer of loads. William Hay, author of a classic text in railroad engineering, writes: A common correction for poor track has been to lay new and heavier rail. The money might often be better spent in increasing the strength and stiffness of the rail support. One might as well try to stabilize a sinking building by adding another story to it. The track structure truly is a system. The quality of one component affects overall performance, as well as the life expectancies of other components. Simply increasing the weight of rail, which creates greater stiffness or bending resistance, will not necessarily compensate for other poor components (e.g., sleepers or ballast). The function of ballast is to transfer and distribute the load from sleepers to larger area of formation, to provide elasticity and resilience to track for riding comfort, to provide effective drainage, to provide necessary longitudinal and lateral resistance to track and to provide means for maintenance of alignment and unevenness. Increased speed will require increased depth of ballast cushion. As per Railway Boards letter No. 95/W1/Genl/0/39 dated: 9.10.96, the depth of ballast cushion for various axle loads and speed up to 100 Kmph, is as follows: S.No. Axle Depth of ballast Depth of load/GMT (Cm) ballast (cm) 1 For 20.32 t Up to 15 20 15 15-35 25 15 More than 35 25 25 2 For axle load 25t Up to 15 25 25 15-35 25 55 More than 35 25 70 sub-

17

While it is possible to provide the increased cushion, it is the optimum utilization of ballast that needs to be given a thought.

9.0 EFFECT ON FORMATION: The formations on the core routes of Indian Railway were constructed many decades ago, without any consideration to the soil strength and its geo-technical requirements. Due to phenomenal increase in axle loads, traffic and speeds during the recent years, large lengths of formations have started showing signs of distress and instability and their lengths are likely to increase with increase in speed. Even with present axle load and speed over 2000Km is identified as week formation and as much as 748 Km (out of this 350 Km on A & B route) is under speed restriction on this account. With increase in effective axle load with speed more length will cross threshold limit and get added to the list. The formation treatment should be planned in phase manner to remove the speed restriction so implementation of unrestricted speed of 100 KMPH for freight traffic can be achieved. Hence it is required that after doing proper calculation taking in to account the affecting factor, formation treatment should be done as per requirement. 10.0Effect on Bridges Keeping in view, the projected needs of the traffic and necessity for introduction of more powerful locomotives and heavy haul trains(with higher speed), Modified Broad Gauge Loading 1987 has been incarporated in the bridge rule wide correction slip no 16 date 14.1.1988. This MBG loading-87 provides for maximum axle load of 25 ton for the locomotives and train load of 8.25t/m on both sides of the locomotives. The maximum tractive effort has been increased to 100t for coupled locos, the braking force for loco is 25% of axle load and the braking force for the train load is 20% of the load. Thus both vertical and longitudinal forces have increased over previous adopted loading as

18

RBG and BGML loading which require checking and strengthening of bridges for MBG-87 loading. Super Structure A large no of bridges heaving loading standard as RBG and BGML have been checked and some of them have been found suitable with or without minor modification for the new loading standard. This has been circulated wide RDSO letter no :CBS/PBR/RLS DATED 11.8.1988. Input required for upgrading super structure of existing bridges on standard loading (i.e. BGML and RBG loading) and standard spans to suit MBG-87 loading for 100 Kmph speed have been worked out as under: Mainly RBG span of 12.2m, 24.4m, 30.5m, 45.7m, 61m and 76.2m and BGML spans of 30.5m, 45.7m, 61.0m, 76.2m, will require strengthening as per detail in following table:
A)

BGML spans:

Type of Clear Safe / unsafe Action to be taken by girder span for MBG-87 railways (m) Plate girder Under slung 30.5 Safe except Bearing to be modified as bearing per drawing no: CBS/2351 alt-1 Safe except Bearing to be modified as bearing per drawing no: CBS/2351 alt-1 Safe except i)Bearing
II)L1-L2

30.5

Through 30.5 type

i) fixed end bearing to be modified in terms of RDSO letter no CBS/DOW dated 31.8.94. ii) over stressed upto 5% can be permitted under clause 3.20.2 of steel bridge code provided L1L2 kept under regular

BOTTOM CHORD OVER STRESSED BY 1%

19

observation. Open web 45.7 Safe except fixed end bearing to be bearing modified in terms of RDSO letter no CBS/DOW dated 31.8.94.

Open web

61.0

Safe except fixed end bearing to be bearing modified in terms of RDSO letter no CBS/DOW dated 31.8.94.

Open web

76.2

Safe except i)Bearing

i)

fixed end bearing to be replaced as per drawing no: RDSO/B-1524. Over stress upto 5% can be permitted as per clause 3.20.2 of steel bridge code provided chord L0-L1 should kept under regular observation.

BOTTOM CHORD OVER STRESSED BY 0.4 %

ii)

B)RBG spans

Type of Clear girder span (m)

Safe / unsafe Action to be taken by railways for MBG-87

Plate girder

12.2

Girder unsafe, tension flange

To be kept under regular observation as per clause 3.20.2 of steel bridge code over

20

stressed 0.71% Plate girder 24.4

by

Girder To be kept under regular unsafe, observation as per clause tension 3.20.2 of steel bridge code flange over stressed by 1.9% Bearing unsafe Bearing unsafe Safe except Bearing to be modified as per drawing no: CBS/2351 alt-1 Bearing to be modified as per drawing no: BA-11404 alt-2

Plate girder Under slung

30.5

30.5

Through 30.5 type

i) fixed end bearing to be replaced to drawing no:BAi)bearing 11344 Alt-4. Fixed end ii)L0-L1, L1- saddle bolts and anchor L2 bottom bolts to be replaced with chord over property class 6.6 type. stressed by ii) over stressed up to 5% 1.7% and can be permitted as per 2.8% clause 3.20.2 of steel bridge respectively code provided L0-L1and L1L2 kept unde observation. regular

Open web

45.7

Safe except

i)fixed end bearing to be replaced as per drawing no: i)bearing BA-11364 alt-3. Fixed end ii)end rakers saddle bolts to be replaced with propriety clause 6.6 iii)top chord type. U1-U2, U2-u3 fails in ii)additional revets to be provided in end rocker at L0 combined axial and joint with increased size of gusset plate to drawing no : bending BA-11365 Alt-2, BA-11367 alt-6 and BA-11370 alt-7.

21

iii)over stressed up to 5% can be permitted as per clause 3.20.2 of steel bridge code provided U1_u2 and u2-U3 is kept under regular observation. Open web 61.0 Safe except i)Fixed end bearing to be replaced to drawing no BAi)bearing 11324 alt-3. Fixed end saddle bolts to be replaced ii)bottom with property clause 6.6 lateral bracing panel type L1-L2, L3-L4 ii)Additional rivets with over stressed increased size of gussets to by 1.1%, be provided in bottom rivets less in lateral bracing to drawing no bracing BA-11335 alt-2 and BAconnection 11335 /1 alt-3. iii) Over stressed upto 5% can be permitted as per clause 3.20.2 of steel bridge code provided L1-L2, and L3-L4 is kept under regular observstion. Open web 76.2 Unsafe. Which requires Maximum strengthening/ replacement. over stressed by 6.5%

10.2

Sub Structure The substructure should be checked according to the BSCs recommendations of item 773 of 65th BSC meeting held in february 1989. Certification of sub structure of existing bridges as per para 5 chapter VI of rules for opening of the railway shall be based on the physical condition of the piers and abutments. When new types of locomotives and rolling

22

stocks are permitted to run, the bridges should be kept under observation as considered necessary by the Chief Engineer.

11.0 Increase in track maintenace costs The ORE committee D141 developed method quantitative calculations as described below: for

In this approach damage/deterioration has been expressed as per following expression: E=kT P V In which E = deterioration since renewal or last maintenace peration T = Tonnage P = total axle load (static + dynamic) V = speed K, , , = constants, depends on track geometry deterioration, rail surface deffect and rail fatigue. The variation in maintenace cost with speed has been plotted for various axle loads and for various track qualities and shown in following figure. In calculation of the cost increase have been made for several axle load distribution. Track quality appears to be the most important factor and varies between 1 and 2 mm standard deviation. Magnitude of the cost with K according to the following figure, can be summerised as follows:

23

BMS = 1mm V = 80 Kmph P = 20 t

BMS = 2mm V = 100 Kmph P = 22.5 t

K = 23% K = 15% K = 8%

International approval of 22.5 t axle load at 100 KMPH For the purpose of requiring international approval of bogie wagons with 22.5t axle loads and speed up to 100 Kmph, further analysis were carried out by the UIC on the Europe Tour measurements and approval measurements were under taken by DB and SNCF. Based on this the conclusion was drawn that the boundary conditions applied here, i.e. R > 450m and maximum cant defficiency of 130mm (0.9m/sq sec.) a speed of 100 Kmph will produce no problems provided BMS alignment remains in the 0-25 m band below 2mm. Under these cicumstances the lateral load lies at least 20% below the prude homme limit.

13.0CONCLUSION: Following are the conclusions on the requirement of Track: From the consideration of Bending stresses and contact stresses, though 52 Kg/ 90UTS rail section with M+7 sleeper density will be sufficient but as per RDSO letter no CT/DG/LW/HAW dated 21.3.98 the recommended track structure is as follows: The recommended track structure for operation of 22.1 tonnes axle load wagon is as under : RAIL : SLEEPER : 60 kg (90 UTS) PSC (in special cases ST sleepers with Elastic fastening ) SLEEPER DENSITY : 1660 nos. As interim measure 22.1 t axle load wagon can be permitted at a restricted speed of 60 kmph / 80 kmph on following structure :

24

Rail

52 kg (72 UTS ) for 60 kmph 52 kg ( 90 UTS) - for 80 kmph

Sleeper

PSC sleeper with elastic fastenings 1540 nos. /km.

Sleeper density

90R and 72 UTS rails should be replaced expeditiously with 90 UTS rails. As a maintenance strategy it may be necessary to destress LWR twice- once before winter and again before summer especially in Zone III and Zone IV and their behavior should be critically watched. Due to increased bogie rotational resistance the increased lateral forces will increase the point & crossing maintenance activity, thus P & C will require close monitoring. Increased ballast cushion as stipulated in Boards letter dated: 95/W1/Genl/0/39 dated: 9.10.96 may be provided. The treatment for bad formation (748 Km) should be planned route wise, in phase manner, to remove the speed restriction so that, implementation of unrestricted speed of 100 KMPH for freight traffic can be achieved. Track is to be maintained to high standard by reducing the track tolerances by using mechanized method of maintenance so as to reduce the over all maintenance cost as the maintenance cost increases with speed and with deterioration in track quality. Preventive Rail Grinding are predetermined intervals will not increase safety but also it will be a cost effective solution for prolonging the life of rails. Curves in general and sharper than 450 m radius in particular will require better maintenance of track geometry, as the lateral forces on curved track increases with increase in axle load and increase in

25

speeds hence frequently.

they

have

to

be

inspected

more

Wheel flats are to be given a serious consideration in terms of detection, enroute detachments. USFD examination of rail has to be done more frequently as with increase speed and loading standard rolling contact fatigue defects will result in more rail failures. Bridges are to be maintained to be fit to at least MBG-87 loading standard. Bridge approaches, level Xing, culverts, tunnel etc., where the track stiffness changes abruptly, will require special monitoring due abrupt changes in vertical dynamics of heavy wheels. Bridge approaches on either side up to 50 m should be maintained critically. The very old , important and major bridges, which are already over stressed, their foundation and sub structure should be critically examined and NDT test and under water examination should be ensured before going for higher speed and higher axle load freight traffic.

26

REFERENCES: 1. Coenard Esveld, Modern Railway Track. 2. ORE D 161 rp4: Dynamic vehicle/ track interaction phenomena from point of view of track maintenance, Utrecht, September 1988. 3. Report on rail stresses rail stress calculation methodology by committee constituted under railway bds letter no 97/CEII/TS/1/pt.2 dated 26.12.2000 4. Strengthening of golden quadrilateral, its diagonals and other identified route for 100/75 Kmph goods train operation wide RDSO letter no CBS/golden/q/strength dated 30.12.2004. 5. RDSO letter no ct/DG/lw/HAW dated 21.3.98 on subject matter Higher axle load wagons. 6. Stuart Grassie, Paul Nilsson, Alleviation of Rolling Contact Fatigue by Grinding the worn Rail Profile, 7th International Heavy Haul Conference, 2001. 7. Worth. A.W., Hornaday J.R. and Richards P.R., Prolonging Rail Life through Rail Grinding, 3rd International Heavy Haul Railway Conference, Vancouver, 1986. 9. C100, 1971, investigation on lateral and vertical strength of track broad guage- Dynamic augments in track loads, RDSO civil engineering report no C-100, Nov- 1971 10. Technical paper no. 245, RDSO