-
TIP5-CT-2006-031312 Page 1 of 54 URBAN TRACK Issued:
2009-08-30
D0204_FCP_M36.doc
DELIVERABLE D2.4 Related Milestone
CONTRACT N 031312 PROJECT N FP6-31312 ACRONYM URBAN TRACK
TITLE Urban Rail Transport PROJECT START DATE September 1,
2006
DURATION 48 months Subproject SP2 Cost effective track
maintenance, renewal & refurbishment methods
Work Package WP2.2.1 Visual inspection & maintenance
Proposal for "European Standard for Track
Inspection and Maintenance
Written by Kopf F., Maras I., Gasser F., Norkauer A., Ritz O.,
Krger F., TU-Wien
D2S, STIB, ALSTOM, TTK, UITP, FCP
Date of issue of this report 2009-08-30 PROJECT CO-ORDINATOR
Dynamics, Structures & Systems International D2S BE
PARTNERS Socit des Transports Intercommunaux de Bruxelles STIB
BE Alstom Transport Systems ALSTOM FR Bremen Strassenbahn AG BSAG
DE Composite Damping Materials CDM BE Die Ingenieurswerkstatt DI DE
Institut fr Agrar- und Stadtkologische Projekte an
der Humboldt Universitt zu BerlinASP DE
Tecnologia e Investigacion Ferriaria INECO-TIFSA ES Institut
National de Recherche sur les Transports &
leur Scurit INRETS FR
Institut National des Sciences Appliques de Lyon INSA-CNRS FR
Ferrocarriles Andaluces FA-DGT ES Alfa Products & Technologies
APT BE Autre Porte Technique Global GLOBAL PH
Politecnico di Milano POLIMI IT Rgie Autonome des Transports
Parisiens RATP FR Studiengesellschaft fr Unterirdische
Verkehrsanlagen STUVA DE Stellenbosch University SU ZA Transport
for London LONDON
TRAMS UK
Ferrocarril Metropolita de Barcelona TMB ES Transport Technology
Consult Karlsruhe TTK DE Universit Catholique de Louvain UCL BE
Universiteit Hasselt UHASSELT BE
Project funded by the European Community under the SIXTH
FRAMEWORK PROGRAMME PRIORITY 6 Sustainable development, global
change & ecosystems International Association of Public
Transport UITP BE
Union of European Railway Industries UNIFE BE Verkehrsbetriebe
Karlsruhe VBK DE Fritsch Chiari & Partner FCP AT
Metro de Madrid MDM ES
Lieve VanherwegenApproved
-
TIP5-CT-2006-031312 Page 2 of 54 URBAN TRACK Issued:
2009-08-30
D0204_FCP_M36.doc
T A B L E O F C O N T E N T S 0. Executive summary
..............................................................................................................................................
4
0.1. Objective of the
deliverable........................................................................................................................
4 0.2. Strategy used and/or a description of the methods used with
the justification thereof................. 4 0.3. Background info
available and the innovative elements which were
developed............................ 5 0.4. Problems
encountered.................................................................................................................................
5 0.5. Partners involved and their contribution
................................................................................................
6 0.6.
Conclusions...................................................................................................................................................
7 0.7. Relation with the other deliverables (input/output/timing)
..............................................................
7
1. Standard
Introduction..........................................................................................................................................
9 2. Inspection
.............................................................................................................................................................10
2.1. Track Inspection and Inspection Device
................................................................................................10
2.1.1. Track
Geometry.................................................................................................................................10
2.1.2. Rail Inspection
...................................................................................................................................17
2.2. Inspection schedule
...................................................................................................................................24
3. Maintenance Measures
......................................................................................................................................26
3.1. Maintenance philosopies
..........................................................................................................................26
3.2. Servicing
......................................................................................................................................................27
3.2.1. Lubrication
.........................................................................................................................................27
3.2.2. Surface
cleaning.................................................................................................................................27
3.2.3. Cleaning ballast
.................................................................................................................................28
3.2.4. Cleaning rail
grooves........................................................................................................................28
3.2.5. Cleaning switches
.............................................................................................................................28
3.2.6. Cleaning track drainage
systems....................................................................................................28
3.2.7. Care and control of vegetation
.......................................................................................................29
3.2.8. Snow clearing and ice removal in winter
.....................................................................................29
3.3. Corrective Maintenance
............................................................................................................................29
3.3.1.
Grinding..............................................................................................................................................29
3.3.2. Rail
alignment....................................................................................................................................29
3.3.3. Maintenance of track
covering........................................................................................................29
3.3.4. Build-up welding
..............................................................................................................................30
4. Recommendations for Intervention and alert
limits.....................................................................................31
4.1.
Scope.............................................................................................................................................................31
4.2. Definition of Categories
............................................................................................................................31
4.3. Intervention and alert
limits.....................................................................................................................32
4.3.1. Track
gauge........................................................................................................................................32
4.3.2. Horizontal alignment
.......................................................................................................................32
4.3.3. Longitudinal
Level............................................................................................................................32
4.3.4. Cross level
..........................................................................................................................................32
4.3.5. Twist
....................................................................................................................................................32
4.3.6.
Grooves.................................................................................................................................................33
-
TIP5-CT-2006-031312 Page 3 of 54 URBAN TRACK Issued:
2009-08-30
D0204_FCP_M36.doc
4.4. Maintenance measures review
.............................................................................................................33
5. Operator
remarks................................................................................................................................................35
6. LCC General
Description...................................................................................................................................46
6.1. Considered Maintenance Measures in the
Calculation.......................................................................48
6.2. Track types
..................................................................................................................................................48
6.2.1. Standard ballasted track
..................................................................................................................48
6.2.2. Covered
track.....................................................................................................................................49
6.3. General UrbanTrack LCC Calculation conventions
............................................................................49
7. Working cycles and Costs
.................................................................................................................................50
7.1. Ballasted Track
...........................................................................................................................................50
7.2. Covered Track
............................................................................................................................................51
8.
Results...................................................................................................................................................................52
8.1. Summary Ballasted
Track.........................................................................................................................52
8.2. Covered Track
............................................................................................................................................53
9.
Bibliography.........................................................................................................................................................54
-
TIP5-CT-2006-031312 Page 4 of 54 URBAN TRACK Issued:
2009-08-30
D0204_FCP_M36.doc
0. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
0.1. OBJECTIVE OF THE DELIVERABLE
The objective of the work package Visual inspection &
maintenance was to create a comprehensive preliminary draft
standard for urban railway tracks of public transport such as tram
and metro. The draft standard was created with an emphasis on
visual inspection and is applicable for all urban traffic network
operators. The standard was aimed in particular at the small and
medium size urban traffic network operators.
0.2. STRATEGY USED AND DESCRIPTION OF THE METHODS USED WITH THE
JUSTIFICATION THEREOF
The draft standard was created using a step by step methodology.
Initially a comprehensive study was undertaken, reviewing current
and existing inspection and maintenance standards for both heavy
rail and urban tracks. External experts from universities and
operators assisted in compiling a preliminary draft standard. This
draft standard formed the basis for the discussions with the
operators and the consensus finding process. This unaltered
preliminary standard forms the main part of this report (some minor
changes have been made and these are highlighted in italic
letters). All the collated comments and remarks refer to this
original standard. The proposal document and a questionnaire were
distributed to several operators Urban Track members and other
experts to ascertain their views and opinions. However
unfortunately the number of responses collected was very limited
and therefore the strategy was altered. Subsequently it was decided
to identify and contact relevant European operators and experts
(with support of UITP) in the fields of inspection and maintenance
to submit to them the draft standard. In addition, independent
personal meetings were organised which provided a forum were
relevant information, comments and remarks were collated through
personal discussion.
The final step of the intended consensus finding process was a
short survey with three questions:
if the expert comments represent the official position of the
represented operator,
if the operator is interested in a European standard for
inspection and maintenance and
if the operator would support the standardisation work.
An anonymous reporting technique was used to avoid the judgement
of the collected information and to show the various opinions of
the interviewed operator experts without revealing confidential
information.
This document contains the following chapters:
A preliminary draft of the standard, changes after the operator
survey are italic,
Remarks and comments of the visited operator experts
An example of the effect of the use of the standard on life
cycle costs (LCC).
-
TIP5-CT-2006-031312 Page 5 of 54 URBAN TRACK Issued:
2009-08-30
D0204_FCP_M36.doc
0.3. BACKGROUND INFO AVAILABLE AND THE INNOVATIVE ELEMENTS WHICH
WERE DEVELOPED
The new document should be based on the US transit maintenance
procedures (APTA-RT-S-FS-002-02 dd-26-07-2004) based on visual
inspection and established by the American Public Transportation
Association (APTA).
The APTA-Code refers to the maintenance of heavy rail and
therefore the code cannot be used directly to provide a standard
for the specific inspection and maintenance needs of urban tracks.
Urban tracks have specific differences to heavy rail, these
include:
greater diversity of track types (e.g. green track, embedded in
roads),
history of development of track, vicinity and environment,
traditions in operating structures,
diversity of the priority, running speed of the lines and the
alignment parameters (e.g. longitudinal gradient, curve
radius),
variety of rolling stock,
close proximity to the adjacent buildings, interference with the
urban infrastructure (e.g. public services facilities and
ducts),
Influence of other traffic users (e.g. embedded in roads, shared
use of track with heavy rail).
These significant differences between heavy rail and urban
tracks and also the diversity within urban tracks make it difficult
to utilise regulations of a selected operator as a universal
comprehensive standard for urban public transport tracks. This
non-exhaustive enumeration shows the difficulties and barriers for
the harmonisation and standardisation work.
The developed draft document is a first attempt at standardising
the inspection & maintenance for urban railway tracks of public
transport such as tram and metro on a European level. There have
been no previously published standards at a Euopean level, this is
the first template of its kind.
0.4. PROBLEMS ENCOUNTERED
Significant effort and groundwork was required to collate the
information from operators. The information gathered varied greatly
from only general statements to very detailed comments. Discussions
were sometimes difficult as the operator personnel undertaking the
inspection and maintenance work typically was not accustomed to
working with English language documents.
Through the course of these discussions further aspects have
been identified that have made the definition of an uniform
standard for track inspection and maintenance very difficult:
Confidentiality of in-house procedures for inspection and
maintenance,
urban operators, which often belong to the local community are
conscious of safeguarding regional jobs and are reluctant to
support the global companies,
-
TIP5-CT-2006-031312 Page 6 of 54 URBAN TRACK Issued:
2009-08-30
D0204_FCP_M36.doc
for global working component suppliers the market is small,
diverse, competitive and not significant,
apprehensiveness of operators towards European harmonisation and
standardisation,
for large operators, with vast in-house expertise and
sophisticated regulations and procedures concerning the track
rolling stock interaction, a harmonised standard would be either
irrelevant or a step backwards
From discussions with train operators we are unable to present a
uniform standard of sufficient depth, reliability and quality.
0.5. PARTNERS INVOLVED AND THEIR CONTRIBUTION
The following list shows the contacted operators. The list
includes partners in the Urban Track project, members of the
operator network and some that are not integrated in the project.
It should be a representative sample of large and small European
operators, in different regions, languages and operation
philosophies.
Vienna (Wiener Linien GmbH)
Graz (GVB Grazer Verkehrsbetriebe Grazer Stadtwerke AG
Verkehrsbetriebe)
Dresden (DVB Dresdner Verkehrsbetriebe AG)
Karlsruhe (VBK Verkehrsbetriebe Karlsruhe)
Brehmen (bsag Brehmer Straenbahn AG)
Brussels (STIB Socit des Transports Intercommunaux de Bruxelles
and De Lijn)
Paris (RATP Rgie autonome des transports Parisiens)
Strasbourg (Compagnie des Transports Strasbourgeois CTS)
Porto (Metro do Porto, SA)
Barcelona (TMB Transport metropolitans de Barcelona)
Madrid (Metro de Madrid)
Birmingham (Centro Midland Metro Birmingham)
London (London Trams)
Naples (Metronapoli)
Bergen (bybanen, NSB lokaltog)
Helsinki (YTV)
Budapest (BKV Budapesti Transport)
Warsaw (Tramwaje Warszawskie)
Prague (DPP Dopravn podnik hl. M. Prahy)
-
TIP5-CT-2006-031312 Page 7 of 54 URBAN TRACK Issued:
2009-08-30
D0204_FCP_M36.doc
Brno (Dopravn podnik msta Brna)
We are very thankful for the time invested by the experts of
these opertors and for their comments, remarks, discussions and
delivered information.
0.6. CONCLUSIONS
A preliminary draft standard for urban railway tracks of public
transport was developed.
The result of the survey to the operators showed only moderate
interest to the standardisation and rather opposition within
significant operators.
In conclusion a standardisation is not recommended, however the
document could be helpful as voluntary standard guidelines for
operators creating their own in-house procedure. UITP will form out
of this work a UITP recommendation.
0.7. RELATION WITH THE OTHER DELIVERABLES
(INPUT/OUTPUT/TIMING)
There is a relationship to the deliverable D4.3b which includes
the LCC considerations.
-
TIP5-CT-2006-031312 Page 8 of 54 URBAN TRACK Issued:
2009-08-30
D0204_FCP_M36.doc
Proposal of European Standard for
Track Inspection and Maintenance
-
TIP5-CT-2006-031312 Page 9 of 54 URBAN TRACK Issued:
2009-08-30
D0204_FCP_M36.doc
1. STANDARD INTRODUCTION 4.1, 9.5 (these numbers refer to
anonymous operator comments in chapter 5 collected during the
consensus building process)
Inspection is the checking or testing for condition, performance
and safety of equipment against established standards.
To provide safe operating as well as to sustain availability of
the infrastructure, inspection is essential. Moreover it is not
only the basis for further maintenance measures but also for the
implementation of LCC-management. Only through a strategic
measurement and documentation programme, the operator of an urban
transit network can reach a high level of effectiveness and
efficiency in wheel/rail operation and maintenance. Though the
standard only deals with inspection and maintenance of the track,
the wheel/rail interaction has a significant effect on abrasion of
the track and therefore cannot be neglected.
As this standard addresses all infrastructure providers with
inner-city/urban track networks according to Urban Track within the
EU-countries and with respect to the diversity of track systems and
vehicle types, the guidelines can only present a minimum level of
requirements without limitation to set higher limits of quality.
The size of network normally implicates different possibilities for
the operator concerning man power, budget or technical equipment
and priority of the track section (primary or secondary net).
Therefore the foreseen standard concentrates on visual inspection
and non-automated measurements. The standard defines what has to be
measured but does not set any limits for procedures and equipment
to carry out those measurements.
The following variables play a key role in determining rail-wear
limits [1]:
the highest permissible stresses in rails
the geometry of contact between the flange and the rail or
wheelset and track: two-point contact tends to produce poor
steering on curves resulting in higher lateral force and higher
rate of wheel/rail wear
requirements regarding the quality of the track superstructure,
especially for high speed services
vehicle clearance and building (or structural) clearance
if grooved rails are used, vertical wear of the rail head is
further limited by the requirement that contact between the wheel
flange and the bottom of the groove has to be avoided (exception:
switches and crossings).
The proposal for a standard is structured in the following mean
issues:
Inspection
Maintenance measures
Recommendations for Intervention and alert limits
-
TIP5-CT-2006-031312 Page 10 of 54 URBAN TRACK Issued:
2009-08-30
D0204_FCP_M36.doc
2. INSPECTION
2.1. TRACK INSPECTION AND INSPECTION DEVICE1
4.2
The purpose of regular inspections is to determine any
deviations from the tracks intended alignment and verify compliance
with the respective set limit values. The expert opinion is
acquired by means of sight and functional check and measurements.
In principle, two types of inspections are used:
visual inspection
measurements (various procedures and equipment may be used,
depending on the purpose and scope of the inspection)
Furthermore failure in alignment of track and rail defects can
be detected through visual inspection (e.g. by means of binocular),
test run over the track by experienced personnel, and feedback from
operating personnel.
Regular visual examinations performed at set intervals can give
an impression of the tracks basic condition to those who are
responsible. In Figure 1 the individual elements are listed that
require special attention in this context. Visual inspection can
help to detect where further measurements are necessary.
Figure 1 Important track elements for visual inspection [1]
2.1.1. Track Geometry
Checking track geometry primarily entails taking regularly
measurements of
1 This chapter is based on [1]
-
TIP5-CT-2006-031312 Page 11 of 54 URBAN TRACK Issued:
2009-08-30
D0204_FCP_M36.doc
Track gauge
Versed sine in curves
Horizontal and vertical alignment
Cross level and twist
2.1.1.1. Track gauge
9.6, 17.1
Definition [2]
Distance G between the gauge faces of the two adjacent running
rails measured at a distance zp below the running surface (see
Figure 2 and Figure 3).
1 GFT common running surface
Figure 2 Track gauge vignole rail
Figure 3 Track gauge grooved rail
The track gauge will tend to widen through natural wear
(primarily on curves). An initial phase of high abrasion (as the
tracks shape conforms to passing wheel flanges) is followed by
moderate and roughly linear wear. The wear rate is mainly
influenced by the track radius, the load to which the section is
subjected, and the surface hardness of the rail steel.
-
TIP5-CT-2006-031312 Page 12 of 54 URBAN TRACK Issued:
2009-08-30
D0204_FCP_M36.doc
The increasing tendency for bogies to run sideways on curves as
wear increases then leads to a gradual third phase of abrasion,
before the limit values are reached. Those limit values are
generally forced by the track guiding demands:
Stable travel along straight sections through sufficient minimum
gauge clearance
Fast and low-wear travel through greater radii
During this phase noise and vibration will also increase. The
onset of this phase can be determined by continually comparing
current with past measurement values, to specify a time for renewal
or the restoration of its running edge by welding.
Measurement method
The value zp represents the distance from the running surface
down to a point P.
Point P is the gauge face contact between a new wheel-set and a
new rail. Its position will be influenced by the actual wheel
profile and rail profile at the time of measurement.
zp is set with 0 9 mm, 0 10 mm or 0 14 mm [11]. Important is the
adjustment of the measurement level between track system and
running gear to obtain comparative dimensions and measurement
values.
Measurement uncertainty:
Uncertainty 1 mm
Range of measurement2:
The range shall be the nominal gauge -5 mm/+50 mm
Analysis method:
Individual defects are represented by the amplitude from the
nominal value to the peak value (minimum and maximum value).
Output requirements:
Each track gauge measurement shall be recorded as a single
value. Each value has to be allocated to track coordinates (e.g.
chain age) precisely to guarantee repeatability and reproducibility
between the values of successive measurements.
Output presentation:
As a minimum, track gauge shall be described by the
following:
the identification of individual defects which exceed a
prescribed threshold.
the measured track gauge.
the difference between the measured track gauge and the nominal
track gauge.
the mean track gauge over a specified distance.
2 Definition: Specific domain described by its limits.
-
TIP5-CT-2006-031312 Page 13 of 54 URBAN TRACK Issued:
2009-08-30
D0204_FCP_M36.doc
the variation of track gauge over a specified distance or a
specified number of measuring points.
2.1.1.2. Horizontal alignment - Versed sine in the curve
9.6, 17.1
Definition and measurement method [1]
The track direction is checked by chordal and versed sine
measurement. The 16- or 20-m chord (versed sine measurement every 5
m) can be used. The versed sine of the bent rail naturally deviates
from the theoretical reference value, especially where curves begin
and end. Here, comparing versed sines over the length of the curve
enables an assessment of the quality of the position of the track,
and an estimate of the development due to wear over time in the
future, based on previously recorded measurements.
Measurement uncertainty:
1,5 mm
Analysis method:
Individual defects are represented by the amplitude from the
mean value (moving average or low pass filtered) to the peak
value.
Output requirements:
Each alignment measurement shall be recorded as a single value.
Each value has to be allocated to track coordinates (e.g. chain
age) precisely to guarantee repeatability and reproducibility
between the values of successive measurements.
Output presentation:
As a minimum, horizontal alignment shall be described by the
following:
isolated defects that exceed a prescribed threshold.
a standard deviation over a defined length, typically 200 m.
2.1.1.3. Longitudinal level
4.3, 9.6, 17.1
Definition [2]
Deviation zp in z-direction of consecutive running surface
levels on any rail, expressed as an excursion from the mean
vertical position (reference line), covering the wavelength ranges
stipulated below and is calculated from successive
measurements.
-
TIP5-CT-2006-031312 Page 14 of 54 URBAN TRACK Issued:
2009-08-30
D0204_FCP_M36.doc
1 GFT common running surface 2 Reference line
Figure 4 Longitudinal level
The height of rail, in combination with the respective
longitudinal height, provides an early indication of any emerging
weak points in the substructure and also allows conclusions to be
determined about the change in quality of welded joints.
Longitudinal level measurement shall be made with a versine
system. Comparing measured values over the length enables an
assessment of the quality of the position of the track, and an
estimate of the development due to wear over time in the future,
based on previously recorded measurements.
Measurement uncertainty:
1,5 mm
Analysis method:
Individual defects are represented by the amplitude from the
mean value (moving average or low pass filtered) to the peak
value.
Output requirements:
Each longitudinal level measurement shall be recorded as a
single value. Each value has to be allocated to track coordinates
(e.g. chain age) precisely to guarantee repeatability and
reproducibility between the values of successive measurements.
Output presentation:
As a minimum, longitudinal level shall be described by the
following:
isolated defects that exceed a prescribed threshold.
a standard deviation over a defined length, typically 200 m.
2.1.1.4. Cross level
9.6, 17.1
Definition [2]
The difference in the height of the adjacent running surface
computed from the angle between the running surface and a
horizontal reference plane. It is expressed as the height of the
vertical leg of the
-
TIP5-CT-2006-031312 Page 15 of 54 URBAN TRACK Issued:
2009-08-30
D0204_FCP_M36.doc
right-angled triangle having a hypotenuse that relates to the
nominal track gauge plus the width of the rail head rounded to the
nearest 10 mm.
1 Cross level (or cant) 2 GFT common running surface 3
Horizontal reference plane 4 Hypthenuse
Figure 5 Cross level
Measurement method
Cross level is determined by measuring either the angle between
the running surface3 and the horizontal reference plane or the
difference in height between the two running tables4.
Measurement uncertainty:
cross level value: 10 mm
relative value (difference of successive cross level values) to
be used for the twist calculation: 1 mm
Range of measurement:
The range of measurements shall be 225 mm.
Analysis method:
Individual defects are represented by the amplitude from the
mean value to the peak value.
Output requirements:
3 Running surface: curved surface defined by the longitudinal
displacement of a straight line perpendicular to the
centre-line of the track and tangential to both running
tables.
4 Running table: upper surface of the head of the rail.
-
TIP5-CT-2006-031312 Page 16 of 54 URBAN TRACK Issued:
2009-08-30
D0204_FCP_M36.doc
Each cross level measurement shall be recorded as a single
value. Each value has to be allocated to track coordinates (e.g.
chain age) precisely to guarantee repeatability and reproducibility
between the values of successive measurements.
Output presentation:
As a minimum cross level shall be prescribed by its absolute
value.
2.1.1.5. Twist
9.6, 17.1
Definition [2]
The algebraic difference between two cross levels taken at a
defined distance apart, usually expressed as a gradient between the
two points of measurement. Twist may be expressed as a ratio ( or
mm/m).
Twist, mathematically represented as the first derivative of
respective height over length, provides information on emerging
defects in the track formation. Together with the torsion
resistance of bogies, it is also a key criterion for assessing
safety from derailment.
Measurement method
Twist measurement should either be taken simultaneously at a
fixed distance e.g. at a distance equivalent to the wheel-base, or
be computed from consecutive measurements of cross-level.
Measurement uncertainty
1,5 mm/m
Analysis methods:
Individual defects are represented either by the amplitude from
a zero-line to the peak value or by the amplitude from the mean
value (low pass filtered value) to the peak value.
For standard deviation the measurement of twist is represented
by the amplitude from the low-pass filtered value to the current
measured value.
Output requirements:
Each twist measurement shall be recorded as a single value. Each
value has to be allocated to track coordinates (e.g. chain age)
precisely to guarantee repeatability and reproducibility between
the values of successive measurements.
Output presentation:
As a minimum twist shall be prescribed by the following:
isolated defects that exceed a prescribed threshold.
a standard deviation over a defined length, typically 200 m.
-
TIP5-CT-2006-031312 Page 17 of 54 URBAN TRACK Issued:
2009-08-30
D0204_FCP_M36.doc
2.1.2. Rail Inspection
14., 17.1
Rail heads are subject to vertical wear from operations and
lateral wear from run-on of the wheel flange, especially in curved
tracks.
The following types of wear and changes of the head of rail can
occur:
Profile changes
Corrugation
Cracks, fractures, head checks
2.1.2.1. Profile changes
4.4, 14., 17.1
The limit of rail head/gauge area loss defines the minimum rail
cross sectional area allowed in service. This limit ensures rail
has sufficient strength under load and provides adequate guidance
for wheels running along the track. The limiting loss of area
should be specified based on the
vehicle load,
track curvature, and
track condition.
The rail head material loss computation requires that the
measured rail profiles have a correct orientation relative to the
new template; previous measurements at the same location can be
used to confirm the accuracy of the computation [3].
Figure 6 Examples of reduction in rails section modulus with
increasing wear and wear limits of rail [1]
-
TIP5-CT-2006-031312 Page 18 of 54 URBAN TRACK Issued:
2009-08-30
D0204_FCP_M36.doc
Wear and abrasion of the rail head in principal occur as
follows:
vertical wear
lateral wear
deformation and crushing.
In general these types of wear arise simultaneously.
Figure 7 Vertical and lateral wear of the rail head
Limit of lateral wear is reached when the wear gets to the
lowest point of the rail head (see Figure 7). Rails with
deformation and crushing of the rail head have to be removed when
the track gauge goes below the minimum level and the required track
gauge cannot be set up through maintenance measures.
For grooved rails the limit of vertical wear is set through the
difference of the groove depth for new rails and flange height for
new wheels. As bumping of the flange should be avoided (except in
the field of flat grooves) because of the reduced breaking effect,
vertical rail wear has to be limited such that the groove depth is
higher than the flange height of a new wheel. Depth of flat grooves
should be 13 mm at its minimum.
Lateral wear of grooved rails is limited by the requirements
regarding track gauge (see 2.1.1.1) and to safety criteria in terms
of individual traffic.
The groove width W is limited in case of embedded track as
follows:
Wmax 45 mm (straight track)
Wmax 60 mm (curved track)
-
TIP5-CT-2006-031312 Page 19 of 54 URBAN TRACK Issued:
2009-08-30
D0204_FCP_M36.doc
Figure 8 Grooved rail with vertical and lateral wear and
deformation of the rail head
2.1.2.2. Corrugation
14., 17.1
Vertical irregularities of the rail profile with wavelength
smaller than 1 m that induce commensurately higher frequencies are
embraced by the term corrugation. They are important with regard to
dynamic behaviour of the track and therefore they also play a major
role in determining the noise [4] [1]. Corrugation can be
differentiated from vertical irregularities at relatively long
wavelengths (typically greater than 3 m) that excite
correspondingly low frequencies. They are associated with formation
of the track; furthermore they are important with regard to dynamic
behaviour of the vehicle (see 2.1.1.3).
Wavelengths [m] Frequency [Hz] Type of defect
Treatmentirregularities in rail
0.03 - 0.10 740 - 220 short wavelength corrugation0.10 - 1.00
220 - 22 .0 long wavelength rail corrugation1.00 - 3.00 22.0 - 7.40
long waves and rolling defects
irregularities in formation3.00 - 25.0 7.40 - 0.89 cant, level
alignment, twist, gauge tamping stone-blowing25.0 - 70.0 0.89 -
0.32 alignment design 70.0 - infinity 0.32 - 0.00 design geometry
design
grinding; straighten welds
frequency range is that excited by a vehicle travelling at 80
km/h
Figure 9 Classification of typical irregularities in track
[4]
Corrugation has to be seen as the result from several different
dynamic mechanisms in vehicle/track interaction. Less variety in
vehicle type and train speeds intensifies problems like corrugation
or rolling contact fatigue, which occur at the wheel/rail
interface.
To avoid corrugation, grinding is an essential maintenance tool
to extend rail life even though it also consumes rail life.
Skidding pattern shows similar damage symptoms as corrugation
and has to be corrected by grinding. Skidding pattern mainly arise
in curves with small radii.
-
TIP5-CT-2006-031312 Page 20 of 54 URBAN TRACK Issued:
2009-08-30
D0204_FCP_M36.doc
2.1.2.3. Engine burn
Engine burn caused by skidding cant be avoided through
infrastructure-sided measures. If they occur the damaged rail has
to be replaced.
2.1.2.4. Cracks, fractures, head checks
14., 17.1
Track guidance can only be safe if rail heads are uniformly
undamaged. There can be various reasons for rail fractures, such as
faulty material used in their manufacture (rather exceptional
nowadays), mistakes made during joint and build-up welding (one of
the most common reasons), and also material fatigue. Incorrect heat
treatment or unsuitable materials in conjunction with build-up
welding can cause cracks which can lead to rail fractures later on.
Head checks, fine cracks in flanges that result in nicks, normally
only occur in domains of railway track that are subjected to high
axle loads.
In addition holes in the web of the rail are a common reason for
rail breakage as well. In general a hole in the web of the rail has
to be drilled (punching is only allowed under prefabricated
conditions in the plant).
Cracks, fractures and head checks have to be located through
periodic visual inspection by qualified personnel and/or by
feedback of drivers or electrical conductivity (signal).
2.1.2.5. Relevant components to be checked
Rail Fastening
4.5, 10.5, 17.1
Rail fastenings have to be checked for condition and
effectiveness and have to be tightened if necessary.
Anchor, safety cap
Condition and effectiveness of anchors and safety caps has to be
checked.
Guide bar, check rail
Guide bars and check rails have to be checked for proper
operation by visual inspection and inspection of the
fastenings.
Rail joint
14.
-
TIP5-CT-2006-031312 Page 21 of 54 URBAN TRACK Issued:
2009-08-30
D0204_FCP_M36.doc
Rail joint with fish plate: Mechanical properties of rail joint
with fish plates have to be checked for proper operation under
load. Electric conductivity has to be tested.
Welded rail joint: The weld seam has to be checked for proper
operation by ultrasonic flow measuring method. Electric
conductivity has to be tested.
Insulated rail joint: A visual inspection must ensure that the
rolling laps at both sides of the insulated rail joint, do not
contact. Bonding and bolting has to be checked for proper operation
by visual inspection.
Dilatation device
Dilatation devices (overlap of rail, feathered joint) have to be
checked for proper operation. Standard operating procedures and
test specifications e.g. given by the manufacturer have to be
considered.
Lubrication
14.
Lubrication has to be checked for proper operation by visual
inspection.
Buffer stop
Buffer stops have to be checked for proper operation by visual
inspection.
Turnouts and crossings
As a minimum the following geometric values have to be
measured:
Gauge, guard check gauge, guard face gauge
groove width
check-rail groove gauge, crossing groove gauge
common crossing groove gauge
position of switch blade against stock rail
gap between adjacent switch blade and stock rail
gap between distant switch blade and stock rail
In addition to that point mechanisms as well as all moving parts
have to check for proper operation (function, fast moving, clean).
Tables of geometric limit values have to be set according to
dimensions of the wheel-set of the operating vehicles.
-
TIP5-CT-2006-031312 Page 22 of 54 URBAN TRACK Issued:
2009-08-30
D0204_FCP_M36.doc
Figure 10 Check-rail gauges in a monobloc crossing with grooves
rails [1]
Points heating
The points heating has to be checked for proper operation at
least before winter by visual inspection.
Sleepers
17.1
Sleepers have to be checked for integrity, condition and
effectiveness.
Ballast
9.3
Requirements for ballast bed [1]:
sleeper pressure should be transferred to the subsoil track
formation as evenly as possible
sufficient resistance to longitudinal and lateral creep; in
particular avoid any lateral displacement caused by high
longitudinal stresses in the track (e.g. at high temperatures)
water permeability, working drainage ensure adequate track
elasticity, to minimise impact of dynamic forces
reproducibility of original track by cleaning, tamping and
realigning
In addition to measurements mentioned in 2.1.1, the ballast bed
has also to be monitored by visual inspection especially with
regard to contamination (e.g. high proportion of fine grain
content) which influences elasticity of the track and durability of
wooden sleepers.
-
TIP5-CT-2006-031312 Page 23 of 54 URBAN TRACK Issued:
2009-08-30
D0204_FCP_M36.doc
Condition of ballast has to be located through periodic visual
inspection by qualified personnel and/or by feedback of
drivers.
Pavement
The pavement, located between the slabs in the track area, the
rails and the road surface, serves to enable pedestrians or
vehicles to walk or ride over tracks laid in street spaces [1].
Condition of covering has to be located through periodic visual
inspection by qualified personnel and/or by feedback of
drivers.
Asphalt
Mastic asphalt can be installed in track systems quickly and
easily.
Symptoms of damage:
cracks single or netlike
nicks and joints
depressions and bulges
lane grooves
asset erosion
lack of adhesion
Removal and relaying of the asphalt is necessary for repair.
Stone pavement
Stone pavement work assumes skilled workers and is time
consuming. For aesthetic and design reasons paving can be
requested.
Symptoms of damage:
tilted or protruding paving stones
depressions
Concrete slabs
Concrete slab installation needs large equipment and is
expensive; however slabs can be returned to their position as long
as they are intact. Otherwise, they must be renewed or replaced by
asphalt.
Symptoms of damage:
tilting slabs
sink, shift or breakage of slabs
loose slabs because of defective bedding
protruding steel edges
-
TIP5-CT-2006-031312 Page 24 of 54 URBAN TRACK Issued:
2009-08-30
D0204_FCP_M36.doc
Joint sealant
Requirements:
prevent water and dirt from penetrating the joints between rails
and road
allow minimal mobility of the rails relative to the road surface
without damaging the cover
renewable
The use of joint sealant significantly extends the lifetime of
track systems, but the joint material ages because of UV radiation
causing hardening. In addition, the compounds consistency is
changed by pollutant input, and the joint material can be
completely destroyed by mechanical or thermal (build-up welding)
effects.
The most common types of rail-road joint sealant are
bituminous joint sealant
joint sealant based on artificial resin
Condition of joint sealant has to be located through periodic
visual inspection by qualified personnel.
Contact line, conductor rail (horizontal and vertical
position)
The horizontal and vertical position of contact line or
conductor rail has to be checked and verified against track
alignment (horizontal and vertical).
Structure gauge
9.6, 17.1
The structure gauge has to be kept free at all times. This has
to be ensured verified by visual inspection and the feedback of
operating personnel.
Dewatering
The effectiveness of the dewatering equipment has to be checked
by visual inspection.
2.2. INSPECTION SCHEDULE
The following recommendations have to be seen as minimum
requirements.
-
TIP5-CT-2006-031312 Page 25 of 54 URBAN TRACK Issued:
2009-08-30
D0204_FCP_M36.doc
Clearance of structure gauge annually / after indicationTrack
geometry annually / after indicationRails annually / after
indicationMounting parts, track fastening, grooved plates annually
/ after indicationsleepers annually / after indicationballast
annually / after indicationtrack benches, shunting paths annually /
after indicationflange grooves annually / after indicationSwitches
and crossings quarterly / after indication
Track Inspection - Schedule
Table 1 Minimum requirements visual inspection
-
TIP5-CT-2006-031312 Page 26 of 54 URBAN TRACK Issued:
2009-08-30
D0204_FCP_M36.doc
3. MAINTENANCE MEASURES 10.2, 10.3, 10.4, 10.5
3.1. MAINTENANCE PHILOSOPIES
In principal maintenance can be classified by:
corrective maintenance CM
condition based maintenance CBM
preventive maintenance PM
Figure 11 Definition of Maintenance
Therefore maintenance includes:
Servicing
Inspection
Corrective maintenance
Refurbishment (improvement)
Maintenance
Preventive Maintenance Corrective Maintenance
Condition based
PredeterminedMaintenance
Scheduled, continous
Scheduled Deferred Immediate
-
TIP5-CT-2006-031312 Page 27 of 54 URBAN TRACK Issued:
2009-08-30
D0204_FCP_M36.doc
3.2. SERVICING
Servicing involves measures designed to delay deterioration of
the existing wear margin, such as rail and switch lubrication and
track, switch and groove cleaning.
3.2.1. Lubrication
4.6, 14.
The purpose of lubrication is to reduce wheel and rail wear on
curved track; in addition it helps to reduce noise especially by
avoiding or curbing curve squeal.
As a disadvantage the lengthening of the breaking distance as a
result of the reduction of wheel/rail friction has to be mentioned.
The amount of lubricant therefore must be determined depending on
the weather and based on local parameters.
Rail lubricators must be located at the start of the transition
curve. The wheel can take the lubricant with it, thus lubricating
the entire curve. If installation at the onset of the curve is not
desired, a lubrication strip can be installed on straight sections
of track before the transition curve.
Optimising the location of lubrication can result in a single
device lubricating several successive curves.
Lubrication techniques in practice are:
Application of lubricant by hand
Spreading by a lubricating vehicle
Spreading by a stationary lubricator
Lubricating by flange lubrication
For environmental reasons, all lubricants used must be
biodegradable. Those commonly used are:
Water
Liquid grease
Lubricating grease
Lubricants with solid additives
3.2.2. Surface cleaning
4.7
Over time, dirt and waste collect in the track systems as a
result of train operation (brake dust, brake sand), public
behaviour or natural phenomena (e.g. fallen leaves). Track systems
that are visible to the
-
TIP5-CT-2006-031312 Page 28 of 54 URBAN TRACK Issued:
2009-08-30
D0204_FCP_M36.doc
public should be regularly cleaned, to maintain a clean, orderly
and costumer-friendly appearance. However, there are technical and
economic and legal aspect and safety considerations for surface
cleaning.
3.2.3. Cleaning ballast
The ballast bed requires cleaning if it is full of fine, abraded
particles and outside dirt creating a bed with insufficient
elasticity and bearing capacity. For ballast cleaning stationary or
mobile screening units or, most simply, manually ballast forks can
be used.
The use of mobile ballast cleaning units is limited to sections
of railway track. In general they cannot be used in metros and
tramways because of space restrictions. Consequently cleaning
ballast by using forks is still a common practice today on small
construction sites in metro tunnels. It has to be distinguished
between cleaning the surface only and cleaning hole the
ballast.
3.2.4. Cleaning rail grooves
Deposits of road dirt, brake sand, leaves, and (in cold seasons)
sand accumulate in the grooved rails of embedded tracks. Larger
deposits hamper the free passage of wheel flanges and can become a
derailment hazard. They also prevent grooves from draining
efficiently. In addition, clean rails are a prerequisite for the
smooth functioning of certain track release equipment used to
control points and signals. Electrical isolation due to filled
grooves can cause serious safety aspects and signal problems.
3.2.5. Cleaning switches
Smooth rail operations depend on the availability and the proper
functioning of switches. Switches tongues must be able to move
unimpeded and without great effort into their planned final
positions. To ensure this the respective side plates must be clean
and the space through which the tongue travels must be
unimpeded.
Keeping moving parts clean is essential for avoiding unnecessary
wear.
Due to cumulating road dirt and their enclosed design, cleaning
switches embedded in road surfaces is required more frequently
compared to switches for vignole rails.
3.2.6. Cleaning track drainage systems
10.1
This includes rinsing rail drainage facilities and cleaning any
drainage shafts. On tramways, this needs to be done at least in
spring in order to remove road grit, and in autumn for removal of
leaves, using high-pressure cleaning and suction vehicles.
-
TIP5-CT-2006-031312 Page 29 of 54 URBAN TRACK Issued:
2009-08-30
D0204_FCP_M36.doc
3.2.7. Care and control of vegetation
Trimming back tree and bush growth
Suppressing uncontrolled plant growth on tracks
Caring for green tracks
3.2.8. Snow clearing and ice removal in winter
The plan for snow clearing and ice removal must guarantee the
fulfilment of the operators duty to ensure traffic safety and the
flow of services.
This plan has to take into account the geographical
circumstances the operator has to deal with.
3.3. CORRECTIVE MAINTENANCE
3.3.1. Grinding
17.1
There are three key reasons for rail grinding:
Removal and management of corrugation
Removal and management of rolling contact fatigue
Restoration of rail profile to ensure desired rail /wheel
contact for optimal vehicle curving behaviour and ride quality
(re-profiling)
In addition grinding of new rails is suggested to remove
construction dirt and the rolling skin.
3.3.2. Rail alignment
9.6, 17.1
Levelling
Tamping
3.3.3. Maintenance of track covering
Asphalt
Paving
Concrete slabs
Repair of joint sealant
-
TIP5-CT-2006-031312 Page 30 of 54 URBAN TRACK Issued:
2009-08-30
D0204_FCP_M36.doc
3.3.4. Build-up welding
Recreate the original geometry of a rail or improve its
geometry
Cost-effective maintenance (with grooved rail) involves the
replacement of material loss due to wear with harder equivalents to
extend the lifetime of the rails (possible for several times)
Through build-up welding a wide variety of repairs can be
carried out. The most important are:
Repairs to the running surface
o Anti-corrugation welds
o Anti-squeal welds
Repair to curved tracks: wear to both the running and leading
edges of curved rails can be compensated by side build up
welding.
Repair of points
o Switch tongues
o Frog points
o Flat grooves including ramps
o Guard rails
-
TIP5-CT-2006-031312 Page 31 of 54 URBAN TRACK Issued:
2009-08-30
D0204_FCP_M36.doc
4. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR INTERVENTION AND ALERT LIMITS 9.1, 9.2,
9.3, 9.6, 10.2, 10.3, 10.4, 17.1, 17.2
4.1. SCOPE
This draft of a standard attempts to find common safety limits
for European urban transit networks following the development of
high speed and conventional standard-gauge railways and broad gauge
railways (prEN 13848-5:2005).
Intervention and alert limits can be seen as recommendations;
how the operator or infrastructure manager deals with track quality
levels before reaching safety limits will depend on their
individual maintenance strategy and on the passengers claim.
4.2. DEFINITION OF CATEGORIES
17.2
The following categories are defined by the necessity and
urgency of maintenance measures in interconnection with the
inspection results. In the same time the different maintenance
philosophies are able to be included (Figure 11).
Safety Refers to the value which, if exceeded, requires taking
immediate measures which could lead to lowering the maximum speed
of trains or closing the line, until the defect has been
corrected.
Intervention Limit (Cost-effectiveness)
Refers to the value which, if exceeded, requires corrective
maintenance in order that the safety limit shall not be reached
before the next inspection.
Alert Limit (Comfort / Environment)
Refers to the value which, if exceeded, requires that track
geometry condition is analysed and considered in the regularly
planned maintenance operations.
Table 2 Classification of maintenance categories
-
TIP5-CT-2006-031312 Page 32 of 54 URBAN TRACK Issued:
2009-08-30
D0204_FCP_M36.doc
4.3. INTERVENTION AND ALERT LIMITS
4.8, 9.1, 9.2, 9.3, 9.6, 10.2, 10.3, 10.4, 17.1, 17.2
4.3.1. Track gauge
Minimum gaugesafety G Gnom - 5 mmcost-effectiveness (Gnom - 5
mm) G (Gnom - 3 mm)comfort/environment (Gnom - 3 mm) G GnomMaximum
gaugesafety G Gnom + 30 mmcost-effectiveness (Gnom + 30 mm) G (Gnom
+ 22 mm)comfort/environment (Gnom + 22 mm) G Gnom
Track gauge (G)
4.3.2. Horizontal alignment
safety 22 mm (mean to peak value)cost-effectiveness 14 - 16 mm
(mean to peak value)comfort/environment 12 - 14 mm (mean to peak
value)
Horizontal alignment (wavelength range: 3 m < 25 m)
4.3.3. Longitudinal Level
safety 20 - 29 mm (mean to peak value)cost-effectiveness 16 - 20
mm (mean to peak value)comfort/environment 12 - 18 mm (mean to peak
value)
Longitudinal level (wavelength range: 3 m < 25 m)
4.3.4. Cross level
safety 16 mm (mean to peak value)cost-effectiveness 12 - 14 mm
(mean to peak value)comfort/environment 10 - 13 mm (mean to peak
value)
Cross level
4.3.5. Twist
The limit value of twist has to be defined in accordance to
stiffness and constructional characteristics of the running
gear.
-
TIP5-CT-2006-031312 Page 33 of 54 URBAN TRACK Issued:
2009-08-30
D0204_FCP_M36.doc
4.3.6. Grooves
Depth of flat grooves should be 13 mm at its minimum.
The groove width W is limited in case of embedded track as
follows:
Wmax 45 mm (straight track) Wmax 60 mm (curved track)
4.4. MAINTENANCE MEASURES REVIEW
4.9, 9.2, 9.3, 9.4, 10.1, 10.2, 10.3, 10.4, 10.5, 14.
Element Failure / Reason Measure How often / indication
Classification *) rail curve of small radius lubrication - fixed
station continuous comfort/environment
wheel squeal lubrication - fixed station continuous
comfort/environment
corrugated rail, burr formation
grinding, deburring of rail and rail joint
after visual inspection; exceeding limits for track gauge
cost-effectiveness
rail breakage applying joint bars; speed reduction or service
break if necessary until rail breakage can be repaired
after visual inspection; feedback from driver
safety
track gauge gauge narrowing grinding, deburring of rail and rail
joint reaching safety limit safety reaching intervention limit
cost-effectiveness
reaching alert limit comfort/environment gauge widening build-up
welding or replacing rail reaching safety limit safety
reaching intervention limit cost-effectiveness
reaching alert limit comfort/environment turnout preventive
maintenance mobile lubrication after cleaning
cost-effectiveness
preventive maintenance cleaning and lubrication of point
mechanism
before and after winter
cost-effectiveness
turnout & crossing corrugated rail, burr
formation grinding, deburring of rail
after visual inspection; feedback from driver
cost-effectiveness
ballast bed
sufficient resistance to longitudinal and lateral creep is not
guaranteed
tamping
after visual inspection
cost-effectiveness
contamination
screening of ballast
after visual inspection and/or feedback from driver
cost-effectiveness
sleepers breakage replace after visual inspection safety
drainage failure cleaning, renewal in case of failure safety
-
TIP5-CT-2006-031312 Page 34 of 54 URBAN TRACK Issued:
2009-08-30
D0204_FCP_M36.doc
planting vegetation on the tracks
mowing, weed-killing
after visual inspection
cost-effectiveness
pavement -asphalt
cracks -single or netlike nicks and joints depressions and
bulges lane grooves asset erosion lack of adhesion
removal and relaying
after visual inspection
cost-effectiveness
pavement - paving
tilted or protruding paving stones depressions
removal and relaying or replacement by asphalt
after visual inspection
cost-effectiveness
pavement concrete slabs
tilting slabs sink, shift or brake of slabs loose slabs because
of defect bedding protruding steel edges
removal and relaying or temporary replacement by asphalt
after visual inspection
cost-effectiveness
Table 3 Maintenance measures
-
TIP5-CT-2006-031312 Page 35 of 54 URBAN TRACK Issued:
2009-08-30
D0204_FCP_M36.doc
5. OPERATOR REMARKS All operator remarks during the consensus
bulding process were collected in an anonymous way and are listed
below. This should allow later on to understand limitation of this
work and support eventual further standardisation efforts in the
future.
Operator 1
Operator 1 has supported the creation of the proposal. The
comprehensive metro and tramway in-house standards were provided as
helpful background.
Nevertheless the staff of Operator 1 is of opinion that
one-sided definition of limit values for urban track inspection and
maintenance is not currently purposeful because of the current
rapid change of knowledge base in defining the rules and standards.
Definition of limit values is based on satisfaction of few demands:
safety, speed/comfort and economy. The present research has shown
that one-sided limit values could be meaningful only if they would
be given for particular track in particular urban conditions.
Integral limit values could be used perhaps for a security
management system as the upper limitation for excessive limit.
Therefore determination of general rules and limit values presents
a long, comprehensive iterative process, which will take a long
time after which it should conduce to one comprehensive result.
Considering what was mentioned above, there is no interest of
Operator 1 in defining the integral Standard for urban tracks at
the moment but they are interested to participate in the future
standardisation process and give their contribution in domain of
creating mechanisms and criteria for the future European
Standard.
Operator 2
The proposal of the standard for visual inspection and
maintenance created in Subproject 2.2.1 was submitted to Tram
Company preparatory to the meeting. It has been read and some
remarks came up in the discussion.
The relevant operator staff and experts for inspection and
maintenance are not used to deal with standards in English
language. So we could not get any statement about the proposal but
a useful table of Operator 2 was submitted.
-
TIP5-CT-2006-031312 Page 36 of 54 URBAN TRACK Issued:
2009-08-30
D0204_FCP_M36.doc
Operator 4
4.1 Chapter 1 Introduction- the definitions presented should be
completed, such as: servicing and maintenance, inspection,
reconditioning, prevention.
4.2 Figure 1 Important track elements for visual inspection, it
should be mentioned that wooden sleepers could also have anchor
fittings and that this must be incorporated in the inspection.
4.3 Chapter 2.1.1.3 -Longitudinal level- there is the following
explanation:
The height of rail, in combination with the respective
longitudinal height, provides an early indication of any emerging
weak points in the substructure and also allows conclusions to be
determined about the change in quality of welded joints. On this
position there is a lack of definition height of rail or the Delta
height of rail.
The recommendation is, to add a picture to complete the
definition. In Germany there are alert limits, which can be used as
a reference.
-
TIP5-CT-2006-031312 Page 37 of 54 URBAN TRACK Issued:
2009-08-30
D0204_FCP_M36.doc
4.4 Chapter 2.1.2.1 -Profile changes- there is an explanation
for grooved rails. There you can find the passage that the limit of
vertical wear is set through the difference of the groove depth for
new rails and flange height for wheels. The operator gave the
advice that depending on the network, there is also "growing"
flanges of wheel (e.g. networks with little or no flat grooves). A
limit value must be defined for this case.
4.5 Chapter 2.1.2.5 -Relevant components to be checked- this
operators advises to add the following passage:
Rail fastenings have to be checked for condition and
effectiveness and have to be tightened if necessary. Depending on
the resilience, there are limitations when tightening.
4.6 Chapter 3.2.1 -Lubrication-
Moreover, the lubrication of the head of the rail due to
problems of braking effects is often not allowed. In this context,
lubrication of the wheel flange of the vehicle is needed. The
lubrication of turn out elements without affecting the wheel-rail
contact (e.g. slide and poles etc.) is very important and must be
completed.
4.7 Chapter 3.2.2 -Surface cleaning- this section needs to be
completed with:
Overriding of the wheel flange on the dirt is comparable to the
overriding of the wheel flange of grooved rails. This means danger
of isolation and that the vehicle can be set under electricity! The
braking effects can change when the wheel rims lose contact with
the driving surface.
4.8 In the chapter 4.3 -Intervention and alert limits- the
Operator recommends for the Track gauge in the category safety:
G Gnom 3 mm instead of G Gnom 5 mm.
4.9 Chapter 4.4 -Maintenance measures- in Table 3 at point wheel
squeal the following passages can be added:
Speed reduction as a measure against the squeal of the wheels is
proposed as a complement.
Operator 6
The proposal of European standard for inspection and maintenance
of urban track was submitted and sent to Operator 6.
After reading and technical expertise of the relevant authority
in the Operator 6 transport company, the Operator is of opinion
that the proposal is a good guideline for urban railways. It
comprises all aspects such as geometry, construction, inspection,
preventive and corrective maintenance as well as it considers
-
TIP5-CT-2006-031312 Page 38 of 54 URBAN TRACK Issued:
2009-08-30
D0204_FCP_M36.doc
measures that should be implemented in inspection and
maintenance policy. The Operator 6 will participate and support the
future work in creating the Standard of urban track systems in
European countries.
Operator 7
The proposal of the standard for visual inspection and
maintenance created in Subproject 2.2.1 of Urban Track project was
submitted to Operator 7 preparatory to the meeting. It has been
read and some remarks came up in the discussion.
In general Operator 7 is using the EN 13848 modified to the
metro conditions of the served town. There is an existing
complicated network of regulations for inspection and maintenance.
The proposal of the standard is not completely convenient to the
track conditions of the served town (e.g. rubber tyres). Therefore
Operator 7 is not highly interested in the standard work of SP
2.2.1.
Operator 9
The Operator 9 has analysed the proposal in detail and has given
some important remarks related to intervention and alert
limits.
Operator 9 applies tighter limit values than it is suggested in
the document Proposal of European Standard for track inspection and
maintenance. They enclosed the table with current implemented
tolerances but they plan to tighten them more.
Operator 9 is a young metro system and the company has not yet
enough experiences with its operations. The track system is a new
one and it will take a time to find out whether the maintenance and
inspection policy method is the right one.
The metro company uses tighter tolerances than the proposed
values within this this proposal of standard, therefore this
company is not really ready for the implementation of proposal in
their maintenance and inspection policy. The metro staff of Company
1, who is in charge of maintenance activities for the Operator 9,
enclosed the table with proposed limit values for the operating
system in the served town. The Operator 9 has opinion that the
limits suggested in our proposal are not restrictive enough. They
should be tighter.
-
TIP5-CT-2006-031312 Page 39 of 54 URBAN TRACK Issued:
2009-08-30
D0204_FCP_M36.doc
The tolerances should be given for both ballast and concrete
track systems with values for each system separately according to
different behavior of track systems.
Connection between speed and intervention and alert limits
should be given.
Some aspects should be analysed more in-depth and approved such
as:
9.1 Intervention and alert limits should be more restricitve
than the proposed limits in Standard,
9.2 To specify to which speed the proposal is based on, 9.3
Tolerances should be given for concrete and ballast track
separately, 9.4 Treatment of concrete track after defects occur,
9.5 Some terminology within the proposal needs to be clarified
(tolerance, uncertainty, importance of the parameters in the
definition of the tolerances)
9.6 Limit values proposed by Company 1:
* These values are not approved by Operator 9
Operator 10
Concrete Ballast
Comfort/ Environment
(AL)
Cost-effectiveness
(IL)
Safety
(IAL)
Comfort/ Environment
(AL)
Cost-effectiveness
(IL)
Safety
(IAL)
Gauge (mm) +5/-5 +7/-7 +15/-10 +5/-5 +7/-7 +15/-10
Cross Level (mm) +4/-4 +6/-6 +15/-15 +4/-10 +6/-15 +20/-25
Twist (mm/m) chord 3m +5/-5 +7/-7 +14/-14 +5/-5 +7/-7
+14/-14
Horizontal Alignment (mm) +4/-4 +6/-6 +14/-14 +4/-10 +6/-15
+20/-25
Longitudinal Level (mm) for wavelength of 25m +5/-5 +7/-7
+16/-16 +5/-5 +7/-7 +16/-16
Groove (mm) +5/-5 +7/-7 +10/-10 ---- ---- ----
-
TIP5-CT-2006-031312 Page 40 of 54 URBAN TRACK Issued:
2009-08-30
D0204_FCP_M36.doc
The proposal of the standard for visual inspection and
maintenance created in Subproject 2.2.1 of Urban Track project was
submitted to Operator 10 preparatory to the meeting. It has been
read and some remarks came up in the discussion.
There was the wish for new geometric measurement methods and
devices for the inspection of levelling and horizontal alignment.
The absolute coordinates of the track are not of such importance
and are mostly unknown. Especially at the old tracks the project
coordinates are unknown too. So it is senseless to compare existing
and projected coordinates. Relative measurements should be
preferred in urban tracks with correlation of lateral and vertical
derivations (limits).
Some aspects should be emphasised:
10.1 Drainage inspection 10.2 How to measure 10.3 Quality index
10.4 Criteria to verify the quality of track works 10.5 Inspection
within maintenance (direct fixation of rail profile)
Operator 11
The proposal of the standard for visual inspection and
maintenance created in Subproject 2.2.1 of Urban Track project was
not finished at the time of the Operator 11 visit. The proposal was
delivered to operator afterwards.
Old urban tracks of the served town are mainly ballasted track
while the new ones are constructed as a slab track. Noise and
vibration problems led to the construction of floating slab track
in tunnel sections that are mainly constructed on sand. The
limiting values for comfort and safety, as well as a track quality
index as a function of some track parameters, have to be
defined.
Operator 11 is very interested to participate in the future work
on European Standard.
-
TIP5-CT-2006-031312 Page 41 of 54 URBAN TRACK Issued:
2009-08-30
D0204_FCP_M36.doc
Operator 14
Discussions with Operator 14 were very useful in relation with
detailed description of types of track systems, maintenance policy
and problems occurring in operating system. The operator has made a
great effort and has provided us with lot of information about
characteristics of the metro system, as well as its failures and
defects.
Within the visit to Operator 14 the night inspection was done.
The new lubrication emulsion is presented and its implementation
was demonstrated. The new lubricant has 90% water and provides good
rail characteristics. It has been spread out by a stationary
lubricator. Measures show better results and less wear on curved
tracks after implementing the new lubricant means. This helps to
reduce noise as well.
Regarding the Proposal of European Standard for Track Inspection
and Maintenance the operator agreed with its content. The metro
staff of Operator 14 thinks that special attention should be paid
to the implementation of lubricant method. They believe that
lubricant emulsion could be good not only for the reduction of wear
in the wheel/rail contact but also for the reduction of corrugation
- especially on curved tracks.
The second issue that should be more thoroughly explored is
ultrasonic inspection for welded rail joints as a measure for
reducing a risk of rail cracks and fractures.
The metro staff of Operator 14 will support the future work on
Standard but at the moment their interest is focused on standard
impact on maintenance cost reduction.
Operator 17
Staff of Operator 17 was good prepared for the interview and
they presented a lot of information about operating tramway and
metro track systems with the description of cross sections and its
characteristics. Weakness of the old track system and advantages of
the new one are described in detailed with a lot of illustrations
and explanations.
The Operator 17 applies the limit values in inspection and
maintenance policy, as it is shown in the Table below.
-
TIP5-CT-2006-031312 Page 42 of 54 URBAN TRACK Issued:
2009-08-30
D0204_FCP_M36.doc
17.1 Limit values used in maintenance and inspection policy in
the served town: Limit values (in case of V=50 km/h)
Deviation from nominal value in mm if
the category is: Denomination
A B C
Note
Gradual widening/narrowing of gauge per meter at curves
2 4 6 At speed of v
-
TIP5-CT-2006-031312 Page 43 of 54 URBAN TRACK Issued:
2009-08-30
D0204_FCP_M36.doc
Rail end deflection 0 3 5
Vertical step at fastening 0 1,5 3
Horizontal step at fastening 0 1 3
Values are to be understood together with flexible movements
Splay of sleepers due to rail creeping
20 60 150 At construction of fish-joint track due to rail
spacing 20 mm fastening distortion can arise
Discrepancy from standard distance of sleepers
2% 10% -
Depth of corrugation and other defects of rail head
0,2 0,4 1,2 Values relate to max. 300 mm wavelength or 300 mm
measurement range
Operator 17 uses the following categorisation in defining the
limit values for track inspection and maintenance:
17.2 Categories of limit values
Limit values
Designation
Definition
A.
Constructional dimensional tolerance
Still acceptable limit of value differences which can be
achieved in new-built tracks from new materials
B.
Maintenance dimensional tolerance
Limit values on track sections which require repair from
economic aspects but which cannot be accepted after completing
maintenance work. These values contribute to the statistical survey
of the tracks and to the planning of the maintenance works.
-
TIP5-CT-2006-031312 Page 44 of 54 URBAN TRACK Issued:
2009-08-30
D0204_FCP_M36.doc
C.
Limit values requiring immediate actions
Immediate actions can be the following:
regular inspection with great caution; speed limitation if
immediate measures cannot be
taken; track closure in case of risk of derailment
Operator 18
Operator 18 has made a lot of efforts to submit information
related to tram track system and its operating. Documentation with
characteristics of old and new track systems, its deficiencies,
typical cross sections as well as actions undertaken in maintenance
policy have been sent. The main part of tram lines in the served
town is track with segregated right of way. According to problems
generated by noise and vibration, since 2000 the new strategy and
method are implemented in operating the rail system. To reduce the
noise effects they use an anchored system adopted from Germany.
The Operator 18 is highly interested to participate in the
future work in creating the European Standard.
Operator 19
The Operator 19 is aware of importance of setting the higher
quality limit in inspection and maintenance of urban track networks
within the European countries. Adoption and implementation of
standards are stipulated by size of network i.e. technical
equipment, budget, man power and priority of the track section.
The Operator 19 has made an effort to provide us with useful
information about operating the track systems and maintenance and
inspection policy, especially about measurements of horizontal
alignment.
The Ministry for Transport has standardized its own regulations
for design and operating tram and metro systems in the country. The
infrastructure provider is not involved in the creation of national
standards and has to work in accordance with the policy of Ministry
for Transport. Nevertheless there is readiness for collaboration
within the standardisation process.
-
TIP5-CT-2006-031312 Page 45 of 54 URBAN TRACK Issued:
2009-08-30
D0204_FCP_M36.doc
Operator 20
Similar to Operator 19 the staff of Operator 20 uses the
national standards for tram operating system. Therefore their
collaboration in project was done in domain of information about
types of track systems as well as in inspection and maintenance
policy carried out within the company.
Operator 20 works according to standards and rules set by
Ministry for Transport. The Operator 20 is ready and interested to
collaborate in standardisation of maintenance and inspection policy
for European track systems. They are of opinion that proposal for
EU Standard could be useful for operators and they will support the
future work on it.
No remarks were presented from the rest of the operators
(Operators n3, 5, 8, 12, 13, 15 and 16).
-
TIP5-CT-2006-031312 Page 46 of 54 URBAN TRACK Issued:
2009-08-30
D0204_FCP_M36.doc
6. LCC GENERAL DESCRIPTION This report describes the approach of
the LCC-calculation for the SP 2.2.1 Visual inspection and
maintenance.
This case compares two maintenance variants based on the
maintenance categories (Table 4) defined in the Proposal of
European Standard for Track Inspection and Maintenance (D 2.4).
Table 5 shows the different maintenance measures which are assigned
to the categories.
Safety Limits Refers to the value which, if exceeded, requires
taking immediate measures which could lead to lowering the maximum
speed of trains or closing the line, until the defect has been
corrected.
Intervention Limit (Cost-effectiveness)
Refers to the value which, if exceeded, requires corrective
maintenance in order that the safety limit shall not be reached
before the next inspection.
Alert Limit (Comfort / Environment)
Refers to the value which, if exceeded, requires that track
geometry condition is analysed and considered in the regularly
planned maintenance operations.
Table 4: Classification of maintenance categories
The maintenance regimes (working cycles) for the different
variants can be seen in chapter 7:
Variant Green: based on the alert limits
Variant Yellow: based on the intervention limits
(A variant red was not considered because with the respective
limits the safety of the track can not be assured)
The principle of the maintenance variants is to extend the
lifespan of the track due to increased maintenance, which in the
long terms reduces costs and achieves a better track quality.
The calculation was carried out for two different track systems.
(See also chapter 7):
Ballasted track
Covered track
The calculations for the different variants are applied for a
sample 100 m track, which allows a simple interpretation for longer
distances. This sample 100 m track does not included points and
crossings, because these areas have other requirements for
maintenance.
-
TIP5-CT-2006-031312 Page 47 of 54 URBAN TRACK Issued:
2009-08-30
D0204_FCP_M36.doc
Element Failure / Reason Measure How often / indication
Classification *) rail curve of small radius lubrication - fixed
station continuous comfort/environment
wheel squeal lubrication - fixed station continuous
comfort/environment
corrugated rail, burr formation
grinding, deburring of rail and rail joint
after visual inspection; exceeding limits for track gauge
cost-effectiveness
rail breakage applying joint bars; speed reduction or service
break if necessary until rail breakage can be repaired
after visual inspection; feedback from driver
safety
track gauge gauge narrowing grinding, deburring of rail and rail
joint reaching safety limit safety reaching intervention limit
cost-effectiveness
reaching alert limit comfort/environment gauge widening build-up
welding or replacing rail reaching safety limit safety
reaching intervention limit cost-effectiveness
reaching alert limit comfort/environment turnout preventive
maintenance mobile lubrication after cleaning
cost-effectiveness
preventive maintenance cleaning and lubrication of point
mechanism
before and after winter
cost-effectiveness
turnout & crossing corrugated rail, burr
formation grinding, deburring of rail
after visual inspection; feedback from driver
cost-effectiveness
ballast bed
sufficient resistance to longitudinal and lateral creep is not
guaranteed
tamping
after visual inspection
cost-effectiveness
contamination
screening of ballast
after visual inspection and/or feedback from driver
cost-effectiveness
sleepers breakage replace after visual inspection safety
drainage failure cleaning, renewal in case of failure safety
planting vegetation on the tracks
mowing, weed-killing
after visual inspection
cost-effectiveness
pavement -asphalt
cracks -single or netlike nicks and joints depressions and
bulges lane grooves asset erosion lack of adhesion
removal and relaying
after visual inspection
cost-effectiveness
pavement - paving
tilted or protruding paving stones depressions
removal and relaying or replacement by asphalt
after visual inspection
cost-effectiveness
pavement concrete slabs
tilting slabs sink, shift or brake of slabs loose slabs because
of defect bedding protruding steel edges
removal and relaying or temporary replacement by asphalt
after visual inspection
cost-effectiveness
Table 5: Review of the different maintenance measures
-
TIP5-CT-2006-031312 Page 48 of 54 URBAN TRACK Issued:
2009-08-30
D0204_FCP_M36.doc
6.1. CONSIDERED MAINTENANCE MEASURES IN THE CALCULATION
Not every measure listed in Table 5 could be considered in the
calculation because of non available cost aspects or because of the
unverifiable influence on the lifespan of a special measure.
Following measurements were considered:
Preparatory work and installation
Rail replacement
Rail grinding
Build up welding
Tamping
Track cleaning
6.2. TRACK TYPES
The following standard track types were considered:
6.2.1. Standard ballasted track
Figure 12: Example of a ballasted track cross section
-
TIP5-CT-2006-031312 Page 49 of 54 URBAN TRACK Issued:
2009-08-30
D0204_FCP_M36.doc
6.2.2. Covered track
Figure 13: Example of a covered track cross section
6.3. GENERAL URBANTRACK LCC CALCULATION CONVENTIONS
Inflation rate:
2 % p.a.
Interest rate:
5 % p.a. (current ECB re-financing rate)
No VAT to be included
All costs as net costs excluding taxes
Study Period
The study period / period under consideration is 50 years for
all Urban Track cases
-
TIP5-CT-2006-031312 Page 50 of 54 URBAN TRACK Issued:
2009-08-30
D0204_FCP_M36.doc
7. WORKING CYCLES AND COSTS The working cycles and costs are
based on the experience of rail operators, expert knowledge and
information from relevant literature.
7.1. BALLASTED TRACK Variant: Green Variant: Yellow
Year
Rem
oval
and
dis
posa
l
Trac
k re
new
al
Rai
l rep
lace
men
t
Rai
l grin
ding
Build
up
wel
ding
Tam
ping
Trac
k cl
eani
ng
Year
Rem
oval
and
dis
posa
l
Trac
k re
new
al
Rai
l rep
lace
men
t
Rai
l grin
ding
Build
up
wel
ding
Tam
ping
Trac
k cl
eani
ng
0 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 11 1 1 12 1 1 1 2 13 1 3 1 1 14 1 1 1
4 15 1 5 16 1 1 1 6 1 1 17 1 7 18 1 1 1 8 0,3 19 1 9 1 1 110 1 0,3
1 1 10 111 1 11 112 1 1 1 12 1 1 113 1 13 114 1 1 1 14 115 1 15 1 1
116 1 1 1 16 0,3 117 1 17 118 1 1 1 18 1 1 119 1 19 120 1 0,3 1 1
20 121 1 21 1 1 122 1 1 1 22 123 1 23 124 1 1 1 24 1 1 125 1 25 1 1
1 1 1 126 1 1 127 128 1 1 129 130 1 1 1 1 1 1
Cost
Rail grindingBuild up welding
TampingTrack cleaning
12 /m140 /m15 /m5 /m
500 /m150 /m
Track renewalRail replacement
Removal and disposal of the old track 125 /m
Table 6: Working cycles ballasted track
-
TIP5-CT-2006-031312 Page 51 of 54 URBAN TRACK Issued:
2009-08-30
D0204_FCP_M36.doc
7.2. COVERED TRACK Variant: Green Variant: Yellow
Yea
r
Rem
oval
and
dis
posa
l
Trac
k re
new
al
Rai
l rep
lace
men
t
Rai
l grin
ding
Mai
nt. c
over
ing
and
join
t sea
lant
Bui
ld u
p w
eldi
ng
Trac
k cl
eani
ng
Yea
r
Rem
oval
and
dis
posa
l
Trac
k re
new
al
Rai
l rep
lace
men
t
Rai
l grin
ding
Mai
nt. c
over
ing
and
join
t sea
lant
Bui
ld u
p w
eldi
ng
Trac
k cl
eani
ng
0 1 1 1 1 2 0 1 1 1 1 21 2 1 22 1 2 2 23 2 3 1 24 1 2 4 25 0,25
2 5 26 1 2 6 1 27 2 7 0,3 28 1 0,3 2 8 29 2 9 1 210 1 0,25 2 10 0,5
211 2 11 212 1 2 12 1 213 2 13 214 1 2 14 0,3 215 0,25 2 15 1 216 1
0,3 2 16 217 2 17 218 1 2 18 1 219 2 19 220 1 0,25 2 20 1 1 1 221
222 1 223 224 1 225 1 1 1 1 2
Cost
Track cleaning140 /m3 /m
Removal and disposal of the old track 300 /m
12 /m150 /m
1500 /m
Build up weldingMaint. covering and joint sealant
Rail grinding150 /m
Rail replacementTrack renewal
Table 7: Working cycles covered track
-
TIP5-CT-2006-031312 Page 52 of 54 URBAN TRACK Issued:
2009-08-30
D0204_FCP_M36.doc
8. RESULTS The following calculation printouts can be found in
the appendix:
Ballasted Track Variant Green
Ballasted Track Variant Yellow
Ballasted Track V