Guidance Note: The Design and Construction of Freight Wagons

Transcription

1 To be superseded by GMGN2688 Iss 1 published on Railway 04/12/2010 Group Guidance Note Guidance Note: The Design and Construction of Freight Wagons Synopsis This document gives guidance on the design of wagons to meet the requirements of Railway Group Standards. It also outlines the design scrutiny process for wagons incorporating previously used design features. Signatures removed from electronic version Submitted by Vicki Austen Acting Standards Project Manager Authorised by Anne E Blakeney Acting Department Head Railway Group Standards Management This document is the property of Rail Safety and Standards Board Limited. It shall not be reproduced in whole or in part without the written permission of the Department Head of Railway Group Standards, Rail Safety and Standards Board. Published by: Rail Safety and Standards Board Evergreen House 160 Euston Road London NW1 2DX Copyright 2004 Rail Safety and Standards Board Limited

2 This page has been left blank intentionally

3 Page 1 of 40 Contents Section Description Page Part A A1 Issue record 2 A2 Implementation of this document 2 A3 Responsibilities 2 A4 Health and safety responsibilities 2 A5 Technical content 2 A6 Supply 2 Part B B1 Purpose 3 B2 Application of this document 3 B3 Definitions and acronyms 3 B4 Introduction 7 B5 Size of wagons 10 B6 Wheels and axles 12 B7 Axleboxes 14 B8 Springs and suspensions 14 B9 Buffing and drawgear 16 B10 Fittings on ends of wagons and clearances for operating staff 18 B11 Braking 19 B12 Structures 19 B13 Load restraint 21 B14 Curtain sides 22 B15 Earthing 22 B16 Wagon identification and marking 22 B17 Wagons with on-board equipment 23 Appendices A Route availability freight stock minimum dimensions 24 B Check list for UK wagons 30 C Check list for international wagons 33 D Sample livery diagram 36 E Width reduction calculations in accordance with data relating to W6A gauge 37 References 38 RAIL SAFETY AND STANDARDS BOARD 1

4 Page 2 of 40 A1 Issue record Part A Issue Date Comments One April 2004 Original document which replaces GM/RC2519 This document will be updated when necessary by distribution of a complete replacement. A2 Implementation of this document The publication date of this document is 03 April This document supersedes the following Code of Practice: Railway Group Code of Practice Issue No. Title GN sections superseded by this document Date(s) as of which sections are superseded GM/RC Code of Practice Design and Construction of Freight Wagons All sections 03 April 2004 (Whole document withdrawn as of this date) A3 Responsibilities s are non-mandatory documents providing helpful information relating to the control of hazards and often set out a suggested approach, which may be appropriate for Railway Group* members to follow. * The Railway Group comprises Network Rail Infrastructure Ltd, Rail Safety and Standards Board Limited, and the train and station operators who hold Railway Safety Cases for operation on or related to infrastructure controlled by Network Rail Infrastructure Ltd. Network Rail Infrastructure Ltd is known as Network Rail. Rail Safety and Standards Board Limited is known as RSSB. A4 Health and safety responsibilities A5 Technical content Each Railway Group member is reminded of the need to consider its own responsibilities to ensure health and safety at work and its own duties under health and safety legislation. RSSB does not warrant that compliance with all or any documents published by RSSB is sufficient in itself to ensure safe systems of work or operation or to satisfy such responsibilities or duties. The technical content of this document has been approved by: Haydn Peers, Principal Traction and Rolling Stock Engineer. Enquires to be directed to RSSB Tel: or enquiries@rssb.co.uk. A6 Supply Controlled and uncontrolled copies of this document may be obtained from the Industry Safety Liaison Dept, Rail Safety and Standards Board, Evergreen House, 160 Euston Road, London NW1 2DX or enquiries@rssb.co.uk. Railway Group Standards can also be viewed at 2 RAIL SAFETY AND STANDARDS BOARD

5 Page 3 of 40 B1 Purpose B2 Application of this document Part B This document gives guidance on the design and acceptance of wagons intended for use on Network Rail controlled infrastructure. This document contains guidance which is applicable to the duty holders of the train operator category of Railway Safety Case. Specifically the contents of this document apply to the design of new, life extended or modified wagons for operation on Network Rail controlled infrastructure. Wagons in international service should comply with UIC and RIV regulations. International wagons operating predominantly within UK should additionally comply with Railway Group Standards. B3 Definitions and acronyms Acceptance testing A series of tests to demonstrate conformance of rail vehicles with mandatory requirements. Conformance certification body A qualified body with authority from Rail Safety and Standards Board to issue certificates of conformance for rail vehicles on its behalf. Certificate of authority to operate Written notification by the infrastructure controller to a train operator of its acceptance of successful completion of the route acceptance process. This notification specifies the equipment, the equipment configuration, operational requirements and limitations, route constraints and network factors within which acceptance has been granted for network operations. Certificate of conformance The formal declaration by a conformance certification body that the rail vehicle conforms to the relevant mandatory requirements within a specific area of certification, that is to say by design, as constructed, or as planned to be maintained. Certificate of engineering acceptance The formal declaration by a vehicle acceptance body (VAB) that the rail vehicle(s) conform(s) to all the relevant mandatory requirements. Cyclic top Cyclic top is the term used to describe a series of regular dips in the vertical alignment of one or both rails. They may not always be apparent visually because other top irregularities may obscure the cyclic pattern. Cyclic irregularities in track geometry have the potential, when combined with a vehicle s natural vertical response for a given speed and load, to cause a derailment. Design All the detail, (including drawings, calculations, test results, materials, and systems and component specifications) required to establish that a rail vehicle and its component parts will meet the engineering and operational requirements for system safety and safe interworking. RAIL SAFETY AND STANDARDS BOARD 3

6 Page 4 of 40 Uncontrolled When Printed Design scrutiny The process of assessing a design to determine its conformance with the mandatory requirements. Engineering acceptance The process whereby conformance of rail vehicles to the mandatory requirements is confirmed and certificated. Engineering change A change to a rail vehicle, including control software, in the area of design, construction or maintenance, which affects conformance to the mandatory requirements. Mandatory requirements The requirements mandated in the Railway Group Standards listed in the current catalogue of Railway Group Standards, including the additional engineering acceptance list. Modification Engineering change to a rail vehicle that has the potential to affect a rail vehicle s conformance with the mandatory requirements. Private Owner Circular Letters Written engineering instructions as a means of communication between Network Rail (formerly British Rail) and operators/owners of Private Wagon Registration Agreement wagons. Private Owner Circular Letters is commonly abbreviated to PO/CL. RIV Regolamento Internazionale Veicoli. International vehicle regulations in association with UIC. Railway Group member Railway Group members (RGM) are infrastructure controller(s), train and station operators who hold Railway Safety Cases for operation on, or related to, the controlled infrastructure (as set out in The Railway Group Standards Code, Issue 1, January 2004) and Rail Safety and Standards Board. Rolling Stock Library The national central database of rail vehicle design and operational data, which is maintained by the infrastructure controller s authorised agent. Route acceptance The process leading to acceptance by the infrastructure controller, and formalised by the issue of a certificate of authority to operate. It confirms all safety issues associated with the physical and operational characteristics of specified rail vehicles (and their compatibility with the infrastructure on defined routes) have been examined, and that the associated risks have been reduced to a level which is as low as reasonably practicable (ALARP). Route availability The vertical static and dynamic loads of rail vehicles or the static load characteristic of a rail vehicle type, expressed as a route availability (RA) number as set out in GE/RT8006. Route availability number Route availability number is the number derived in accordance with the provisions GE/RT8006 to express either of the following: a) the static load characteristics of a rail vehicle type b) the assessed capacity of an underline bridge or route in terms of its capacity to carry the vertical static and dynamic loads due to different types of rail vehicle. 4 RAIL SAFETY AND STANDARDS BOARD

7 Page 5 of 40 Swept envelope A cross-sectional profile, taken at right angles to the track, enclosing all dynamic movements, static deflections and overthrows of all points along the surface of the vehicle, that can reasonably be expected to occur under the appropriate range of operating conditions as it sweeps past a theoretical track location. A family of swept envelopes is required to define a vehicle s performance on a route. Technically competent authority A company, or person, having proven competence in a particular technology or process and being independent of the company requiring the services of the technically competent authority. UIC Union Internationale des Chemins de Fer (International Union of Railways). Vehicle acceptance body A qualified body acting on behalf of Rail Safety and Standards Board with authority to issue certificates of engineering acceptance for rail vehicles operating or intended to operate on Network Rail controlled infrastructure. RAIL SAFETY AND STANDARDS BOARD 5

8 Page 6 of 40 Uncontrolled When Printed B4 Introduction This document primarily gives guidance on the design of wagons to meet Railway Group Standards, to operate on Network Rail controlled infrastructure, and does not constitute a complete specification for any particular wagon. It is intended as a reference to direct designers towards appropriate Railway Group Standards and enable them to benefit from the accumulated best practice of modern wagon design, which has been included in this Guidance Note. This document also contains guidance for designers based on experience from previous designs, but it is not intended to be a complete repository of all previous design experiences. This document gives guidance on the UK engineering acceptance process. There are currently three potential acceptance processes: a) The current situation for vehicles that spend all or the predominant time in the UK is that they are accredited by the engineering acceptance process. b) Wagons in international traffic are registered by RIV and have an engineering acceptance certificate endorsed as such for the UK. Vehicles that operate on only UK domestic journeys should be accredited by the engineering acceptance process too, even if they are internationally registered. c) In the future European Conventional Interoperability for freight vehicles will describe a process for accreditation by a Notified Body. B4.1 TSI Precedence The Technical Specification for Interoperability (TSI) for Freight Wagons is due to be published for consultation in April The Department for Transport has published the draft Regulations on Conventional Interoperability. Once these regulations are enacted and the TSI is published in the Official Journal of the European Community (OJEC), it has the force of law in Great Britain for those wagons within its scope. Once the TSI is published, the requirements it contains will take precedence over Railway Group Standards (and other standards mentioned in this Guidance Note). Where there is a conflict between a requirement of the TSI and RGS, the TSI is to be complied with for wagons in international traffic. However as currently written the TSI permits the building of wagons for use solely within Great Britain to continue in accordance with the national standards (or their subsequent replacements) identified in this Guidance Note. The TSI and associated Regulations on Conventional Interoperability will change the process of vehicle acceptance and route acceptance approval process. There will also be some new concepts introduced which enable some components to be approved separately from the vehicle. B4.2 Operation on Network Rail controlled infrastructure Currently wagons can operate on Network Rail controlled infrastructure only after compliance with Railway Group Standard GM/RT2000, which sets out the requirements for the engineering acceptance of vehicles, note the impending publication of TSI referred to in previous paragraph. Guidance on the compliance arrangements within Railway Group Standards is set out in GM/GN2561. Early in the design phase the designer should consider if the vehicle is a freight wagon or an on-track machine and hence needs to comply with GM/RT2400. A definition is set out in GM/RT2000, but the designer is strongly advised to seek guidance and reach agreement with a vehicle acceptance body (VAB). The designer is reminded that if a non compliance or derogation is required against an existing Railway Group Standard (using the process set out in The Railway Group Standards Code, Issue 1, January 2004), the application to Rail Safety and Standards Board is required to be made by a Railway Group member holding the train operator s Railway Safety Case for operation of that vehicle. 6 RAIL SAFETY AND STANDARDS BOARD

9 Page 7 of 40 Each application is considered by the Traction and Rolling Stock Subject Committee, who approve or reject the application. In addition vehicles are required to obtain route acceptance in accordance with GE/RT8270. Railway Group Standard GE/RT8270 sets out details of the procedure to be followed by operators when new wagons are to be introduced onto the Network Rail controlled infrastructure; the procedure may also apply to wagons which have undergone engineering change or when operation on new routes is proposed. The designer is advised of the need for early consultation with Network Rail in respect of route availability. Should any bridge assessment studies or work be required to the structures to accommodate the wagons on the proposed routes, such work is likely to be on the critical path for acceptance. Users of this Guidance Note are advised to check the application of additional Railway Group Standards by reference to the latest issue of the Catalogue of Railway Group Standards. B4.3 Compliance with UK health & safety legislation It is emphasised that Railway Group Standards set out only the minimum requirements for safe interworking and do not affect the responsibility of builders, owners and operators of the wagons for the safe design, construction, maintenance and use thereof. It is a requirement of GM/RT2468 that a whole vehicle design risk assessment is carried out, and certificate issued by the manufacturer, for the design against all UK health and safety legislation. There is also an HMRI acceptance process in addition to the engineering acceptance process set out in GM/RT2000 see Figure 1. RAIL SAFETY AND STANDARDS BOARD 7

10 Page 8 of 40 Uncontrolled When Printed Figure 1 Acceptance of railway vehicles ORGANISATIONS INVOLVED Engineering acceptance process GM/RT2000 Other route specific and operational vehicle issues Vehicle design Certificates of conformance Vehicle construction Maintenance Train operator or third party and conformance certification body Certificate of engineering acceptance Train operator or third party and vehicle acceptance body Certificate of technical acceptance - optional (see GE/RT8270) Train operator or third party and the infrastructure controller Route acceptance panel (RSAB) certificate of authority to operate (see GE/RT8270) Train operator or third party and the infrastructure controller HMRI approval of vehicle (see Transport & Works Act) Train operator or third party and HMRI Registration as operational on RSL (see GM/RT2453) Train operator and Rolling Stock Library VEHICLE APPROVED FOR OPERATION 8 RAIL SAFETY AND STANDARDS BOARD

11 Page 9 of 40 B4.4 Vehicle testing To meet the requirements of the engineering acceptance process it may be necessary to check conformance of the design with mandatory requirements by acceptance testing, or validated simulation, as set out in GM/RT2000 and RSSB Approved Code of Practice GM/RC2510. It is the appointed design conformance certification body who decides what testing, and the level of testing that is required. B4.5 Design for maintenance Designers should give consideration to future maintenance requirements in the design of wagons. The maintenance requirements are reviewed as set out in GM/RT2004. B4.6 The design submission The conformance certification body undertaking the scrutiny of the design is required to certify that, the design has been scrutinised in accordance with GM/RT2001 and that the design complies with the appropriate mandatory requirements as defined by Railway Group Standards. To assist designers in ensuring that they have considered all necessary requirements check lists have been prepared (set out in Appendix B) for wagons to operate predominantly on Network Rail controlled infrastructure, and Appendix C for wagons in international traffic. (Note that both appendices B and C apply to international wagons in predominantly domestic operation). It should be noted that the checklists in these appendices are current at time of publication and will not be updated unless this Guidance Note is amended. B5 Size of wagons B5.1 Overall dimensions B5.1.1 Gauge The requirements for the overall (gauge) dimension of wagons are set out in Railway Group Standard GM/RT2149; additional guidance will be provided by proposed Guidance Note GE/GN8573. Appendix E sets out a worked example of gauge reductions for a bogie wagon using the W6-A gauge, which is the common freight loading gauge. The use of the W6-A gauge ensures optimum route access; however it should be noted that certain locations are more restrictive than the W6-A gauge. It is possible to operate wagons that exceed the W6-A gauge, but they could be subject to route restriction. This could require further swept envelope calculations. Compliance with a gauge is also to be taken into account with suspension displacements. Design Guide BASS 501 sets out full details and guidance on the preparation of swept envelopes. Railway Group Standard GM/RT2149 makes it clear that the operation of a wagon cannot commence until the kinematic considerations of the wagon have been assessed for the intended route or routes over which the wagon is to operate, although this does not necessarily require a swept envelope to be produced. If a wagon is designed to W6-A gauge it will clear the swept envelope requirements of route acceptance for the majority of routes. As a wagon s dimensions increase beyond W6-A more work is required to gain acceptance. The underclearance requirements of the gauge should be considered at all times. In this respect, bottom doors of empty wagons should clear the gauge when in the open position, thus permitting wagons with defective door gear to pass on Network Rail controlled infrastructure. Wagons that fail this requirement should be lettered to show that the wagon is not permitted on Network Rail controlled infrastructure when the doors are open. The effect of vehicle body underframe deflection under load conditions giving the worst deflections, minimum wheel diameter and worn suspension should also be taken into account. RAIL SAFETY AND STANDARDS BOARD 9

12 Page 10 of 40 Uncontrolled When Printed B5.1.2 Mechanical handling and lineside equipment Existing wagons, which interface with mechanical handling or lineside equipment, for example merry-go-round trains, should conform, additionally, to the requirements set out in CP-PM-2 and CP-PM-1 respectively. Note that trackside equipment associated with mechanical handling may be closer to gauge than normal and care should be taken to assess each location the wagon is likely to be used. Particular attention is drawn to the possible conflict between the underclearance requirements of W6-A and the mechanical handling equipment gauge. Any advice concerning static structures should be obtained from the infrastructure controller of the location. B5.1.3 Route availability system The route availability number allocated to a particular wagon is dependent upon various factors such as axleload, wheel spacing, etc and determines the lines over which the wagon may operate. Railway Group Standard GE/RT8006 sets out the procedures to be observed when assessing wagons for specific routes. In general, two-axle wagons and wagons with two-axle bogies designed to the parameters set out in Appendix A have been accepted with few or no restrictions, although it cannot be guaranteed that compliance with Appendix A will achieve acceptance over a particular route. In particular wagons with an axle loading in excess of 22.5 tonnes could have operating speed restrictions applied which can have an impact on the availability of suitable track access. Early advice to Network Rail RSAB of the proposed design should elicit comments that can then be considered in the design process. B5.1.4 Maximum dimensions The maximum dimensions set out in Appendix A for bogie wagons covering overhang and inner wheelbase are those specified to avoid infringement of track circuit and signalling requirements in GM/RT2149. Care should be taken in designing long wheelbase 2-axle wagons in view of the problems that they present in negotiating small radius track curves. B5.1.5 Minimum dimensions The minimum dimension of 4572 mm (15 0 ) for the wheelbase of 2-axle wagons having axle loads of 20.5 t and above, set out in Appendix A, has been found to result in riding problems on jointed track and the effects of cyclic top. Careful selection of suspension is important for the design of a wagon having a wheelbase that is a sub-multiple of rail lengths (normally 60 ft). Further guidance is set out in Appendix A of this Guidance Note and in UIC pamphlet It is recommended that the ratio of wheelbase to length over buffers is not less than It has been found that the risk of derailment due to end loads significantly increases with lower values. B5.2.1 Derailment and roll-over The combination of wheels and suspension, set out in sections B6 and B8 of this document, should be designed to ensure acceptable resistance against flange climbing derailment and against roll-over induced by overspeeding, as set out in Railway Group Standard GM/RT2141. The vehicle wheelset and suspension combination has to be designed to withstand track twist to the limits set out in Railway Group Standard GM/RT2141. B5.2.2 Stability in extreme winds Railway Group Standard GM/RT2142 sets out the requirements to resist the overturning of railway vehicles in extreme wind conditions. Consideration should be given to keeping the centre of gravity as low as possible. 10 RAIL SAFETY AND STANDARDS BOARD

13 Page 11 of 40 B5.3 Exterior design The designer should consider the potential damage caused to other vehicles in the event of a collision. Where possible sharp edges and rigid protrusions should be avoided, although this is not a mandated requirement. B6 Wheels and axles B6.1 General The requirements for the design and manufacture of wheels and axles are set out in the following Railway Group Standards: GM/RT2466 GM/RT2470 GM/TT0088 Railway Wheelsets Wheelset Supplier Qualification Permissible Track Forces Additional guidance to these standards is given in the following documents: GM/RC2513 GM/RC2566 Commentary on Permissible Track Forces Recommendations for Railway Wheelsets B6.2 Permissible axleloads and wheel diameter The relationships between axleload and wheel diameter that have been previously accepted are set out in Appendix A. Alternative relationships are acceptable provided that compliance with the requirements set out in GM/TT0088 can be demonstrated. Where the vehicle is not fully compliant with the requirements of GM/TT0088, then the details set out in GE/RT8270 require that the vehicle should undergo route acceptance. It is possible to obtain derogations from these standards; the process is set out in the Railway Group Standards Code, Issue 1, January Derogations have previously been granted in respect of wheel diameter and axleload, but it should be noted that the train operator will have to apply for a new derogation for each new design. B6.3 Journal size The journal size should be designed to suit for each application. As a guide the following journal size and load have previously been successfully used: Journal diameter Load on rail/axle 120 mm 18 t 130 mm x 217 mm long Type A 20.5 t 130 mm x 191 mm long Type B 22.5 t 140 mm 23 t 150 mm 25.4 t B6.4 Inboard bearings If inboard bearings are considered it should be noted that this will increase the size of bearing, see document TM/TC0001 'Design Guide for the Calculation of Stresses in Axles with Inboard Journals, Issue 1, Revision A, August Where inboard bearings are used in a vehicle design they will not be visible to existing trackside hot axle box detectors, see B7.2, and an alternative means of bearing temperature monitoring should be provided. B6.5 Track circuit actuation To ensure satisfactory operation of track circuits, wagon wheelsets should provide an electrically conductive path between wheel treads. Whilst stationary, when new, the maximum dc resistance allowed is 10 mω, as set out in GM/RT2466. RAIL SAFETY AND STANDARDS BOARD 11

14 Page 12 of 40 Uncontrolled When Printed B6.6 Wheel tread profiles B6.6.1 Selection The application of the appropriate wheel tread profile is essential to ensure satisfactory ride performance with the chosen suspension arrangement. Wheel tread profiles approved for operation on the Network Rail controlled infrastructure are defined in GM/RT2466. To assist in selection of the most suitable tread profile for a suspension arrangement a list of the typical applications of the approved tread profiles is set out in section B The suitability of a tread profile and suspension arrangement combination on a vehicle can be demonstrated by a dynamic study. Guidance on the suitability of tread profiles can be obtained from a Technically Competent Authority. B6.6.2 Wheel tread profiles appropriate to wagon and suspension types Historically the following combinations of profile and suspension type have been found to give satisfactory performance. Profile Ident P1 P5 P6 P8 Description The 1 in 20 coning of the P1 profile is required to ensure the lateral stability of the older types of wagon with simple suspensions. The P5 profile, with a 60 flange angle and a thicker flange, when compared with the P6 profile, gives a reduced wheelset/track lateral clearance which has been found to promote improved lateral ride. The flange of the P6 profile incorporates a 68 flange angle, important on torsionally stiff wagons with positively located wheelsets. Use of the 68 flange means that a higher lateral/vertical wheel force ratio can be sustained before flange climbing occurs. The problem of poor lateral ride quality found when this profile has been used with certain types of suspension has prevented its widespread use. The P8 profile has a worn (hollow) tread in addition to a worn flange (68 ) and thus during service the profile changes shape very little. This profile with suitable wheelset yaw stiffness, ensures good curving performance with a resultant reduction in flange wear on large and medium radius curves and also gives vehicle stability over very high mileage when applied to appropriate suspension types. Example Applications The use of this profile on new designs is now discouraged, because modern profiles result in better ride quality. Wagons fitted with Y25 type bogies and derivatives of this bogie, for example FBT6, Y33 etc, also the AM3 bogie has used this profile successfully. This profile was extensively used in the past for wagons up to 60 mph. For bogie wagons, which operate at speeds in excess of 60 mph, the use of P5 profiles is recommended. New suspensions specially designed to accept high conicity wheel tread profiles, for example 25.4 t axleload taperleaf and cross-braced bogies. LTF and TF25 bogies. 12 RAIL SAFETY AND STANDARDS BOARD

15 Page 13 of 40 Profile Ident P10 S1002SW Description The P10 profile is derived from the standard UIC profile detailed in leaflet It has a thick flange combined with a 70 flange angle. Modified version of P10 profile with larger flanges, to assist negotiation of obtuse crossings. Example Applications 2-axle and bogie wagons in international traffic having a wheel diameter in the range 760 mm mm. Also as an alternative to P5 for Y25 type bogies in domestic traffic only. UIC profile used by vehicles with small wheel diameters, that is to say below 760 mm. B6.6.3 Application of profiles All the wheels on a vehicle should have the same profile. Note: Where a change from any other profile type to P5/P10 is required, it should be noted that to turn this profile from any other type requires a large amount of metal removal. B6.6.4 Identification of profiles on vehicles The appropriate profile identification should be painted on the solebar of 2-axle wagons and on the bogie frame of bogie wagons as set out in Appendix D. B7 Axleboxes B7.1 Bearings New wagons should be fitted with roller bearing axleboxes or cartridge bearing units with cast steel adaptors, which should be those that have already proven to be satisfactory in service, or are acceptable to the conformance certification body. When using cartridge bearing units on two-axle wagons with laminated or parabolic spring suspensions, experience has shown that use of adaptors with a full bore feature, providing a close fit around the outside of cartridges, minimises incorrect bearing loadings from whatever source. Consideration should be given to prevention of corrosion by water ingress of full bore adaptors. B7.2 Hot axle bearing detection Wagons should be designed to permit the requirements set out in GE/RT8014 for hot axlebox detectors to view specific areas of the bearing and journal. On board detection will be required if the detectors cannot view the specified areas. The vehicle design should include shielding if hot cargoes are being carried, to prevent spurious hot axlebox detector activation. B8 Springs and suspensions B8.1 Coil springs B8.1.1 Design It has been found that satisfactory results are obtained when coil springs are designed to BS Specification 1726 Part Design and Specification of Coil Springs. There is also a European standard, EN (formerly DIN ) Cylindrical helical springs made from round wire and bar - Calculation and design Part 1: Compression Springs. B8.1.2 Manufacture Guidance for the manufacture of springs is set out in BR Specification 151. B8.1.3 Material The use of steel to BS EN 10089:2002 has been found to give satisfactory performance. RAIL SAFETY AND STANDARDS BOARD 13

16 Page 14 of 40 B8.1.4 Dynamic load range To allow for dynamic displacement caused by track irregularities, the springs should be designed to cater for full load ± 30%, and ± 50% in tare. B8.2 Laminated springs B8.2.1 Design Laminated bearing springs designed in accordance with BR Report P9 have previously been accepted, but their use now is not recommended because of the superior performance of coil springs. B8.3 Parabolic taperleaf springs B8.3.1 Design Although, like laminated springs, the use of parabolic taperleaf springs is not now recommended, if parabolic taperleaf springs are used, special attention should be paid to the bump stop clearance to avoid overstressing the spring. If they are used then careful attention should be given to friction augmentation to damping, problems have been encountered with non-clamped friction augment devices. Parabolic taperleaf springs should only be purchased from well established suppliers as early failure of spring leaves has occurred on some parabolic springs. B8.3.2 Minimum tare when new To mitigate against the risk of derailment, it has been found that the minimum tare weight of a 2-axle wagon fitted with parabolic springs and hydraulic buffers should be 10.5 t. B8.4 Suspension At the present time the Office of the Rail Regulator sets the track access charges. A proportion of the charge is levied in accordance with the perceived track damage a vehicle may cause. This has been based on the following parameters that affect the level of vertical force imparted into the track: a) unsprung mass b) vertical forces generated from the general ride of the vehicle c) axleload d) dirt factor (for example coal spillage) e) speed. In the usage charge formulae produced by the Office of the Rail Regulator the vertical forces component, shown in b) above, is called the rolling stock factor, and this depends on suspension type. The charges against the generic suspension types used are spread across seven bands as shown below: Band 1 Band 2 Band 3 Band 4 Band 5 Band 6 Band 7 4 wheel wagon with pedestal suspension 4 wheel wagon having leaf springs and friction damping Bogie wagon with three piece bogie 4 wheel wagon with parabolic springs, and bogie wagon with enhanced three piece bogie for example swing motion Bogie wagon with primary springs for example Y25 Bogie wagon with enhanced primary springs for example LTF, TF25 and Axlemotion bogies Bogie wagon with enhanced primary springs and steering Band 1 attracts the highest cost and band 7 the lowest. The spread of cost across the seven bands is 20%. Up-to-date information and freight usage charge formulae can be found on the website of the Office of the Rail Regulator. 14 RAIL SAFETY AND STANDARDS BOARD

17 Page 15 of 40 B8.4.1 Bogie suspension design Some guidance on bogie position and axle weights is given in Appendix A of this document. Figure A2 of that appendix sets out some maximum and minimum dimensions. Figure A3 sets out some worked examples of compliant and noncompliant static wheel loads and minimum wheel diameters derived in accordance with the requirements set out in GM/TT0088. Attention is drawn to the need to provide a means to lubricate the contact faces of centre pivot castings where there is metal to metal contact. The lubrication of non-metallic centre pivot liners should be prevented. B8.4.2 Bogie suspension movement Care should be taken to ensure suitable clearances for bogie rotation and pitch. This is a route acceptance issue, as set out in GE/RT8270, but a pitch allowance of between 1.5 o and 3 o is normal. The designer should calculate the clearance of moving parts for the minimum curve likely to be encountered and it has been found beneficial to then add 6 mm clearance. The design should ensure that mechanical, pneumatic or electrical connections between body and bogie do not foul or restrict bogie movement. B8.4.3 Existing two axle suspension designs Industry experience has shown that new designs of two-axle wagon suspensions are unlikely to achieve 60 mph running due to stability issues, and their use is discouraged. It should be noted that there is no known design that complies to current Railway Group Standards. Designers should be aware that two-axle wagons with stiff suspensions are known to react adversely with cyclic top track conditions. B8.4.4 Two axle suspension axleguards The lateral stiffness of the axleguard assembly is important for the correct functioning of many 2-axle wagon suspensions. UIC leaflet 517 sets out design criteria. B9 Buffing and drawgear The requirements for coupling systems are set out in Railway Group Standard GM/RT2190. Typical arrangements of mechanical coupling systems are set out in Code of Practice GM/RC2509, which will be replaced by GM/GN2690. B9.1 Buffers B9.1.1 Type It has been found that the use of hydraulic buffers provides improved protection to vehicles and contents, and confers an improved ability to propel the wagons safely around curves, when compared with other buffer types. To prevent damage from the commodity being carried, care should be taken in the application of certain buffer types where they will be exposed to an abrasive environment. B9.1.2 Head size The attention of designers is drawn to the importance of ensuring that buffer heads are of a sufficient size to enable safe negotiation of the following track geometry: a) straight track to 75 m radius - no transition b) continuous curve of 75 m radius c) reverse ( S ) curve of 120 m radius with 3 m intermediate straight. The above should apply with screw couplings adjusted such that the buffer faces are just in contact with the vehicle on straight and level track or with the Instanter coupling in the short position. RAIL SAFETY AND STANDARDS BOARD 15

18 Page 16 of 40 Uncontrolled When Printed UIC leaflet sets out a method for assessing buffer head size, and guidance for reverse curve layouts set out in UIC leaflet However, it should be noted that 75 mm is considered to be the minimum desirable overlap to prevent buffer locking. As part of the route acceptance process set out in GE/RT8270, consideration will be given to wagons having dimensions that result in only being capable of negotiating larger radius curves. In such instances the applicable radius for continuous curve negotiation should be marked on the wagon. B9.1.3 Energy absorption Buffers are selected on their ability to absorb kinetic energy (KE) and differing buffer designs have been developed for wagons of differing commodities, longitudinal strength and gross laden weight (GLW). Experience has indicated that KE absorption values of 40 kj and 80 kj applied to wagons of 51 t and 102 t GLW respectively have provided protection with conventional train formations. However, designers should satisfy themselves that these values will provide sufficient protection for the planned mode of operation of the wagons, particularly in long, heavy trains. It can be assumed that the wagon and load together absorb 25% of the KE. B9.1.4 Buffer heights The maximum and minimum allowable buffer heights are set out in GM/RT2190. The maximum height should be taken in tare condition with new wheels, and minimum height with wagon laden and minimum size wheels. The suggested target buffer height for new wagons is 1054 mm, to permit the upward adjustment which is sometimes necessary, and allows for some suspension settlement. Wagons intended for light payloads or which have a limited tare to laden deflection could be set at a lower new height provided that the fully worn laden height does not fall below the 940 mm minimum. B9.2 Drawgear B9.2.1 Typical assemblies The range of standard designs is set out in the appendices of the RSSB Approved Code of Practice GM/RC2509 (to be superseded by GM/GN2690). Greater detail is shown in the following drawings: C1-S Swivel type 620 mm buffer projection C1-A Swivel type 520 mm buffer projection F-A Rigid drawgear using BR screw couplings F-S Rigid drawgear using instanter couplings B1-C Couplings B1-C Hooks B1-C Draw springs B9.2.2 Couplings for 56 t traction load The couplings listed below have been found to give satisfactory results in a 56 t traction application. C1-A International screw coupling, rated at 56 t - It should be noted that the standard UIC screw coupling does not meet the 56 t traction load F-A BR screw coupling B9.2.3 Auto couplers The only centre couplers previously accepted by BR are AAR approved designs with Type E and F heads. These incorporate safety features to prevent coupler disengagement in the event of derailment or a pull-out. In the event of a derailment, the vehicles tend to remain upright and in line. 16 RAIL SAFETY AND STANDARDS BOARD

19 Page 17 of 40 When selecting the new wagon coupler height and knuckle size the designer should be mindful of other vehicles to which the wagon may be required to be coupled. The knuckle size selected should allow for adequate overlap in all load and height conditions likely to be encountered. Designers should be aware of the effect on coupler engagement of large suspension displacements. It has been found that the fitment of lower shelf brackets is helpful in preventing inadvertent uncoupling. Swinghead, rather than drophead, couplings assist in improving manual handling. The swinghead should swing to the left (when viewed from the front), and should be capable of locking in either position. The uncoupling mechanism, if only mounted on one side, should be on the left-hand side. B10 Fittings on ends of wagons and clearances for operating staff B10.1 Lamp bracket In order to comply with the requirement set out in GM/RT2180 to show a red tail light, any wagon that can be formed as the last wagon in a train should be fitted with a lamp bracket. An acceptable design is shown in UIC leaflet 532. B10.2 Clearance for operating staff B Berne rectangle Clearances for operating staff to couple and uncouple should be provided. It is recommended that compliance with UIC leaflet 521 is achieved, even though it is not mandated for UK domestic wagons. UIC leaflet 521 gives full details of the clearance requirements, commonly known as the Berne rectangle. B Restricted clearance Where 520 mm projection buffers are used it is known that brake couplings and hoses project into the space described in clause B Swinghead couplings also infringe the Berne rectangle on one side. B10.3 Overhanging superstructure B General principles Wagon bodies and superstructure could, subject to the provisions of clause B10.2.1, project beyond the headstock. To prevent contact between adjacent vehicles, they should not project beyond the vertical line through the face of the buffers when compressed with the wagon standing on an incline of 3º 30, and the adjacent vehicle is on straight and level track. These principles should also be observed when the wagons are standing on level track and on the minimum lateral curve specified for the vehicles. B Specific exceptions Recesses in the ends of wagons designed to accommodate projections on adjacent wagons are acceptable only if the wagons are permanently coupled as a single unit. Excessive overhang is acceptable, but only if permanently coupled to a suitable match wagon. B10.4 Access ladders Access ladders fitted to wagons should wherever possible comply with BS4211: 1994 Class A or B. Cross platforms at a height of more than 1400 mm above rail level, and intended to be accessed while the wagon is under overhead electric wires, should have a protective canopy. Safety considerations may dictate that cross platforms positioned lower than 1400 mm or not normally intended to be used under overhead electric wires may still require a canopy because of the operational activity. RAIL SAFETY AND STANDARDS BOARD 17

20 Page 18 of 40 Uncontrolled When Printed B10.5 Air isolating cock and connections B Position The position of air isolating cocks and connections at headstocks should be as shown on the following drawings: a) C1-A for 2 pipe brake system b) C1-A for 1 pipe brake system B Through air pipe wagons Wagons having only a through air pipe should have the cock positioned as set out in clause B b). Note that Railway Group Standard GM/RT2045 requires that all new vehicles are fitted with a power brake. B Colour coding The colour of vehicle end air couplings should be: Valve & handle Coupling head a) Train brake pipe RED RED b) Air reservoir pipe YELLOW YELLOW c) Through air pipe WHITE RED B11 Braking B11.1 Braking policy The braking policy for freight wagons is set out in Railway Group Standard GM/RT2045. The Freight Technical Committee business standard 001 (which replaces the former British Rail document MT227) gives further guidance and brake test procedures. B11.2 Braking performance and system requirements B Performance Railway Group Standard GM/RT2043 sets out the requirements for the braking system and performance for freight vehicles running solely within UK. For international wagons the more onerous requirements of UIC should be met. B Brake force GM/RT2040 sets out how the standard value of brake force data should be calculated for inclusion in the Rolling Stock Library database. B Parking brake The parking/hand brake wheel should apply the brake with the minimum of turns, consistent with the design of vehicle. It is beneficial that the wheel should take approximately 10 to 15 turns from being released to an application (sufficient to hold laden vehicle on a 1 in 40 incline) using reasonable force to the wheel. Depending on the design of brake applied, a reasonable force could be considered to be 500 N. The parking brake application should be maintained during loading and unloading of the wagon. B12 Structures B12.1 Proof and fatigue loads Railway Group Standard GM/RT2100 sets out the structural requirements for wagon bodies, underframe and superstructure, and bogies. Guidance Note GM/GN2560 sets out guidance on structural requirements. Designers should note that UIC wagons do not meet the requirements of GM/RT2100 due to lateral fatigue issues. Specific requirements for the tanks of tank wagons are set out in Railway Group Standard GM/RT RAIL SAFETY AND STANDARDS BOARD

21 Page 19 of 40 B12.2 Finite element analysis Designers are recommended that, to demonstrate compliance to Railway Group Standard GM/RT2100, a finite element analysis should be undertaken. In the case of modifications the analysis should include as much of the vehicle structure as necessary to be assured that the modification is not increasing stress levels above the acceptance limits in adjacent areas. B12.3 Jacking and lifting The strength requirements for jacking and lifting points are set out in Railway Group Standard GM/RT2100. B12.4 Recovery after accidents Requirements for the design of wagon structures to enable safe recovery after accidents are set out in Railway Group Standard GM/RT2260. B12.5 Door, floor and side wall proof load cases B Side wall loads Wagon side walls should be designed to accept an internal loading of 0.4 g, the load being distributed over the full fixed wall area. B Doors Wagon doors should be designed to withstand the load case shown below: B Door areas of wagon sides (two leaved doors) With the door in position and locked, a transverse force simulating the shifting of the load should be applied at the centre of each door leaf and over an area of 1 m 2, simultaneously applied on each leaf, increasing loads up to 8 kn. No significant permanent deformation or deterioration in elements of the door or its securing / rolling / sliding / guiding gear should be permitted. B Full length side doors (sliding walls) With the sliding doors in the closed position a transverse force simulating the shifting of the load should be applied to each of the doors in the following manner: a) 20 kn force uniformly distributed over a square surface of 1m side length situated in the centre of the door. b) 20 kn force uniformly distributed over a rectangular surface area equal to the length of the door with a width of 1.2 m situated immediately above the top surface of the floor. No significant permanent deformation or deterioration in elements of the door or its securing / rolling / sliding / guiding gear should be permitted. B Hopper doors Hopper doors should be fitted with primary and secondary locking systems to prevent a single point failure causing doors to open. Pneumatically powered doors may be supplied with air from the wagon s air reservoir pipe provided that it does not affect the wagon braking performance. B Internal load restraints In those cases where the above loads produce deflections of the door or wall, the magnitude of which causes gauge infringement, internal load restraints should be fitted and used. B Floors Floors should be designed to be suitable for the purpose intended. Floor loading specifications and tests can be found in the following documents: RAIL SAFETY AND STANDARDS BOARD 19

22 Page 20 of 40 Uncontrolled When Printed BS : 1991 ERRI DT 135 (B 12) section A.3 (currently shown only available in French and German) Consideration should be given during floor design to the additional fork lift truck loadings, which have been known to cause problems. B13 Load restraint B13.1 Containers and swap bodies B Twist locks The location of Twist locks is given in the latest issue of UIC 571-4, at time of publication. a) Fatigue loadings The location devices and associated mountings should be capable of withstanding fatigue loads resulting from the application of the following accelerations, applied to the maximum gross weight load unit capable of being conveyed. The derived load should to be applied at the base plane of the load unit, when restrained by the quantity of Twist locks indicated, these being assumed to share the load evenly: i) In longitudinal direction ± 0.2 g ) restrained ii) In transverse direction ± 0.25 g ) at four iii) In vertical direction ± 0.6 g ) locations As set out in GM/RT2100 these should be considered as the sum of the three fatigue load cases for 10 7 cycles. b) Proof loadings These location devices and associated mountings should be capable of withstanding proof loads resulting from the application of the following accelerations, applied to the maximum gross weight load unit capable of being conveyed. The derived load should to be applied at the base plane of the load unit when restrained by the quantity of Twist locks indicated: i) in longitudinal direction 2 g restrained at two locations ii) in transverse direction 1 g restrained at two locations iii) in vertical down direction 2 g iv) in vertical up direction 1 g restrained at four locations restrained at two locations B Holland auto locks Holland auto locks should be treated the same as Twist locks. B UIC type spigots Spigots designed and located as set out in the latest issue of UIC are acceptable. It should be noted that containers less than 1.6 t should not be carried on spigots, further guidance is set out in GO/RM3056 Working Manual Rail Staff Freight Operations Manual. It should be noted that there is additional lateral movement compared to Twist locks, which should be taken into account when gauging. B13.2 Winches and webbing B Winches Load restraint winches for use with load restraint webbing should generally accord with that depicted on drawing C1-A The attachment of the winch and fastening points should accord with its rating of 76 kn. 20 RAIL SAFETY AND STANDARDS BOARD