You are on page 1of 100

GOVERNMENT OF INDIA

MINISTRY OF RAILWAYS

Railway Board’s Orders


On
Minutes of 81st Meeting
Of the Track Standards Committee
Held at New Delhi from 1st to 3rd
December, 2010

RESEARCH DESIGNS & STANDARDS ORGANISATION


LUCKNOW-226 011
81st MEETING OF THE TRACK STANDARDS COMMITTEE – DECEMBER, 2010

PREFACE

The 81st meeting of Track Standards Committee was Held at New Delhi from 1st to 3rd
December, 2010 .The Minutes of meeting was issued vide RDSO’s letter no .CT/C-81
dt10.12.2010 .The Railways Board’s order on minutes of above meeting have been
received vide letter no2010/CE-II/TSC/1 dt12.05.11.

This compilation is being issued incorporating Agenda items, Notes by secretary,


Committee’s observation, Committee’s Recommendations and Railways Board’s order
for convenience at Zonal Railway level to have all information at one place. In order to
ensure ease of use and faster reach, this compilation is being circulated in soft format
only.

Zonal Railways shall take further follow up action based on Railways Board’s orders.

ii
81st MEETING OF THE TRACK STANDARDS COMMITTEE – DECEMBER, 2010

INDEX- I

S.N. Item Item Item Proposed by Page


No. No.
1 1170 Renewal of ‘D’ marked rails Southern Railway’s Email 1-9
dt:27-08-2010
2 1171 Gauge at toe of points & crossing South Eastern Railway’s 10-11
Email dt:14-09-10
3 1172 SEJs for curves up to 4 Degree Northern Railway’s Email 12-13
dt:14-09-10
4 1173 Provision of online printing facilities in PC-based OMS Item Proposed in CTE’s 14
equipment Seminar-2008
5 1174 Revision of Specification and fixing life cycle for Item Proposed in CTE’s 15-16
avoiding frequent failure of glued joints. Seminar-2009
6 1175 Push trolley wheels suitable for digital axle counter Item Proposed in CTE’s 17-18
Seminar-2009
7 1176 (i) Experience of tamping based on TM 115 Item Proposed in CTE’s 19-22
Seminar-2009
(ii) Experience on Tamping based on TM – 115 Item Proposed in CTE’s
Seminar-2010
(iii) TM-115 report has not been implemented on Item Proposed in CTE’s
Northern Railway Seminar-2010

8 1177 Anomalies in IRPWM & LWR Manual Item Proposed in CTE’s 23-24
Seminar-2010
9 1178 Threshold values for load testing of in service rails by Item Proposed in CTE’s 25-26
FBW Seminar-2010
10 1179 Standards of track maintenance to C&M-(Vol.1) Item Proposed in CTE’s 27-29
Seminar-2010
11 1180 Reflective type indicator boards South Eastern Railway’s 30-32
Email dt:22-09-10
12 1181 Extra clearance on curves IRICEN’s letter dt:01-10- 33-34
2010
13 1182 Clips with higher toe load being used on Indian Track Design directorate 35-43
Railways of RDSO
14 1183 Restoring whistle board distance from level crossing Track Design directorate 44-45
from 350m to 600m on single line. Ref: Para 916 (1) (i) of RDSO
of IRPWM
15 1184 Review of Pending Items: 58-95
As per details in INDEX-II -
16 1185 Provision of wicket gates for on foot road users Northeast Frontier 46-47
Railway’s Fax dt:04-11-
2010
17 1186 Abolition of THOD system Northeast Frontier 48-50
Railway’s Fax dt:04-11-
2010
18 1187 Provision of Pathways on long girder bridge for As per Rly. Board’s order 51-54
inspection and Maintenance. on ITEM No 1008 of 79th
meeting of BSC
19 1188 Trial policy for track items During TSC meeting 55
20 1189 Provision of Notch at bottom of joggle fish plate NWR, during TSC 56
meeting
21 1190 Measurement of Rail stresses and stress free temperature During TSC meeting 57
of LWR by non destructive portable state of art
equipment

iii
81st MEETING OF THE TRACK STANDARDS COMMITTEE – DECEMBER, 2010

INDEX- II

S.N. Brief description of item Reference Page


No.
1 Review of accident proforma (1167/1/80) 58
(958/73/02/Safety)
2 LWR/CWR over ballasted deck bridges. (Provision (1167/2/80) 59
of LWR with SEJ on pier to pier, continuation of (982/7th Ext./02/IM/LWR)
LWR on bridges, development of code of practice (1091/77/IM/LWR)
similar to UIC code 774-3R. Trials of continuation (1092/77/IM/LWR)
of LWR with multi span bridges with/without (1093/77/IM/LWR)
ballasted deck.).
3 Possibility of permitting 26 m rails on major and (1167/4/80) 60
important bridges (986/74/JW/SWR)
4 Modification in design of combination fish plate (1167/5/80) 61
(1015/74/FF)
5 Change of rail section in LWR/CWR (1167/6/80) 62
(1042/75/ IM/LWR)
6 Modification in the lifting barrier assembly for level (1167/8/80) 63
crossings (1070/76/EL)
7 Machine maintenance of track (1167/9/80) 64
(1073/76/TM/GL/70)
8 Non-destructive stress free temperature (1167/11/80) 65
measurement of CWR by force application method (1077/76/IM/LWR/RSM)
9 Review of rail stress calculation methodology (1167/12/80) 66
(1078/76/Track Stress/FEM &
DG/Research)
10 Revision of Workload of PWIs (1167/13/80) 67
(1087/77/IRPWM)
11 Criteria for re-alignment of curve (1167/14/80) 68
(1055/75/IRPWM)
12 Necessity of detailed guidelines for USFD testing of (1167/15/80) 69
tongue rails and CMS crossings (1098/78/USFD)

13 Corrosion on rails at contact points of liners (1167/16/80) 70


resulting into fractures (1102/78/ACP/RP)
14 Maintenance of channel sleeper (1167/19/80) 71
(1121/79/JE)
15 Standard deviation based track maintenance (1167/20/80) 72
standards for 130Kmph to 160Kmph and spot (1124/79/TM/GL/70 79th)
values for 140Kmph to 160 Kmph.
16 Improving small track machine organisation (1167/21/80) 73
(1125/79/TM/GL/70 79th)
17 Reduction in thickness of end post of glued joints. (1167/22/80) 74
(1127/79/MT/GJ)
18 Formation treatment and recommendations of (1167/23/80) 75
RDSO for treatment other than blanketing. (1128/79/GE/GEN/13 TSC VOL-X)
19 Issues pertaining to improvement in A.T welding. (1167/26/80) 76
(1133/79/WELDING/POLICY)
20 Use of 700 (2MHz) 8mm probe for detection of half (1167/27/80) 77
moon crack. (1134/79/USFD)
21 Carrying out deep screening by BCM at a speed of (1167/28/80) 78
40Kmph. (1136/79/TM/GL/70 79th)
22 Maintenance problem in 1 in 12 Fan shaped layout. (1167/30/80) (1142/79/PTX) 79
iv
81st MEETING OF THE TRACK STANDARDS COMMITTEE – DECEMBER, 2010

23 Yardstick for USFD testing. (1167/31/80) 80


(1143/79/USFD)
24 Visibility requirement for unmanned LCs (1147/80/ EL) 81
25 Discrepancies in IRPWM & USFD Manual (1148/80/ IRPWM, USFD & AT 82
regarding provisions pertaining to metallurgical Welding Sub Committee)
testing of rails/welds.
26 Flaw detected in SKV welds with 3 piece moulds (1150/80/ USFD & 83
by 450 2 MHz single crystal probe Welding/Policy)
27 Maintenance of thick web switches (1151/80/ TWS) 84
28 Maintenance of Spring Setting Device (1152/80/ TWS) 85
29 Emergency sliding boom at level crossing gates (1154/80/ LC/Safety) 86
30 Formulation of procedure for testing of vertical (1156/80/ USFD) 87
flaws in USFD testing.
31 Minimum track centre for new 3rd and 4th Lines (1157/80/ SD/Rev/BG/MG) 88
32 Trial of different fastening components on Indian (1160/80/ EF/TRIAL) 89
Railways.
33 Inspection and maintenance of points and crossings (1161/80/ PTX) 91
34 Increase in top formation width. (1163/80/ GE/Gen/TSC/13) 92
35 Criteria for deep screening of ballast (1166/80/ GE/Gen/TSC/13) 93
36 Maintenance tolerance of gauge (1168/80/ IRPWM) 94
37 Modification in F/S Turn Out (1169/80/ PTX/Policy) 95
(1 in 8.5 & 1.12) Drawings.

v
81st MEETING OF THE TRACK STANDARDS COMMITTEE – DECEMBER, 2010

ITEM NO.1170

SUBJECT: Renewal of ‘D’ marked rails


(Proposed by SR)

RDSO FILE REF: CT/Specification/T-12 & CT/RG/RIC

AGENDA:

Southern Railway vide their email dt:27-08-10 has proposed the item as under:

‘D’ marking of rails was carried out in Bhilai Steel Plant for rails manufactured prior to
year 1999. This marking signifies that dispensation with regard to any one or more
parameters of IRS T-12 have been granted while inspecting the rails. One of the causes
of ‘D’ marking was dispensation with respect to degassing. It is suspected that these
rails would be of consequence as regard to transverse flaw in railhead.

Two failures in Palakkad division, five failures in Thiruvananthapuram division and two
failures in Madurai division have taken place on the major bridge and approaches which
were laid with ‘D’ marked rails.

A total length of about 1248 km of rails were laid with ‘D’ marked rails over Southern
Railway, out of which 47,843 km are on major bridges and approaches. The “D”
marked rails are failing prematurely with the combination of defects such as localized
corrosion, scabbing, wheel burns etc.

There were 52 failures in the stretch of “D” marked rails during the year. Further,
during USFD testing defects in rails were observed in 25 locations, defects in welds
were detected in 240 locations over Southern Railway.

SUGGESTIONS:

In view of the above, a policy may be formulated to replace all the ‘D’ marked rails
from mainline duly giving priority for renewal of ‘D’ marked rails on bridges and its
approaches, curves and high banks.

NOTES BY SECRETARY:

The Indian Railways Standard Specification for Flat Bottom Rails i.e. IRS T-12/1964
was revised in the year 1988 and designated as IRST-12-1988. This specification was
issued vide letter no. CT/Specification/IRST-12 dated 06.03.1989. This specification
introduced major changes in the process of steel production and acceptance of rails.
1
81st MEETING OF THE TRACK STANDARDS COMMITTEE – DECEMBER, 2010

Since adequate facilities for such production were not available in Bhilai Steel Plant,
therefore, grace period of two years was granted for introduction of above specification.
The rails produced with such dispensation were marked as IRS T-12-88-D vide
Railways Board’s letter no. Track/21/87/0503/7 dated 25.02.1991. The letter ‘D’ stands
for dispensation. The facilities could not be developed in two years time and
subsequently relaxation/dispensation was granted vide letter no. CT/Specification/T-12
dated 10/18.03.1991 upto March 1993. The clauses of specification IRST-12-88 on
which dispensation was granted along with dispensation permitted are tabulated in
Table 1 below.

For some of the provisions, dispensation was further extended till March 1994. The
specification was further revised in 1996 and IRS T-12-1996 was issued in August
1996. In this specification dispensation was granted upto 31.12.1999 for Hydrogen
content, end straightness and on-line ultrasonic testing. The clauses of IRS T-12-1996
on which dispensation was granted along with dispensation permitted are tabulated in
Table 2 below.

These dispensations were permitted upto 31.12.1998. The dispensation on Hydrogen


content were permitted for 52 Kg rails only and no dispensation were permitted for 60
Kg rails. The dispensation for Hydrogen content for 52 Kg rails was further extended
till 31.12.1999.

In view of problem of multiple fracture on ‘D’ marked rails reported by NF Railway


instructions for USFD testing of these rails were issued vide letter no. M&C/NDT/1/5
dated 19.4.2007 and subsequently revised instructions for USFD testing of ‘D’ marked
rails were included in Manual for Ultrasonic Testing of Rails vide Addendum &
Corrigendum Slip No. 2 to Manual for Ultrasonic Testing of Rails and Welds Rev.
2006.

The dispensation in some of the clauses of IRS T-12 were granted in 1991 and 1996 to
Bhilai Steel Plant when they were not able to meet revised specifications as the revised
specification required introduction of new processes, modification in existing processes
and setting of additional units i.e. RH degassing biplanner roller straightening machine
and on-line ultrasonic tester etc. The ‘D’ marked rails though have been accepted with
dispensation permitted in existing specifications but cannot be termed as defective, if
such is the case then all the rails produced prior to revision of specifications should be
replaced. The defects of corrosion, scabbing and wheel burns mentioned in the agenda
are not related to dispensation permitted to Bhilai Steel Plant.

The Committee may deliberate on the issue.

2
81st MEETING OF THE TRACK STANDARDS COMMITTEE – DECEMBER, 2010

Table 1
IRST-88 provisions and dispensations
S.N. Clause IRS-T-!2-88 provisions Dispensation
1.
Following relaxations were permitted to Bhilai
Steel Plant against the provisions of IRS/T-12-88
specifications up to March 1993.

2. 5.1 The steel for rails shall be of the best quality made by Not more than 20% of grade 880 rails should be
open hearth, basic oxygen or any other process manufactured by top poured ingots from the steel
approved by the Purchaser. For grade 880, the steel produced by open hearth process
shall be of fully killed quality and cast in hot topped
bottom poured ingots. Blooms produced by
continuous casting process may also be used for
production of rails. The manufacturer in his offer shall
furnish the steel making process including the details
of subsequent refining such as vacuum degassing,
control cooling of blooms/rails, etc. which he will
follow.

3. 7.2 Hot stamping (i) Existing clause 7.2.1 and 7.2.2 have been
relaxed to the following extent till such
time necessary facilities for stamping of
rails are created by Bhilai Steel Plant: -

4. 7.2.1 For ingot route For ingot route

Every rail shall have distinctly hot stamped on one Every rail shall be distinctly hot stamped on one
side of the web or cold stamped on one side of head at side of the web or cold stamped on one side of
the lower position of its vertical face at a distance not the head at the lower position of its vertical face
less than 150mm from each end. at a distance not less than 150*mm from each
a) Cast number end.
b) Number of the ingot 1, 2, 3 ………….
c) The letters A, B …………………….Z in a) Cast number.
order, starting from top of the ingot, Z being b) ‘*’ (star) on the first rail of the head
reserved for the bottom end rail. blooms.
c) “Z” on the bottom end rail of the ingot
in case of 880 grade.”
Note - * This should now be read as 250mm
5. 7.2.2 For continuous cast route For continuous cast route

Hot stamping on one side of the web where they shall Hot stamping on one side of the web where they
appear at least once, in a position to be agreed to shall appear at least once, in a position to be
between the producer and the Purchaser and agreed to between the manufacturer and the
according to a numerical, alphabetical or combined purchaser and according to a numerical
alphabetical and numerical code, from which the alphabetical or combined alphabetical and
following information can be obtained. numerical code, from which the following
information can be obtained: -

- The number of the cast from which the rail


has been rolled with letter C. - The number of the cast from which the
- The position of the rail in relation to top of rail has been rolled with letter C.
the bloom or continuous cast strand.
- All other reference positions of the rail in
the cast agreed between the producer and
purchaser.

3
81st MEETING OF THE TRACK STANDARDS COMMITTEE – DECEMBER, 2010

Note: In the event of hot stamped identification Note – In the event of hot stamped identification
marks having been removed through cropping, re- marks having been removed through cropping,
identification of such marks shall be made in re-identification of such marks shall be made in
agreement with the Purchaser. agreement with the Purchaser.”

6. 8.1.1 Tolerances in sectional dimensions Relaxation in the sectional dimensions has been
permitted to the following extent: -

Overall height of rails :±0.6mm Overall height of rails : +1.0mm


- 0.5mm

Width of head :±0.5mm Width of head : +1.0mm


This will be measured -0.5mm
14mm below the rail top This will be measured
14mm below the rail top.

Width of flange :±1.0mm for sections Width of flange : +1.0mm for


less than 60 Kg/m section less than 60 Kg/m.

:+1.0mm for sections + 1.0mm


-1.1mm 60 kg/m and -1.5mm. for
above sections 60 Kg/m and above

7. 8.4.1 The straightness of the rail shall be judged by eye but “Present practice of acceptance of rails based on
in case of doubt or dispute, the affected portion shall visual inspection may continue for straightness
be checked using 1.5m straight edge. The maximum of the rails. Wavy kinky and twisted rails shall
permissible deviation shall be 0.80mm measured as not be accepted. All rails shall have the
the maximum ordinate on a chord of 1.5m. Wavy, straightness at the ends checked by means of
kinky and twisted rails shall not be accepted. 1.5m straight edge. The deviation from straight
edge both in vertical and horizontal direction,
shall generally (for not less than 80% of rails
inspected and passed) be not more than 1.00 mm
measured as the maximum ordinate on a chord of
1.5m. However, this ordinate shall in no case
8.4.2 End Straightness exceed 1.5mm. This tolerance is allowed only if
Rails shall have the straightness at the ends checked the deviation raises the end in vertical direction.
by means of 1.5m straight edge. The deviation from No tolerance shall be allowed if the deviation
straight edge, both in vertical and horizontal direction lowers the end.
shall not exceed 0.70mm measured as a maximum
ordinate on a chord of 1.5m. This tolerance is Any rail not complying with these requirements
allowed if the deviation raises the end in vertical may be rectified by the producer and offered for
direction. No tolerance shall be allowed if the inspection.”
deviation lowers the end.
Any rail not complying with these
requirements may be rectified by the Producer and
offered for re-inspection.

8. 15.2 The manufacturer shall, at his own expenses, make The manufacturer shall, at his own expense,
and furnish to the Inspecting Officer chemical make and furnish to the Inspecting Officer
analysis for the specified limits after rolling from each chemical analysis for the specified elements after
cast. Extent of test shall be one per cast upto and rolling from each cast. Extent of test shall be
including 150 tonnes and two per cast for the cast one per cast up to and including 150t of rails
more than 150 tonnes. rolled and two per cast for the casts from which
more than 150t of rails are rolled.”

4
81st MEETING OF THE TRACK STANDARDS COMMITTEE – DECEMBER, 2010

9. 15.5.1 The manufacturer shall determine the tensile The suggestion of Bhilai Steel Plant for
properties of the steel in accordance with the permitting diameter of tensile test as 10mm, in
requirements of IS:1608-1972. Such tests shall be addition to the two standard diameters permitted
made on standard test pieces taken from position in IRS/T-12-88 was accepted. The stipulation of
shown in figure below. stress relieving was also agreed but in
Diameter D accordance with provisions of UIC 860-0 which
20.60mm, is reproduced below: -
14.56mm
“Tensile test specimens of grade 900 and 1100
may be maintained at a temperature not
exceeding 1000C for a maximum 2 hours before
testing.”

10. The minimum tensile strength shall be as given in The minimum tensile strength shall be as given
Table 1, clause 6. Should the test piece break outside in Table 1, clause 6. Should the test piece break
the middle half of the gauge length, it may be outside the middle half of the gauge length and
discarded and such breaks should not be considered as elongation is less than the minimum specified
a failure of the test. A fresh test or fresh tests may be value, it may be discarded and such breaks
made by the manufacturer with a test piece or test should not be considered as a failure of test. A
pieces taken from rail from the same cast from which fresh test may be made by the manufacturer with
the discarded test piece was taken. a test piece taken from rail from same cast.”

11. 15.5.5 For rails from continuously cast blooms “When the first tensile test carried out on any of
When a first tensile test carried out on any the rails from the same cast does not give
of the rail from the same cast does not give satisfactory results, 2 check tests shall be made
satisfactory result, two check tests shall be made. The on samples taken from any of the rails from
first check test shall be made on any of the rails from same cast.
the same strand and the second check test on any of
the rails from another strand of the same cast. If the two check tests are satisfactory, the cast
If the two check tests are satisfactory, the shall be accepted. If one or both of these check
cast shall be accepted. tests do not give satisfactory results, the cast
When one or both of these two check tests shall be rejected.”
do not give satisfactory result, the causes may be
investigated by the Producer and if established to the
satisfaction of the Purchaser two further re-tests for
each unsatisfactory first retest shall be carried out on
other rails represented by the original tests.
12. 15.6.4 For rails from ingots route: For rails from ingot route
When a top end or a bottom end print is
unsatisfactory, a check test shall be carried out on two When top end or a bottom end print is
more rails from the top end section, of the ‘A’ rail or unsatisfactory, a check test shall be carried out
bottom end section of the ‘Z’ rail from the same cast. on two more rails from the top end section, of ‘*’
If the two check tests are satisfactory, all the rails of (star) rail or bottom end section of the ‘Z’ rail
the cast shall be accepted. If any check test is from the same cast. If the two check tests are
unsatisfactory, further check tests shall be carried out satisfactory, all the rails of the cast shall be
on top of ‘Z’ rail or on bottom of ‘A’ rail as the case accepted. If any check test is unsatisfactory,
may be. If this second series of check tests is further check tests shall be carried out on top of
satisfactory, all rails of the cast shall be accepted ‘Z’ rail or on bottom of ‘*’ (star) rail as the case
except ‘A’ or ‘Z’ rails (as the case may be) which may be. If this second series of check tests is
shall be rejected. satisfactory, all rails of the cast shall be accepted
except ‘*’ (star) or ‘Z’ rails (as the case may be)
which shall be rejected.

13. For rails from continuous cast route: For rails from continuous cast route
If macroscopic and macro-graphic
examination conducted according to 15.6.3 does not If macroscopic and macro-graphic examination
give satisfactory results two further samples taken conducted according to Clause 15.6.3 does not
from the same strand shall be tested. These samples give satisfactory results, 2 further samples taken
shall be taken one from each side of the original from any of the rails of the same cast shall be
sample at positions selected by the manufacturer. At tested. If two check tests are satisfactory, rails
least one of the two re-tests shall be taken from a rail from the cast shall be accepted. If one or both of

5
81st MEETING OF THE TRACK STANDARDS COMMITTEE – DECEMBER, 2010

rolled from the same bloom as the failed test and the these two check tests do not give satisfactory
rails from between the two retest positions shall be results, the cast shall be rejected.”
rejected. If both retests are satisfactory, all the
remaining rails manufactured from that strand of the
cast shall be accepted.
In the event of failure of one or both retests,
the reason for failure may be investigated by the
manufacturer.

14. 15.8.4 Check tests For rails from ingot route


If a falling weight test piece gives unsatisfactory
result, the following procedure shall be adopted. Two check tests shall be carried out, on test
pieces, taken from top of ‘*’ (star) rails of two
For rails from ingot route ingots from the same cast.
Two check tests shall be carried out, on test pieces
taken from top of ‘A’ rails of two other ingots from If the two check tests are satisfactory, the cast
the same cast. shall be accepted.
If all the check tests are satisfactory, the cast shall be
accepted. If a check test is unsatisfactory all ‘*’ (star) rails
If a check test is unsatisfactory, all ‘A’ rails shall be shall be rejected and a second series of four
rejected and a second series of four check tests shall check tests shall be done on samples drawn from
be done on samples drawn from bottom end of ‘A’ bottom end of ‘*’ (star) rails.
rails.
If all these check tests are satisfactory, the remainder If all these check tests are satisfactory, the
of the cast shall be accepted (rejecting all the ‘A’ reminder of the cast shall be accepted (rejecting
rails). all the ‘*’ (star) rails).
If a check test does not give satisfactory results, the
cast shall be rejected. If a check test does not give satisfactory results,
the cast shall be rejected.
15. For rails from continuous casting route For rails from continuous cast route
When a falling weight test carried out on a rail does
not give satisfactory results, two further tests shall be When a falling weight test carried out on a rail
made on rails from the same strand at either side of does not give satisfactory results, two further
the location of the unsatisfactory test, at points chosen tests shall be made on rails from the same cast.
with the agreement of the Producer and the Purchaser. If the two check tests are satisfactory all the rails
At least one of these check tests must be carried out from this cast shall be accepted. In case of
on rails from the same bloom and the rails between failure of one or more retests, the cast shall be
the two check test positions shall be rejected. If the rejected.”
two check tests are satisfactory, all the remaining
rails, from this strand, shall be accepted.
In case of failure of one or more retests, the cast of
part cast shall be liable to rejection. However, the
reasons for failure may be investigated by the
manufacturer and if established to the satisfaction of
the Purchaser further check tests shall be made.

16. 16.2 Inspection has been re-worded as follows (taking into


Before the rails are submitted to the Inspecting consideration difficulty expressed by Bhilai Steel
Officer for inspection, these shall be properly Plant in immediately segregating the defective
examined by the manufacturer’s inspectors and all rails detected as a result of internal inspection):-
defective rails removed and placed in a separate stack
for examination by the Inspecting Officer. The “Before the rails are submitted to the Inspecting
analysis of all casts rolled together with a report on Officer for inspection, these shall be properly
the manufacturer’s rejections shall be submitted examined by the manufacturers’ Inspectors and
inspection every accepted rail shall be clearly stamped all the defective rails shall be distinctly marked.
with the Inspecting Officer’s stamp at one end in the The Inspecting Officer shall only inspect those
presence of the Inspecting Officer. In agreement with rails which have been passed by manufacturer’s
Inspecting Oficer, all the rails shall be inspected Inspectors. The analysis of all casts rolled
jointly with the manufacturer’s inspectors. Cast together with a report on manufacturer’s
numbers shall be cold stamped on the faces of the rejections shall be submitted to the Inspecting
rails at one end. Officer at the time of inspection. After
inspection, every accepted rail shall be clearly

6
81st MEETING OF THE TRACK STANDARDS COMMITTEE – DECEMBER, 2010

stamped with the Inspecting Officer’s stamp at


one end in the presence of the Inspecting Officer.
Cast Nos. shall be cold stamped on the faces of
the rails at one end.”

17. ------------------- In addition, the following important decisions


were taken for action by Bhilai Steel Plant: -

18. -------------------- For the rails produced from Open Hearth Route,
Bhilai Steel Plant agreed that for generating data,
they will check hydrogen content of 5% of the
cast from Open Hearth Process for liquid steel.
All these rails will be slow cooled.

19. -------------------- For the rails made from Convertor Shop,


hydrogen content in liquid steel is being checked
for all casts. It was decided that the heats
showing hydrogen content in liquid steel more
than 3 ppm should be suitably slow cooled. Rail
heats showing hydrogen content in liquid steel
less than 3 ppm need not be slow cooled.

20. ------------------------ Bhilai Steel Plant confirmed that on-line


ultrasonic testing equipment shall be
commissioned by March 1991. It was also
agreed that Bhilai Steel Plant should procure -
some portable ultrasonic flaw detecting
machines which will be useful when the on-line
ultrasonic equipment goes out of order
21. ------------------------------ Regarding the limits of permissible defects of
ultrasonic testing on rails, Bhilai Steel Plant
agreed to generate data and to submit to
Railways for consideration; and

22. ---------------------------- Hardness test would not be mandatory for


acceptance of rails. However, hardness test for
10% of the cast shall continue to be conducted
by Directorate of Inspection to generate data
base.
23. --------------------------- Note – These relaxations are in supersession to
explanation annexed to IRS/T-12-88 for rails
manufactured by Bhilai Steel Plant.
24. 8.1.1 Overall height of rails : + 0.6mm Overall height of rails : + 1.0 mm
: - 0.5 mm

Width of head : + 0.5mm Width of head : +1.0 mm, -


This will be measured 0.5mm
14mm below the rails top. This will be measured
14mm below the rails top.
Width of flange: + 1.0 mm for section
less than 60 Kg/m Width of flange: + 1.0 mm for
section
+ 1.0 mm less than 60Kg/m
- 1.1 mm for sections
60Kg/m and above + 1.0mm
-1.5mm for
sections
60Kg/m and above

7
81st MEETING OF THE TRACK STANDARDS COMMITTEE – DECEMBER, 2010

Table 2
IRST-96 provisions and dispensations
1. 21.1 Hydrogen in Liquid Steel (PPM) Hydrogen in Liquid Steel (PPM)

Up to 2.5 Heat satisfactory Up to 3.0 Heat acceptable


without treatment
> 2.5 - 3.0 Heat satisfactory if all rails 3.0 to 4.5 All rails to be slow
are slow cooled. cooled.
> 3.0 Heat shall be rejected 4.5 to 5.5 All blooms and rails
to be slow cooled
> 5.5 Heat to be rejected.

The above dispensation is only permitted for


52kg rails and valid up to 31.07.98 the
position will be reviewed after exact date of
commissioning of degassing plant. First BSP
should ensure supply of all 52 kg rails
within 3ppm. After all 52 kg rails are being
received with hydrogen within 3ppm, order
for 60 kg will be placed.

2. 9.4.2 End Straightness Tolerances End straightness

Class ‘A’ Class ‘B’ Up to 0.7 over chord length of 90%


rails
rails rails 1.5m
Horizontal 0.5mm over 0.7mm over
chord chord
length 2.0m length 1.5m
Vertical 0.4mm over 0.5mm over Between 0.8 to 1.2 mm over 10%
chord chord rails
a) up sweep chord length of 1.5m
length 2.0m length 1.5m
b) down sweep Nil Nil
3. The manufacturer in his offer shall furnish the USFD Testing
detailed method of on-line ultrasonic testing of
rails to be followed by him. The limits of ON-line USFD facilities are to be
permissible defects for ultrasonic testing of rails commissioned latest by December 1998.
shall be as follows and the standard test piece shall Manual USFD testing of the rails which has
be as shown in appendix-V. been proposed for 60 kg rails may be started
Head :1.5 mm dia through hole for 52 kg rails, which are only rails to be
Web :2.0 mm dia through hole supplied at present.

Web & foot junction :2.0 mm dia


through hole
Foot :0.5mm deep, 12.5mm long
and 1.0mm wide notch
(inclined at 20o with vertical axis)

COMMITTEE’s OBSERVATIONS:

1. The existing procedure of USFD testing of ‘D’ marked is able to detect defects
in ‘D’ marked rails.
2. CTE/SR suggested renewal of ‘D’ marked rail should be renewed at vulnerable
locations.

8
81st MEETING OF THE TRACK STANDARDS COMMITTEE – DECEMBER, 2010

3. The track renewal can be done on condition basis as per existing criteria of
renewal.
4. CTE/NF Rly. stated that with double the frequency detection of defects is done
properly.

COMMITTEE’s RECOMMENDATIONS:

Digital double tester is to be used for testing of ‘D’ marked rails at reduced interval to
be decided by CTE of Zonal Railway and USFD should be carried out without any
shortfall.

RAILWAY BOARD’s ORDERS:

Approved. Item closed.

9
81st MEETING OF THE TRACK STANDARDS COMMITTEE – DECEMBER, 2010

ITEM NO.1171

SUBJECT: Gauge at toe of points & crossing


(Proposed by SER)

RDSO FILE REF: CT/PTX

AGENDA:

South Eastern Railway vide their email dt:14-09-10 has proposed the item as under:

As per provision of IRPWM, nominal gauge has to be maintained at toe of switch i.e.
1673mm. there is no tolerance given for track maintenance. Keeping exact 1673 mm
gauge all the time is not practicable. Therefore, a tolerance of + 3 mm may be allowed
under para 237(9) e of IRPWM 2004.

NOTES BY SECRETARY:

Para 237 of IRPWM for Inspection of points & crossings regarding gauge is as under:
237(1)(g)
The Track geometry at the turnout should not be inferior to that applicable to the
route. However, gauge just ahead of actual toe of switch shall be nominal
gauge/nominal gauge+6.

Further, Para-237 (8) is as under:


237(8) Gauge and super elevation in Turnouts -
a) It is a good practice to maintain uniform gauge over turnouts.

b) If gauge of track adjoining the points & crossings is maintained wider/tighter


than the gauge on the points & crossings, the gauge on the adjoining track must
be brought to the same gauge as in the points & crossings and run out at the rate
of 1mm in 3 M to the requisite extent.

In the above paras, no tolerances for gauge on points & crossings has been
prescribed.
IRPWM para-607 (2) regarding the track tolerances state that there is no
special specification for gauge variations. The maximum limits for tight and
slack gauge should be as indicated in para-224(2).

Recently, a correction slip has been proposed for approval of Railway Board for
para-224(2)(e) as under :
Para 224 (e) (v) :

A sub para 224 (e) (v) may be modified in IRPWM as given below :

10
81st MEETING OF THE TRACK STANDARDS COMMITTEE – DECEMBER, 2010

“ While it is desirable to maintain correct gauge, where due to age and condition
of the sleepers, it is not possible to maintain correct gauge, it is good practice to
work within the following tolerances of gauge, provided generally uniform
gauge can be maintained over long lengths :

Broad Gauge
a) On straight -6mm to +6mm
b) On curves with radius 440 m or more -6mm to +15mm
c) On curves with radius less than 440m Upto +20mm

Note : These tolerances are with respect to nominal gauge of 1676mm.

Moreover, the para-224(e)(1) of IRPWM states as under :

Preservation of gauge is an important part of track maintenance specially


through points & crossings. For good riding, the basic requirement is uniform
gauge over a continuous stretch of track and such gauge should be allowed to
continue so long as it is within the permissible limit of tightness or slackness.

From the above paras of IRPWM, it is very much evident that the tolerances for gauge
should be in unison with the approaching and following track i.e. before and after
points & crossings. In view of above, committee is requested to deliberate and make
suitable recommendation.

COMMITTEE’s OBSERVATIONS:
1. There is a need to have a clarity on the issue of gauge at P&C for the benefit of
field supervisors and officers.
2. The wider/tighter gauge at toe of switch and over crossing is not desirable. The
gauge at P&C is required to be maintained in light of above considerations.
3. The clause of uniform gauge over continuous stretch of track (IRPWM para 224
(e) (i)) can not be extended to P&C due to the limited length of P&C.
4. Correct gauge mentioned in para 237 (9) (e) of IRPWM is to be defined clearly.
5. This issue can not be decided without further study which should also be
supported with field data. Hence, there is a need to form a sub committee which
can go in detail and discuss the issue.
COMMITTEE’s RECOMMENDATIONS:

A committee of ED/Track-II, CTE/NR, CTE/SR & CTE/SER is to be constituted to


examine the item and give suitable recommendations for approval of Railway Board.

RAILWAY BOARD’s ORDERS:

Approved, Recommendation to be submitted by 30.08.11.

11
81st MEETING OF THE TRACK STANDARDS COMMITTEE – DECEMBER, 2010

ITEM NO.1172

SUBJECT: SEJs for curves up to 4 Degree


(Proposed by NR)

RDSO FILE REF: CT/JW3

AGENDA:

Northern Railway vide their email dt:14-09-10 has proposed the item as under:

LWR/CWRs are permitted to be laid on curves up to 4 degree. The improved design


SEJs can be laid only up to 2 degree. There are many curves of 4 degree where LWR
can be laid if improved design of SEJ is available up to 4 degree. This can help avoid
laying of Buffer rails.

NOTES BY SECRETARY:

The item of SEJs on curves up to 20 was discussed in 76th TSC. Further, in 78th TSC it
was recommended by the committee that Southern Railway and West Central Railway
have used SEJs manufactured by M/s Rahee, Kolkata & M/s BMW, Jamshedpur and
performance is satisfactory, therefore, improved SEJ on curve up to 20 can be adopted.
The recommendation of the committee was duly approved by Railway Board. Further,
in 79th TSC it was informed to the committee that Railway Board has been asked to
communicate modalities for transfer of IPR to RDSO and the same is under process.
Therefore, improved design of SEJ can be laid only up to 20.

Further, if there is requirement of SEJ’s for laying in curve up to 40 , the same can be
taken up by RDSO for development. In view of above, the committee is requested to
deliberate and make suitable recommendation.

COMMITTEE’s OBSERVATIONS:

1. The trials of improved SEJ of two firm’s design up to 20 have been conducted.
The performance of these designs has been found satisfactory in field.

2. There is a need to develop SEJs up to 40 as LWR can be continued up to 40.

3. The trial of earlier design of 20 can be extended up to 40.

4. There is a need to develop technology for continuing LWR through Points &
Crossings to avoid laying of SEJs on curves. RDSO informed that the same has

12
81st MEETING OF THE TRACK STANDARDS COMMITTEE – DECEMBER, 2010

been developed and Railway Board is procuring Weldable CMS crossing for
this purpose.

5. Ballast resistance will reduce on 40 curve by providing SEJ on curve.

COMMITTEE’s RECOMMENDATIONS:

1. RDSO should develop the SEJs for laying in curve up to 40 in consultation with
Railway Board.

2. SEJs shall be laid on curves of 20 to 40 curvature for trial at E. CoR, NFR and
SR.

RAILWAY BOARD’s ORDERS:

1. Approved.
2. Will be decided after finalization of design.

13
81st MEETING OF THE TRACK STANDARDS COMMITTEE – DECEMBER, 2010

ITEM NO.1173

SUBJECT: Provision of online printing facilities in PC-based OMS


equipment
(Proposed in CTE’s seminar 2008)

RDSO FILE REF: TM/GL/70 (81st)

AGENDA:

The item has been referred by CTE’s seminar 2008 as follows:

Item No. Description Issue Recommendation Board’s


Remarks
Item No.8 Provision of PC-based RDSO to validate Agreed
online printing (laptop)OMS the software
facilities in PC- machines do not
based OMS have facility to
equipment. take printout of
data

NOTES BY SECRETARY:

Draft specification for PC based OMS equipment by incorporating the provision of


online printing has been framed. After making the trials, final specification will be
issued.
COMMITTEE’s OBSERVATIONS:

1. RDSO to expedite the finalization of specification.

COMMITTEE’s RECOMMENDATIONS:

1. Specification for PC based OMS equipment by incorporating the provision of


online printing should be finalized within six months.

RAILWAY BOARD’s ORDERS:

Approved.

14
81st MEETING OF THE TRACK STANDARDS COMMITTEE – DECEMBER, 2010

ITEM NO.1174

SUBJECT: Revision of Specification and fixing life cycle for avoiding


frequent failure of glued joints.
(Proposed by CR in CTE’s seminar 2009)

RDSO FILE REF: CT/MT/GJ

AGENDA:

The item has been referred by CTE’s seminar 2009 as follows:

Item no. & Issue Recommendation Board’s


Description Remarks/
Comments
3.5 Revision CC+6+2 was introduced on Railway Board is RDSO
of Central Railway in Nov.2005 and requested to issue should study
Specification subsequently CC+8+2 has been necessary instructions the problem
and fixing life introduced. BSL-JL section on regarding life cycle of of Glued
Geetanjali route in one of the
cycle for highest GMT carrying section with glued joints. Joint
avoiding annual GMT of 43.98 on DN road failures and
frequent and 62.14 on UP track. Since suggest
failure of introduction of higher axle load on further
glued joints. this section, failures of glued joints action.
(Proposed by have increased considerably.
CR)
Out of 139 failures, 84 failures
(60.4%) have occurred due to
failures of insulation and
remaining 55 (39.6%) failures are
attributed to breakage of bolts &
fish plates. In terms of GMT, prior
to introductions of higher axle
load, average life of glued joints
had been about 200 GMT, but the
average life has reduced to 80-100
GMT, after introduction of higher
axle load.

NOTES BY SECRETARY:

For analysis of fixing life cycle of glued joint the Chief Track Engineers of Zonal
Railways were requested vide letter no. CT/MT/GJ dated 30.06.2010 to provide last
five years data on failure of glued joints in proforma forwarded by RDSO. However,
only Western Railway has provided the same. In absence of details, analysis could not
be carried out. Remaining Zonal Railways are requested to expedite submission of
glued joint failure data in said proforma.
15
81st MEETING OF THE TRACK STANDARDS COMMITTEE – DECEMBER, 2010

COMMITTEE’s OBSERVATIONS:

1. Design of Glued Joint fish plate to be revised so that normal on track tampers
can tamp the track on Glued Joints.
2. Fish plate design of insulated joints is to examined from above aspect and
improving strength of Glued Joint.
3. Zonal Rlys to ensure proper maintenance of Glued Joints.
4. GJ clip to be used for required toe load instead of ‘J’ clip.
5. Codal life of Glued Joints has not been prescribed. Looking into failure of
Glued Joints, life of Glued Joints can be tentatively fixed at 200 GMT.
6. S.Rly, W.C. Rly and C. Rly. are to provide failure data on Glued Joints urgently.
7. Effort to improve quality of Glued Joints to be continued including providing
inspection of Glued Joints fish plates.

COMMITTEE’s RECOMMENDATIONS:

1. RDSO to undertake revision of design of Glued Joint fish plate so that it can be
tamped with normal on track tampers and its strengths is improved.
2. Inspection of fish plates before manufacturing of Glued Joints can be introduced
for the present design of Glued Joint. All other items should also be inspected
before assembly of Glued Joint.
3. Zonal Rlys. to use GJ clips at Glued Joint and ensure proper packing and
maintenance.
4. Life cycle of Glued Joints can be tentatively fixed at 200 GMT. WCR, CR &
SR to supply Glued Joint failure data to RDSO at the earliest for the life cycle.
5. Efforts to improve quality of Glued Joint to continue by studying design of other
countries and R&D in this regard.

RAILWAY BOARD’s ORDERS:

1. Approved with proviso that design of fish plate should be such that its
functional requirements are not compromised.
2. Approved
3. Approved
4. Approved
5. Approved

16
81st MEETING OF THE TRACK STANDARDS COMMITTEE – DECEMBER, 2010

ITEM NO.1175

SUBJECT: Push trolley wheels suitable for digital axle counter


(Proposed in CTE’s seminar 2009)

RDSO FILE REF: TM/GL/70 (81st)

AGENDA:

The item has been referred by CTE’s seminar 2009 as follows:

Item no. & Issue Recommendation Board’s


Description Remarks/
Comments
5.16 Push Railway Board vide letter number RDSO should Agreed.
trolley wheels 207/SIGM/7 dated 18.06.2007 develop a fresh
suitable for jointly issued by EDCE (P) and ED drawing of
digital axle (Signal), directed that wheels of trolley wheels on
counter trolley with slotted wheels should the digital axle
be replaced by 4/6 spoke wheels as counter section
one time measure chargeable to based on the
signaling works by the agency report of CR.
executing the axle counter works.
The directives were issued
considering that digital axle counter
are being progressively installed on
Indian Railways.

S & T directorate of RDSO had


issued a drawing for fabrication of
these wheels which was modified
later as the trials were not
successful. The modified drawing
(copy enclosed) issued by RDSO
vide their letter
No.STS/E/AC/Wheel Interaction
dated 04.07.07 contemplates dia as
20” with 4 spokes instead of
normal wheel of 16”. Above letter
indicated two vendors for supply of
these wheels. WC railway has
given procurement order for supply
of 15 sets of wheels and axles to
17
81st MEETING OF THE TRACK STANDARDS COMMITTEE – DECEMBER, 2010

M/s International Motors, 8 khairu


place, Kolkata- 72. Proprietor of
the firm indicates that with the use
of high graded steel casting and dia
of 20” results in extra weight of
about 6 to 7 Kg/wheel. Thus
increased weight of trolley is as
much as 25 Kg. Trial also indicated
that additional trolley men will be
required to off load the trolley, with
wheels as per drawings of RDSO.

NOTES BY SECRETARY:

On the basis of detailed deliberations with Signal Dte. of RDSO and the details
collected from fields, a tentative drawing of push trolley wheel suitable for digital axle
counter zone, has been prepared. Some trials have also been done with different wheels
in different railways. Work for finalization of the parameters of trolley wheel are under
mutual deliberation with signal Dte. and will be finalized shortly.

COMMITTEE’s OBSERVATIONS:

1. RDSO should also explore the possibility of reducing the weight of trolley.
Weight of the wheel should be reduced by RDSO while developing new
drawing suitable for digital axle counter zone.

COMMITTEE’s RECOMMENDATIONS:

1. Drawing of push trolley wheel suitable for digital axle counter zone by reducing
the weight of the wheel should be developed by RDSO within two months.

RAILWAY BOARD’s ORDERS:

Based on the RDSO drawing, Zonal Railway should modify the Push trolley wheels and
send the feedback to RDSO.

18
81st MEETING OF THE TRACK STANDARDS COMMITTEE – DECEMBER, 2010

ITEM NO.1176

SUBJECT: (i) Experience of tamping based on TM 115

(ii) Experience on Tamping based on TM – 115

(iii) TM-115 report has not been implemented on Northern Railway

(Proposed in CTE’s seminar 2009 & 2010)

RDSO FILE REF: TM/GL/70 (81st)

AGENDA:

The item has been referred by CTE’s seminar 2009 as follows:

Item no. & Issue Recommendation Board’s


Description Remarks/
Comments
5.22 Tamping cycle was stipulated as 2 The Committee The issue may
Experience of years or 100 GMT whichever is on TGI should be examined
tamping based earlier as per IRTMM 2000 for also take these by the
on TM 115 PSC sleeper. Tamping cycle for considerations Committee
other than PSC sleeper was once in
a year. In this tamping cycle there while reviewing already
was no consideration of whether the TGI formula appointed
the running is really downgraded to and should also earlier on the
a level requiring through attention. review the limit subject matter
RDSO vide TM 115(Oct ’07) of TGI value based on the
replaced this criteria. Now packing which can be recommendatio
is requiring to be done only if 60% achievable after n of TSC.
of the track length has got TGI tamping as well
value less than 90 or 80 (depending as the values to
on sectional speed). The scope of
tamping is likely to change on be fixed for
account of this criteria. State of deciding the
implementation of this criteria tamping
along with its effect on the tamping requirement.
requirement and track condition The report should
may be discussed. be expedited.

19
81st MEETING OF THE TRACK STANDARDS COMMITTEE – DECEMBER, 2010

The item has been referred by CTE’s seminar 2010 as follows:

Item Issue Recommend


no. & ation
Descr
iption
5.1.3 Experience on Tamping based on TM – 115 ER

i) In Eastern Railway it is found that after tamping the 60% CFD of TGI
value more than 115 is not generally achieved on non screened track and
due to seasonal effect.
ii) On ‘A’ route TRC frequency is 03 months and on ‘B’ route the TRC
frequency is 04 months. Hence, yearly planning of through tamping is
difficult.
iii) Due to high water table on major portion of track of Eastern Railway, the
deterioration of track parameters at these locations is very fast. Hence, at
these locations tamping should not be linked with TGI parameter.

Suggestion:

i) The threshold TGI value of 60% CFD after tamping i.e. 115 is on higher
side, which is to be reduced.
ii) The yearly planning of tamping should be on earlier policy of 02 years or
100 GMT whichever is earlier.

5.1.4 TM-115 report has not been implemented on Northern Railway. NR


The tamping plans are prepared on the basis of GMT. TGI values are used for
need based tamping. The sections having TGI values less than 35 are tamped
on Out of Turn basis.

NOTES BY SECRETARY:

The item relating to tamping standards i.e. TGI, standard deviation of unevenness, twist,
gauge and alignment achieved after tamping was discussed in the 76th meeting of the
track standards committee. Railway Board had passed the following orders on Item No.
1073 (Machine Maintenance of Track), which was discussed in the 76th meeting of the
track standard committee, “Railways should prepare database regarding TGI, standard
deviation of unevenness, twist, gauge and alignment achieved after tamping, for
monitoring of quality of work done by track machine and send the same to RDSO for
further analysis”.

20
81st MEETING OF THE TRACK STANDARDS COMMITTEE – DECEMBER, 2010

Analysis of data made available by various Railways was carried out & following
recommendation were made in RDSO report TM-115 :

Speeds greater than or equal to 110 kmph

S.No. INDICES TGI value


1. 60% CFD before tamping < 90
2. 60% CFD after tamping > 115
(i.e. minimum 40% of track length after tamping should have
TGI)
3. 10% CFD after tamping > 75
(i.e. minimum 90% of track after tamping should have TGI)

Speeds less than 110 kmph

S.No. INDICES TGI value


1. 60% CFD before tamping < 80
2. 60% CFD after tamping > 115
(i.e. minimum 40% of track length after tamping should have
TGI)
3. 10% CFD after tamping > 75
(i.e. minimum 90% of track after tamping should have TGI)

While making out the recommendation, it is mentioned in the report that all pre
tamping works, post tamping works, long level correction etc. are to be carried out, as
without proper accomplishment of these works, the recommended level of TGI post
tamping cannot be achieved.

The various indices proposed in the report are based on the data made available by
Zonal Railways. The proposed value mentioned in the report were corrobated by the 5
years data from NCR & NWR.
Recommendation of RDSO report were approved by Railway Board vide letter no.
2007/Track III/TK/7 Pt dated 16-01-2008.

During the CTE Seminar- 2010 Eastern Railway has raised the point that they are
generally not able to achieve 60% CFD of TGI value more than 115 after tamping due
to non screened track , seasoned effect & high water table on major portion of track. No
other zonal railway has specifically come out about achieving the standard as approved
by Railway Board. Other Zonal Railways should also share there experiences with data
about the state of implementation of this criteria along with its effect on the tamping
requirement.

21
81st MEETING OF THE TRACK STANDARDS COMMITTEE – DECEMBER, 2010

COMMITTEE’s OBSERVATIONS:

The recommended level of TGI post tamping can not be achieved without carrying out
pre and post tamping works. Different standard can be developed by considering
special features of sections. Review of TGI formula can be done by reassigning
weightage to various indices as at present weightage of 6 has been given to alignment.
Standard can be developed by mentioning average TGI instead of CFD as it will be
easier for field staff to calculate average TGI. Present standard can be implemented on
block section basis.

COMMITTEE’s RECOMMENDATIONS:

1. Zonal Railways should implement the existing instructions seriously and


feedback to be given to RDSO. Based on the feedback of Zonal Railways,
RDSO should work on developing different standards in different slabs,
considering special feature of the sections.
2. Present standard/criteria of tamping can be adopted on block section basis and
feedback given to RDSO for study and further instructions if any.

RAILWAY BOARD’s ORDERS:

1. In view of the feedback available so for in various CTEs Seminars and TSCs,
RDSO should immediately review the guidelines and stipulate different target
TGI values for different slabs(say three slabs) of existing TGI value .RDSO
should submit the revised draft instructions within six month’s time .
2. In the meantime, Zonal railways should implement the existing instructions
seriously and give feed back to RDSO at the earliest. The present
standard/criteria of tamping can also be adopted on block section basis at the
discretion of the PCEs of Zonal Railways and feedback given to RDSO for
study and necessary review.

22
81st MEETING OF THE TRACK STANDARDS COMMITTEE – DECEMBER, 2010

ITEM NO.1177

SUBJECT: Anomalies in IRPWM & LWR Manual


(Proposed by NWR in CTE’s seminar 2010)

RDSO FILE REF: CT/IRPWM & CT/IM/LWR

AGENDA:

The item has been referred by CTE’s seminar 2010 as follows:

Anomalies in IRPWM & LWR Manual:


a) Supervision of Deep screening:
As per para 238 (2) (d) of IRPWM, work of deep screening should not be carried out
under the supervision of an official lower than PWI grade-III.
Whereas as per annexure VI, item 3 (d) of LWR manual authorized level of supervision
for work of deep screening is PWM.

(bLifting/lowering of track:
As per para 234 (5) of IRPWM, the work of lifting and lowering of track should be
carried out in the presence of Permanent way Inspector.

Whereas as per annexure –IV, item (1) (c) of LWR manual, the authorized level of
supervision for work of Lifting/ Lowering of track is PWM.

(cBallast profile for Single line BG track:


As per Annexure- 2/11 Para 263 of IRPWM, ballast profile for LWR track (Single line
B.G. is shown) In this the value of dimension E (half of base width of ballast profile in
case of curved track) (on outer side of curve only), is shown as 2,510 mm for PRC
sleepers.
Whereas as per Figure 4.2.1 (a) in LWR manual, this width is shown as 2675 mm for
PRC sleepers.

These anomalies in above three Para of Pway manual and LWR manual should be
corrected.

NOTES BY SECRETARY:

(a) As per IRPWM Para 238(2) (d) Screening Operations – General- (i) The work
would be done under the supervision of an official not lower in rank than the
Permanent Way Inspector Grade III.

23
81st MEETING OF THE TRACK STANDARDS COMMITTEE – DECEMBER, 2010

In LWR Manual (Annexure-VI Item 3 (d)) Deep Screening – PWM.

(b) As per IRPWM Para 234 (5) work of lifting or lowering of track should be
carried out in the presence of Permanent Way Inspector.

In LWR Manual (Annexure-IV item 1 (c)) Lifting/lowering of track- PWM.

(c) As per IRPWM Para 263 Annexure 2/11 shown 2510mm but in LWR Manual
fig. 4.2.1 (a) width is 2675mm. In IRPWM depth is fixed as 630 mm.
However, in LWR Manual distance calculated on the basis of depth 640mm.

There are discrepancies in above provisions of IRPWM & LWR Manual; it is


proposed that these provisions of LWR manual be amended in line with that of
IRPWM by issuing correction slip to LWR Manual.

COMMITTEE’s OBSERVATIONS:

1. PWM’s competency has improved, so he can be entrusted for supervision of


deep screening and lifting/lowering of track so, existing provisions of LWR
manual for supervision of deep screening and lifting/lowering of track by PWM
may be continued and IRPWM should be amended.

2. Ballast profile in LWR Manual is having flatter slope which is closer to field
observations, hence ballast profile of LWR manual should be continued and
IRPWM should be amended as per provisions of LWR Manual.

COMMITTEE’s RECOMMENDATIONS:

1. Provisions of LWR manual can be continued for supervision of deep screening


and lifting/lowering of track by PWM level. Provisions of IRPWM should be
amended.
2. Ballast profile of LWR Manual can be continued and provision of IRPWM
should be amended as per LWR Manual.

RAILWAY BOARD’s ORDERS:

1. Approved with modifications that competency of such PWM’s to be certified by


Chief Track Engineer.

2. Approved. RDSO should sand draft correction slip to IRPWM & LWR manual.

24
81st MEETING OF THE TRACK STANDARDS COMMITTEE – DECEMBER, 2010

ITEM NO.1178

SUBJECT: Threshold values for load testing of in service rails by FBW


(Proposed by SCR in CTE’s seminar 2010)

RDSO FILE REF: CT/JW/C

AGENDA:

The item has been referred by CTE’s seminar 2010 as follows:

Present System:

The values of breaking load and deflections in transverse load test vide para 10.2.2.1 of
Manual of Flash Butt welding of Rails are given only for new rails. As per said para,
“the specified load is 100T with minimum deflection of 15mm; the sample should
withstand the above load without rupture”. But, Manual does not spell the threshold
values of these tests for TWR done with mobile flash butt welding plant and in service
rails.

Problems encountered:

TWR work using mobile flash butt welding plant at site and on line is in progress on
South Central Railway. During testing of sample welds, though deflection values are
satisfactory, one sample recorded breaking load of 98 T and other sample recorded 100
T. The in-service rails are subjected to wear and tear and have already undergone
certain fatigue under traffic, and hence may not sustain the test load prescribed for new
rails.

Suggestions:

RDSO may propose revised values of minimum breaking load and deflection in
transverse load test under para 10.2.2.1 of Manual for Flash Butt Welding of Rails
applicable for in-service rails considering the conditions.

Committee may deliberate the above subject and recommend RDSO to issue guidelines.

NOTES BY SECRETARY:

South Central Railway vide letter no. W 496/ATWJ/FBWJ/Vol. I dated 10.06.2010


referred the issue of lower breaking load found in one sample out of three samples
tested for transverse test (slow bend test) for second hand rails for through weld
renewal. The values of transverse breaking load achieved in three samples tested were
118t, 110t and 98t against the minimum specified breaking load of 100t prescribed in
Para 10.2.2.1 of Manual for Flash Butt Welding of Rails in respect of 52 Kg rails. In

25
81st MEETING OF THE TRACK STANDARDS COMMITTEE – DECEMBER, 2010

this connection it is mentioned that the provision of Para 10.2.2.1 of Manual for Flash
Butt Welding of Rails does not distinguish between new rails and second hand rails
hence it is applicable for second hand rails also. Since transverse breaking load values
of two samples out of three samples tested are well above the minimum specified value
and the value of third sample is marginally lower than the minimum specified value and
there is no further problem of lower value of transverse breaking load reported so far,
therefore, it does not appear to be a fit case for considering lowering of minimum value
of transverse breaking load specially when higher axle loads are operating on Railway
system.

Committee may deliberate on the issue.

COMMITTEE’s OBSERVATIONS:

1. The values of transverse breaking load obtained in test conducted in SCR in two
cases are above requisite value of 100 T and in only one case is slightly less than
100 T. On this ground provision of Flash Butt Welding Manual cannot be
changed. The existing provisions of Flash Butt Welding Manual should be
continued.

2. If rails are worn to such extent that they give lower transverse breaking load
then such rail should not be used.

COMMITTEE’s RECOMMENDATIONS:

1. The existing provisions of Flash Butt Welding Manual for transverse load test
should be continued. Item may be closed.
RAILWAY BOARD’s ORDERS:

Approved. Item is closed.

26
81st MEETING OF THE TRACK STANDARDS COMMITTEE – DECEMBER, 2010

ITEM NO.1179

SUBJECT: Standard of track maintenance to C&M-(Vol.1)


(Proposed by CR in CTE’s seminar 2009)

RDSO FILE REF: CT/DG/Research

AGENDA:

The item has been referred by CTE’s seminar 2010 as follows:

1. As per speed certificates issued by RDSO for various types of locos/wagons,


minimum track standards are specified for track maintained to C&M-1 (Vol.1)
standard.

2. In this connection, it is observed that recommendation of C&M-1 (Vol.1)


regarding standard of track maintenance published in May’1969 has been
incorporated in IRPWM-2004 with certain modification vide para 224(E) &
607(2) of IRPWM. Provision of para 607(2) of IRPWM lays down maintenance
standard of track for speed above 100 kmph & up to 140 kmph on BG track. The
variations in track maintenance standard recommended in C&M-1 (Vol.1) report
and that incorporated in para 607(2) of IRPWM is indicated below:
(i) Track standard recommendations in RDSO report is for 120 kmph where as the
track maintenance standard in IRPWM is for speed above 100 kmph and upto 140
kmph.

(ii) C&M-1 (Vol.1) stipulates unevenness, 6 mm in general and 10 mm at isolated


locations. Further, relaxation upto 10 mm in general and 15 mm at isolated
locations has been stipulated in the report to permit higher speed at the material
time. IRPWM, however, has adopted relaxed standard of 10 mm in general and 15
mm at isolated locations for speed above 100 kmph and upto 140 kmph.

(iii) The RDSO report does not specify no. of isolated locations whereas IRPWM
defines isolated locations not exceeding 10 no. per km.

(iv) RDSO report stipulates versine measurement for alignment defect either on floating
track or on loaded track. IRPWM, however, stipulates versine measurement under
floating condition only.

3. Since relaxed maintenance standard of RDSO report has been incorporated in


IRPWM even for higher speed, it may be concluded that track maintained to
Maintenance Standard as stipulated in para 224(E) & 607(2) of IRPWM, are

27
81st MEETING OF THE TRACK STANDARDS COMMITTEE – DECEMBER, 2010

maintained as per C&M-1 (Vol.1) standard. Track maintained to a standard


below IRPWM provisions may be considered as maintained to other than C&M-
1 (Vol.1).

4. TRC recording is the basis to adjudge whether track is maintained as per


maintenance standard. The chord/base adopted for track recording is, however,
different in TRC & IRPWM and by extension to track maintained as per C&M-1
(Vol.1). The same is indicated below:

S.No. Track parameter As per As adopted for track


IRPWM recording
(in M) (in M)
1. Unevenness 3.5 3.6
2. Alignment 7.5 7.2
3. Twist 3.5 3.6

5. Track categories for various track parameters of track recording car as per para
607(1) are also not in conformity with maintenance standard as per C&M-1
(Vol.1) or IRPWM. Limit of track categories as indicated below needs to be
incorporated in para 607(1) to segregate kilometers where track maintenance is
not as per C&M-1 (Vol.1) / IRPWM:-

A B C D
1. Unevenness No change
2. Alignment No change 5 to 10mm >10m
m
3. Twist 0 to 1.2 1.2 to 2.4 to >3.5m
mm/M 2.4mm/M 3.5mm/M m/M

6. Following is, therefore, suggested:

i. Speed certificates issued by RDSO should stipulate track


maintenance standard as per IRPWM rather than C&M-1
(Vol.1).

ii. Category of track parameters for TRC should be modified to


track maintenance standard stipulated in 607(2) of IRPWM so
28
81st MEETING OF THE TRACK STANDARDS COMMITTEE – DECEMBER, 2010

that track not maintained as per IRPWM can be segregated.

iii. Base/chord for measurement of track parameters for IRPWM &


TRC are made compatible as suggested in para 5 above.

The above issues need to be reviewed & accordingly correction slip in IRPWM be
issued. The matter has been referred to RDSO Vide ECR letter No. W-
7/632/0/Policy/Pt.I, dt-06.01.10 addressed to ED/Track/RDSO with copy to
EDCE(P)/Rly Bd,

NOTES BY SECRETARY:

Railway Board has nominated a SAG committee to address the issue.

COMMITTEE’s OBSERVATIONS:

1. Track Geometry Standards of C&M-1 Vol.-I is already a part of Para 607 (2) of
IRPWM manual with relaxed provision of Unevenness as 10mm to 15mm.

2. Track Geometry Standards of C&M-1 Vol.-I was for speed of 120 kmph.

3. Track Geometry Standards in IRPWM as per Para 607 (2) needs a relook as the
same are not achievable in the field up to 110 kmph as per TGI criteria for track
tamping.

COMMITTEE’s RECOMMENDATIONS:

1. TSC is of the opinion that provision of IRPWM 607 (2) should apply for speed
of more than 110 and up to 140 kmph. SAG committee should examine the
same.
2. Policy circular no.6 of Railway Board for speed potential of Rolling Stock also
needs modification as per provision of IRPWM for speed up to 140 kmph. SAG
committee nominated by Railway Board should also examine the same.

RAILWAY BOARD’s ORDERS:

1& 2 Approved. Report to be submitted within 30 days.

29
81st MEETING OF THE TRACK STANDARDS COMMITTEE – DECEMBER, 2010

ITEM NO.1180

SUBJECT: Reflective type indicator boards


(Proposed by SER)

RDSO FILE REF: CT/MS/SD/WW

AGENDA:

South Eastern Railway vide their email dt:22-09-10 has proposed the item as under:

1. Railway Board vide letter No: 94/CE-II/TK/4 dated 17-8-2000 (Copy


enclosed) directed that the procurement of reflective type indicator boards
should be limited to the Engineering restriction boards which are required to
be lit during night. The scope mentioned in the letter does not cover normal
boards like W/L, road sign indicator boards of the level crossings and indicator
boards required for permanent speed restrictions.

2. Para 808 of IRPWM specifies that temporary indicator boards which are not
reflective type should be lit up during the night.

3. With the above instructions, procurement of reflective type indicator boards


for level crossings, PSRs etc could not be done by the Railway. With the
changed scenario of development, increase in rail/road traffic and availability
of the reflective type boards, it is proposed that Railway Board may consider
to withdraw the decision of limiting the scope of procurement of Engineering
reflective sign boards.

4. It is noted that the reflective sign boards are to be procured as per specification
of “encapsulated lens type” issued by the Railway Board.

30
81st MEETING OF THE TRACK STANDARDS COMMITTEE – DECEMBER, 2010

NOTES BY SECRETARY:

With the changed Scenario of development, provision of retro-reflective indication boards in addition to
temporary speed restriction boards will certainly help the drivers in safe operation of trains and road
vehicle drivers in negotiating level crossings.

Committee may deliberate on the issue.


31
81st MEETING OF THE TRACK STANDARDS COMMITTEE – DECEMBER, 2010

COMMITTEE’s OBSERVATIONS:

1. All Engineering sign boards should be retro reflective boards as per


specification approved by Railway Board ‘Encapsulated type’.

COMMITTEE’s RECOMMENDATIONS:

1. All Engineering sign boards should be retro-reflective board. The instructions


issued vide Railway Board’s letter No. 94/CE-II/Tk/4 dated 17-8-2000 should
be withdrawn.

RAILWAY BOARD’s ORDERS:

Approved . RDSO should sand a draft letter indicating specification and type of boards
to be provided as retro-reflective board.

32
81st MEETING OF THE TRACK STANDARDS COMMITTEE – DECEMBER, 2010

ITEM NO.1181

SUBJECT: Extra clearance on curves

RDSO FILE REF: CT/SD/Rev/BG/MG

AGENDA:

IRICEN vide their letter dt:01-10-10 has proposed the item as under:

As per Schedule of Dimension, Schedule-1, Chapter I, Item 1.0, minimum distance


from centre to centre of tracks for new work is stipulated as 5300 mm with the
stipulation that this minimum distance from centre to centre takes care of extra
clearance for curve upto 5o. For 5o curve extra clearance on inside of curve required is
695 mm and on outside of curve it is 60 mm hence a total additional clearance required
for 5o curve comes out to 755 mm.

It is understood that the track centre distance from centre to centre of track was
increased to 5.3 metres on the requirement of Electrical Department for implantation
distance of OHE mast. In order to allow fixing of one OHE mast (width 30 cm) in
between the track, the track centre was raised to 5.3 metres (2.5 + 0.3 + 2.5). In such
circumstances, if an OHE mast is provided at the centre of curved track of 5o,
implantation of 2.5 metres will not be available.

In old Schedule of Dimension (Year 1939) in the Chapter I, the minimum distance from
centre to centre of track was stipulated as 4265 mm. In this case, the extra clearance of
curve required was to be added separately. In such circumstances on curves of 5o,
distance between centre to centre of track works out to 5020 mm (4265 + 755). But
with present stipulations where a total of 755 mm extra clearance for 5o curve have been
accounted for in the track centre of 5300 mm. Hence even by providing track centre of
5300 mm, one OHE mast cannot be provided in between the track.

Earlier in old SOD for station yard where some structure like water column, signal post,
pier of over bridge was likely to come, recommended track centre was 4725mm with
extra clearance for curve to be separately provided. But to maintain extra clearance for
curve of 5o in station yard, track centre requirement will be 4725 + 755 = 5480 mm.
whereas we are providing only 5300 mm. So the existing provisions are actually
reducing the space available.

So the provision of schedule of dimension regarding minimum track centre needs


revision.

33
81st MEETING OF THE TRACK STANDARDS COMMITTEE – DECEMBER, 2010

NOTES BY SECRETARY:

In IRSOD (BG) revised 2004 distance from center of track to fixed structure is
mentioned only 2.36 m for new work and 2.135m for existing work. Considering the
dimension of 2.36m the distance worked out to 5.02m (2.36+2.36+.30) for new work.
Track centre distance from centre to centre of track was kept to 5.3 metres up to
curved track of 50 considering economy point of view as large space will increase cost
of land. However, 5.3m track centre distance from centre to centre of track is specified
is minimum. For erection of OHE mast in between track, Railways have to obtain
Railway Board approval for provision of OHE mast in between track as basis of
adoption of 5.3m dimension is not available. In view of this TSC may deliberate the
Item.

COMMITTEE’s OBSERVATIONS:

1. OHE mast foundation comes in the range of working of BCM.

2. Implantation of OHE for new works is 2.8m.

3. Centre to centre spacing is 5.3 m should be for straight track.

4. OHE mast and signal should not be provided to infringe the provisions of 5.3 m
track centers.

COMMITTEE’s RECOMMENDATIONS:

1. Condition of 50 curve for track centre to centre distance of 5300 mm is to be


removed from SOD 2004.
2. Provision of 5.3 m track centre should be adopted for straight track and extra
clearance on curve should be provided as per requirement in addition to this
distance.
3. OHE mast and Signal post should not be provided between tracks to infringe
this provision of 5.3 m as the same will create problem in maintenance of track
by Ballast Cleaning machine.
RAILWAY BOARD’s ORDERS:

1. Approved.

2. Approved.
3. Approved

34
81st MEETING OF THE TRACK STANDARDS COMMITTEE – DECEMBER, 2010

ITEM NO.1182

SUBJECT: Clips with higher toe load being used on Indian Railways
(Proposed by Track Design Directorate of RDSO)

RDSO FILE REF: CT/FD/2/ERC MK-V, CT/EF/Trial & CT/Insp/ERC-G clip/Logwell

AGENDA:

1. To decide the requirement of toe load of fastening assembly on Indian Railways for
BG track.
2. To decide upon the adoption of ERC Mk-V & G- clip on Indian Railways as regular
Fastening for BG track.

NOTES BY SECRETARY:

Toe Load Requirement of Elastic Rail Clips for Broad Gauge Track in
Indian Railways:
1.1 A perfect holding of rail to the sleepers at all times with or without the traffic is
reducing the breathing lengths of LWR track & in containing the gap at fracture.
Under loaded condition of track, the fastening should be able to absorb
vibrations and hold the rail on to the sleeper under all modes of vibration
without falling off, thus ensuring safety. Accordingly, the clip shall offer
adequate creep resistance, as the rail tends to move longitudinally due to thermal
expansion/ contraction and longitudinal forces due to acceleration & breaking.
1.2 For an ideal fastening system, the creep resistance offered by the clip shall be
nearly equal to the longitudinal ballast resistance of track. The approximate toe
load requirement on Indian Railway track with 60kg UIC rail and sleeper
density of 1660 nos./km works out to be 1045 kg per clips for temperature zone
IV.
1.3 Presently Indian Railway is using ERC MK-III on PSC sleeper. Designed toe
load of ERC MK-III is 850-1100 kg at a deflection of 13.5 mm. It is observed
with present ERC MK-III, average toe load comes about 700 kg in the field due
to tolerances on different fastening components & PSC sleeper. It further
decreases during service due to wear of liner, pad, rail foot thickness and cyclic
loading on ERC & fastening system. The lower toe load results in longer
breathing length to withstand thermal forces, increase in maintenance effort in
terms of SEJ gap adjustment, distressing etc.
1.4 Thus there is a need clip with higher toe load, so that in service toe load of about
1050 kg is available.

35
81st MEETING OF THE TRACK STANDARDS COMMITTEE – DECEMBER, 2010

2.0 Efforts made to develop clips of improved toe load:


2.1 ERC MK-V:

2.1.1 With above view, RDSO has designed ERC Mk-V using rod dia as 23mm and
having toe load 1200-1500Kg at the toe deflection of 13.5mm. Stress level of
ERC Mk-V is lower than ERC Mk-III at same toe deflection of 13.5 mm. This
clip can be used on existing sleeper and assembly components which is a major
advantage. Details of ERC Mk-V are as under:-

i) Rod dia of clip - 23.00 mm & 20.64 mm for central leg


portion
ii) Toe load - 1200 – 1500 kg
iii) Toe deflection - 13.5 mm
iv) Flat size - 35 x 12 mm2
v) Approx. weight - 1.14 kg (rod)
1.08 kg (clip)
2.1.2 For trial 25,000 nos. of ERC Mk-V was procured though Railway Board's
contract and laid under section of SSE/P.Way/ Kurushetra of Delhi division of
NR, Hoshangabad of Bhopal division of WCR & Kottavalsa of Waltair division
of ECoR under initial trial. The trial was monitored for one year and report of
the same (report no. CT-18) was submitted to Railway Board in June’ 2008.

2.1.3 The performance of ERC Mk-V was also discussed in 77th TSC vide item no
1094 S.no.31. After discussion, it was recommended by TSC that extended trial
should be conducted by WCR, WR & ECoR in a stretch of 50 km, and the same
was approved by Railway Board.

2.2 ‘G’ CLIP OF FIRM’S DESIGN:

2.2.1 As per instruction of Railway Board, initial trial of G clip developed by M/s
Logwell Forge Ltd, Gurgaon was also taken up alongwith ERC Mk-V. The
design of G clip was such that it could be used on existing PSC sleepers in place
of ERC Mk – III with existing/assembly components. As informed by firm 'G'
clip has toe load of 1000-1300Kg. Rod dia used for manufacture of the clip is
20.64 mm. Weight of the clip as claimed by the firm is 825 gm. Details of ‘G’
clip as informed by the firm are as under:-

i) Rod dia of clip - 20.64 mm


ii) Toe load - 1000 – 1300 kg
iii) Toe deflection - Not mentioned
iv) Flat size - 36 x 15 mm2
v) Approx. weight - 0.825 kg

2.2.2 For trial 25,000 nos. of G clip was procured and laid under section of
SSE/P.Way, of Kurushetra of Delhi division of NR, Hoshangabad of Bhopal

36
81st MEETING OF THE TRACK STANDARDS COMMITTEE – DECEMBER, 2010

division of WCR & Kottavalsa of Waltair division of E CoR under initial. The
trial was monitored for one year and report of the same (report no. CT-18) was
submitted to Railway Board in June’ 2008.
3.0 Trial of clip:
3.1 As per instruction of Railway Board limited/ initial trial of both types of clips was
conducted along with normal ERC Mk-III clip on three zonal railways ie. NR,
WCR & ECoR in a stretch of one km for each clip on each railway at following
location and details.

Rly Div. SSE.P.Way Clip Between Km UP/DN Trial


started on
NR Delhi KKDE ERC Mk-V 158/10-159/10DN Aug.,06
ERC Mk-III 15710-158/10DN Aug.,06
'G' clip 155/0-155/32DN April, 07
WCR Bhopal Hoshangabad ERC Mk-V 773B/0-773C/6DN June, 06
ERC Mk-III 773D/10-773E/12DN June, 06
'G' clip 773C/6-773D/10DN June, 06
ECo.R Waltair Kottavalsa ERC Mk-V 838/0-839/0UP June, 06
ERC Mk-III 837/0-838/0UP June, 06
'G' clip 839/0-840/0UP June, 06

3.2 The trial was monitored for one year and report of the same (report no. CT-18)
was submitted to Railway Board in June’ 2008.

4.0 Extended Trial

4.1 The extended trial for ERC Mk-V was ordered to WCR, WR & ECoR and for G
Clip, it was ordered in SR, SER, SECR & SWR.

4.2 ERC Mk-V has been laid under extended trial in WCR only. None of the
Railway have given information about trial of G clip, so far.

4.3 As the work of extended trial for both types of clip is very slow, it is decided by
Railway Board to draw conclusion on the basis of performance of the clip laid
under initial trial as on date.

4.4 The trial sites of Hoshangabad & Kurukshetra under initial trial and Gangapur
city under extended trial have been visited by RDSO official. Toe load of both
types of clip of some sleeper have been measured.

4.5 Toe load of all the four clips of one sleeper of ERC Mk-V & G clip, which was
also measured at site of Hoshangabad & Kurukshetra was taken out for toe load
measurement in RDSO lab.

37
81st MEETING OF THE TRACK STANDARDS COMMITTEE – DECEMBER, 2010

4.6 As per comments of ECoR, after 5 years of service since its laying, performance
of both types of clips are satisfactory with average toe load of ERC Mk-V and
G-clip as 900-1150 Kg & 1000-1250 Kg respectively.

5.0 Summary of Toe Load evaluation:

5.1 ERC Mk-V:

5.1.1 Average toe load of ERC Mk-V clip measured at Hoshangabad & Kurukshetra
site in field condition has been worked out as 910.7 kg and 1167.6 kg
respectively on existing GRSP and liner. This indicates that ERC Mk-V clip has
some more residual life.
5.1.2 As per ECoR report, the average toe load is between 900-1150 Kg.
5.1.3 Increase in average toe load of ERC Mk-V from field to lab condition for
Hoshangabad & Kurukshetra site has been worked out as 24.1% (average toe
load in field & lab condition are 910.7 kg & 1130 kg respectively) & - 6.11%
(average toe load in field & lab condition are 1167.5 kg & 1096.25 kg
respectively) respectively. This indicates that condition of GRSP & liner at
Hoshangabad site is poor. Minus loss of toe load at Kurukshetra site may be due
to human intervention, least count of toe load machine, number of reading taken
in averaging etc.
5.1.4 The difference of toe load measured in field and laboratory is unexpectedly
more i.e. 24.1% for Hoshangabad site. Therefore, the measurement of toe load
taken at Hoshangabad site should not be taken into consideration.
5.1.5 It may be seen that after service of five years, the average toe load of ERC Mk-
V measured in laboratory for Hoshangabad and Kurukshetra are 1130 kg and
1096.25 kg respectively.
5.1.6 As per report CT-18, average toe load of ERC Mk-V for Kurukshetra site at the
end of trial was worked out as 1016.1kg. This time average toe load has been
worked out for the clips of five sleepers which were measured during visit of
RDSO official as 1167.6 kg. Above average toe load values are just indicative.
Based on the above, it can be said that loss of toe load for the period in between
is not substantial/ negligible.
5.2 G-clip:
5.2.1 Average toe load of G clip measured at Hoshangabad & Kurukshetra site in field
condition has been worked out as 763.6 kg and 1123.5 kg respectively. This
indicates that G clip has some more residual life.
5.2.2 As per ECoR report, the average toe load is between 1000-1250 Kg.
5.2.3 Increase in average toe load of G clip from field to lab condition for
Hoshangabad & Kurukshetra site has been worked out as 28.4% (average toe
load in field & lab condition are 763.3 kg & 980 kg respectively) & - 1.76%
(average toe load in field & lab condition are 1123.5 kg & 1103.75 kg
respectively) respectively. This indicates that condition of GRSP & liner at
38
81st MEETING OF THE TRACK STANDARDS COMMITTEE – DECEMBER, 2010

Hoshangabad site is poor. Minus loss of toe load at Kurukshetra site may be due
to human intervention, least count of toe load machine, number of reading taken
in averaging etc.
5.2.4 The difference of toe load measured in field at Hoshangabad site and laboratory
is unexpectedly more i.e. 28.4%. Therefore, the measurement of toe load taken
at site should not be taken into consideration.
5.2.5 It may be seen that after service of five years, the average toe load of G-clip
measured in laboratory for Hoshangabad and Kurukshetra are 980 Kg and
1103.75 Kg respectively.
5.2.6 As per report CT-18, average toe load of G clip for Kurukshetra site at the end
of trial was worked out as 1168.8kg. This time average toe load has been
worked out for the clips of five sleepers which were measured during visit of
RDSO official as 1103.75kg. Above average toe load values are just indicative.
Based on the above, it can be said that loss of toe load for the period in between
is not substantial/ negligible.
6.0 Remarks by Zonal Railway:
6.1 ECoR:
6.1.1 ERC Mk-V:
6.1.1.1 The present toe load after service of about 5 years is in the range of 900 to1150
kg.
6.1.1.2 No falling or breakage of ERC Mk-V has been noticed. Also no special
problem during driving/ extracting/ oiling & greasing of clip has been noticed.
No falling of rubber pads and metal liners is noticed.
6.1.1.3 Corrosion on the clip is negligible. Corrosion in liner contact area is same as that
of ERC Mk-III.
6.1.1.4 No sleepers are damaged during removal of clip.
6.1.1.5 TGI during last run in the section is in the range of 120 to 130.

6.1.2 G clip:

6.1.2.1 The present toe load after service of about 5 years is in the range of 1000-1250
kg.
6.1.2.2 Insertion & removal of clip is easy.
6.1.2.3 Less corrosion, less liner biting as less obstruction to toilet dropping.
6.1.2.4 Very good performance in place of J- clip & in crossing and glued joint area.
6.1.2.5 Performance of G clip is better than ERC Mk-V with regard to toe load,
maintainability, driving weight etc.

39
81st MEETING OF THE TRACK STANDARDS COMMITTEE – DECEMBER, 2010

7.0 Conclusion:
7.1 Basic requirement of toe load as 1045 Kg in the field has already been described
in para 1.2.
7.2 In the initial trial report submitted to Railway Board, it was mentioned that the
condition of track at Hoshangabad has not been good due to which the % of toe
load loss has been more.
7.3 WCR (Hoshangabad site):
Due to poor condition at site as explained in para 3.0 above, the toe load
measured at site should not been considered for appraisal. The lab results for
average toe load of the same samples are 1130 kg for ERC Mk-V and 980 kg for
G-clip.
7.4 NR (Kurukshetra site):
Average toe load of ERC Mk-V clip measured at site in field condition and in
lab have been worked out as 1167.6 kg and 1096.25 kg on existing GRSP and
liner. This indicates that ERC Mk-V clip has some more residual life.
Average toe load of G clip measured at site in field condition and in lab have
been worked out as 1123.5 kg and 1103.75 kg. This indicates that G clip has
some more residual life.
7.5 ECoR site:
7.5.1 As per ECoR report, the average toe load of ERC Mk-V measured at site is
between 900-1150 kg.
7.5.2 As per ECoR report, the average toe load of G-clip measured at site is between
1000-1250 kg.
7.6 No case of falling of clips, creep & abnormal variation in track gauge have been
reported, hence functioning of both the clips are satisfactory at different traffic
conditions. Both the above clips are serving purpose of toe load required for
track even after about 5 years of service.

40
81st MEETING OF THE TRACK STANDARDS COMMITTEE – DECEMBER, 2010

Annexure-I
A. Toe load of ERC Mk-V & G laid under initial trial

i) Hoshangabad site:
a. ERC Mk-V
Sleeper Toe load (kg)
Left out Left in Right out Right in
1 436* (ERC Mk-III) 874 786 908
2 897 956 1012 743
3 846 1045 912 1034
4 1060 698 1026 864

*The clip laid in the stretch of ERC Mk-V was ERC-III.

b. G clip
Sleeper Toe load (kg)
Left out Left in Right out Right in
1 602 702 910 882
2 642 531 635 1034
3 1009 481 993 665
4 1080 763 823 465

ii) Kurukshetra site:


a. ERC Mk-V
Sleeper Toe load (kg)
Left out Left in Right out Right in
1 943 1343 941 1131
2 1240 1387 1106 1224
3 1310 1269 1006 1179
4 1208 1209 1121 1017
5 1283 1046 1143 1246

b. G clip
Sleeper Toe load (kg)
Left out Left in Right out Right in
1 1012 1135 1083 1135
2 1113 1150 1020 1145
3 1140 1193 1218 1231
4 1203 1127 1103 1147
5 1084 1051 1340 1140

B. Toe load of ERC Mk-V & G laid under extended trial


i) Gangapur City site
a. ERC Mk-V
Sleeper Toe load (kg)
Left out Left in Right out Right in
1 1250 1275 1295 1342
2 1242 1280 1310 1295
3 1372 1310 1280 1245
4 1253 1300 1320 1260
41
81st MEETING OF THE TRACK STANDARDS COMMITTEE – DECEMBER, 2010

Annexure-II

Toe load values of clips in field & lab condition

i) Hoshangabad site
a. ERC Mk-V

Toe lload measured in Toe load (kg)


Left out Left in Right out Right in
Site condition 436* 874 786 908
Lab condition 565* 1050 1090 1250

*The clip laid in the stretch of ERC Mk-V was ERC-III.

b. G clip

Toe load measured in Toe load (kg)


Left out Left in Right out Right in
Site condition 602 702 910 882
Lab condition 1010 950 1050 910

ii) Kurukshetra site


a. ERC Mk-V

Toe load measured in Toe load (kg)


Left out Left in Right out Right in
Site condition 943 1343 941 1131
Lab condition 950 1205 1215 1015

b. G clip

Toe load measured in Toe load (kg)


Left out Left in Right out Right in
Site condition 1040 1193 1218 1231
Lab condition 1125 1280 900 1110

COMMITTEE’s OBSERVATIONS:

1. ERC Mk-III is giving toe load in the range of 700-800 kg in the field which is
considered inadequate.

2. The toe load requirement of 1045 kg on LWR consideration for 60 kg UIC Rail
and 1660 sleeper/Km for Zone-IV.

42
81st MEETING OF THE TRACK STANDARDS COMMITTEE – DECEMBER, 2010

3. The performance of ERC Mk-V and G-clip has been found satisfactory since it
is laid in initial trial five year back.

4. The required toe load is achievable and sustainable in both the clips.

5. As per CTE/ECoR, the performance of G-clip is better than ERC Mk-V with
regard to toe load, maintainability, driving weight etc.

COMMITTEE’s RECOMMENDATIONS:

1. Toe load requirement of 1045 kg on LWR consideration which is not being


achievable by ERC Mk-III and since both the clips are (ERC Mk-V & G-clip)
meeting the requirement of toe load under field condition after service of five
years, these should be adopted on Indian Railways for regular use.

RAILWAY BOARD’s ORDERS:

Board’s order on the above have already been issued vide board’s letter No
2010/CE-II/TSC dated 19.01.11.

43
81st MEETING OF THE TRACK STANDARDS COMMITTEE – DECEMBER, 2010

ITEM NO.1183

SUBJECT: Restoring whistle board distance from level crossing to 600m on


single line. Ref: Para 916 (1) (i) of IRPWM.
(Item proposed by RDSO)

RDSO FILE REF: CT/IRPWM & CT/LC/Safety

AGENDA:

The whistle board distance in Para 916 (1) (i) of IRPWM from level crossing on single
line was reduced from 600m to 350m vide correction slip no. 100 to IRPWM issued on
21.06.2006. This distance is inadequate, as warning time given by whistle of
approaching train from 350m is insufficient for slow moving vehicles i.e. tractor
trolley, loaded trucks and bullock carts etc., to enable them to cross the track and reach
to safety. The original whistle board distance of 600m needs to be restored.

 Time taken by train running at 100 kmph to cover 600m distance to


reach level crossing = 60 x 60 x 600/(100 x 1000) = 21.6 i.e. 22 seconds
 Time taken by train running at 100 kmph to cover 350m distance to
reach level crossing = 60 x 60 x 350/(100 x 1000) = 12.6 i.e. 13 seconds
 Time required by slowest vehicles to travel from stop board to gate post
on other side (without stopping) = 09 seconds (SL)
 Reaction time = 03 seconds
 Time taken for starting the vehicle = 04 seconds.
 Time taken by slowest vehicle to travel from stop board to other side
gate post and clearing the vehicle = 03 + 04 + 09 = 16 seconds

Warning time of 13 seconds (in case of 350m distance of whistle board from level
crossing), is insufficient for slow moving vehicles to travel from stop board to other
side of gate post by following procedure of crossing the unmanned level crossing.

Therefore, it is suggested that whistle board distance from level crossing be restored to
600m.

NOTES BY SECRETARY:

44
81st MEETING OF THE TRACK STANDARDS COMMITTEE – DECEMBER, 2010

COMMITTEE’s OBSERVATIONS:

1. It is agreed that whistle board distance from level crossing provided in para
916(1) (i) of IRPWM should be restored to 600m and drivers should be
instructed to whistle continuously.

2. 600 m distance is required so that adequate reaction time is available for road
users regarding approaching train.

3. The provision of 600m is already existing for double line.

COMMITTEE’s RECOMMENDATIONS:

1. The provisions of para 916(1)(i) should amended so that distance of whistle


board from level crossing on single line is restored to 600m.

2. Instruction should be issued to drivers to whistle from whistle board up to level


crossing continuously for warning to road users regarding approaching train.

RAILWAY BOARD’s ORDERS:

RDSO should send the draft correction slip to IRPWM. Item is to be closed after
issue of correction slip to IRPWM.

45
81st MEETING OF THE TRACK STANDARDS COMMITTEE – DECEMBER, 2010

ITEM NO.1185

SUBJECT: Provision of wicket gates for on foot road users.


(Proposed by NFR)

(IRPWM)
RDSO FILE REF: CT/IRPWM

AGENDA:

As per item no. 4 of Annexure 9/1 (Para 904) of IRPWM


wicket gates need not be provided in C class level crossing gates.

However there is practical problem for on foot road users, as C


class gates are normally closed to road traffic as per item no. 9 of
Annexure 9/1 (Para 904) of IRPWM.
The item was discussed in CTE’s seminar (Session
No.:10307) from 5th to 7th Aug 2010 at IRICEN, Pune & was discussed
as follows-
“Provision of wicket gate will also help to allow road users on foot
to pass road when Level crossing is closed “.

NOTES BY SECRETARY:

As per item no. 4 of Annexure 9/1 (Para 904) of IRPWM


provision of wicket gates in level crossing are as follows.

Item Details Dimensions and details for various classes Remarks


of crossings
Special ‘A’ ‘B’ ‘C’ ‘D’ class
class class class
4 Provision of To be To be To be Not to be Not to be Design of
wicket gates provided provided provided provided. provided. Wicket gate
for foot except except except should be
passengers where where where such that
foot foot over foot over trespassing
over bridges bridges bridges by cattle is
are are are prevented.
provided. provided provided
. .

Committee may deliberate on the issue.

46
81st MEETING OF THE TRACK STANDARDS COMMITTEE – DECEMBER, 2010

COMMITTEE’s OBSERVATIONS:

1. The provision of wicket gates does not exist in IRPWM Annexure 9/1 of para
904 for ‘C’ class level crossing.

2. Requirement of wicket gate should be assessed on each level crossing and if


needed the same should be provided.

COMMITTEE’s RECOMMENDATIONS:

1. Requirement of wicket gate should be considered on need basis and provision of


IRPWM Annexure 9/1 of Para 904 should be amended accordingly for ‘C’ class
level crossing.

RAILWAY BOARD’s ORDERS:

1. RDSO should send the draft correction slip to IRPWM. Item is to be closed after
issue of correction slip to IRPWM.

47
81st MEETING OF THE TRACK STANDARDS COMMITTEE – DECEMBER, 2010

ITEM NO.1186
SUBJECT: Abolition of THOD system.
(Proposed by NFR)
(IM/LWR)
RDSO FILE REF: CT/IM/LWR

AGENDA:

The role & duties of SAG officers of Engg. Department Working in


Open Line of Zonal Railways have been specified vide Railway Board’s
letter no. 2010/EDCE(G)/Misc./8, dated 14.09.2010. After its
implementation SAG officers of Engg. Department will no longer work as
THODs & they will only be acting as functional HOD. With the
implementation of above concept, relevant Para of LWR Manual viz.,
Para No. 3.4, 8.2.5, 9.1.8(iv), & Bridge Manual Para No. 1104 & other
stipulations related to THODs, needs to be reviewed & corrected.

NOTES BY SECRETARY:

Provisions of MANUAL OF INSTRUCTIONS ON LONG WELDED


RAILS(1996) are as under:-
Para 3.4 Approval of Chief Engineer: Installation of LWR/CWR
or change in its constitution at a later stage shall have the approval of the
Territorial Chief Engineer concerned in each case, on a detailed plan
prepared in accordance with Para 5.1.3. However, for any deviation from
the provisions of this Manual, the approval of Chief Engineer shall be
obtained.

Para 8.2.5 AEN will analyse the observation of each LWR/CWR in


his jurisdiction and give a certificate at the end of LWR/CWR register
before onset of summer regarding satisfactory behavior of all
LWR/CWRs. DEN/Sr.DEN will scrutinize observations of each
LWR/CWR, initial each page and send exception report to Territorial
Chief Engineer for his decision/orders.

Para 9.1.8 Divisional Engineer/Senior Divisional Engineer

iv) He shall scrutinize LWR/CWR registers of his jurisdiction every


year in the month of February and record his certificate about
satisfactory behavior of LWR/CWR in his jurisdiction. He shall refer the
details of all LWR/CWR to territorial Chief Engineer where he requires
his orders/ decision.

48
81st MEETING OF THE TRACK STANDARDS COMMITTEE – DECEMBER, 2010

As per Railway Board’s letter no. 2010/EDCE(G)/Misc./8 dated


14.09.2010 the word Territorial Chief Engineer may be replaced by Chief
Track Engineer.

Proposed Para are as under: -

Para 3.4 Approval of Chief Engineer: Installation of LWR/CWR


or change in its constitution at a later stage shall have the approval of the
Chief Track Engineer concerned in each case, on a detailed plan
prepared in accordance with Para 5.1.3. However, for any deviation from
the provisions of this Manual, the approval of Chief Engineer shall be
obtained.

Para 8.2.5 AEN will analyse the observation of each LWR/CWR in


his jurisdiction and give a certificate at the end of LWR/CWR register
before onset of summer regarding satisfactory behavior of all
LWR/CWRs. DEN/Sr.DEN will scrutinize observations of each
LWR/CWR, initial each page and send exception report to Chief Track
Engineer for his decision/orders.

Para 9.1.8 Divisional Engineer/Senior Divisional Engineer

iv) He shall scrutinize LWR/CWR registers of his jurisdiction every


year in the month of February and record his certificate about
satisfactory behavior of LWR/CWR in his jurisdiction. He shall refer the
details of all LWR/CWR to Chief Track Engineer where he requires his
orders/ decision.

COMMITTEE’s OBSERVATIONS:

1. With the abolition of THOD system in engineering department, the provisions of


LWR Manual need amendments.

2. In Para 3.4 of LWR Manual the word ‘Territorial Chief Engineer’ should be
replaced by ‘Chief Track Engineer’ and word ‘Chief Track Engineer’ should be
replaced by ‘Principal Chief Engineer’.

3. In Para 8.2.5 of LWR Manual the word ‘Territorial Chief Engineer’ should be
replaced by ‘Chief Track Engineer’ but this Para should be reworded the extent
the exception report to be submitted only when orders of Chief Track Engineer
are required.
49
81st MEETING OF THE TRACK STANDARDS COMMITTEE – DECEMBER, 2010

4. In Para 9.1.8 of LWR Manual the word ‘Territorial Chief Engineer’ should be
replaced by ‘Chief Track Engineer’.

COMMITTEE’s RECOMMENDATIONS:

1. In Para 3.4 of LWR Manual the word ‘Territorial Chief Engineer’ should be
replaced by ‘Chief Track Engineer’ and the word ‘Chief Engineer’ should be
replaced by ‘Principal Chief Engineer’.
2. In Para 8.2.5 of LWR Manual the word ‘Territorial Chief Engineer’ should be
replaced by ‘Chief Track Engineer’ but this Para should be reworded to the
extent that the exception report to be submitted only when orders of ‘Chief
Track Engineer’ are required.

3. In Para 9.1.8 of LWR Manual the word ‘Territorial Chief Engineer’ should be
replaced by ‘Chief Track Engineer’.

RAILWAY BOARD’s ORDERS:

1. RDSO should send the draft correction slip to LWR manual. Item is to be closed
after issue of correction slip to LWR manual.

50
81st MEETING OF THE TRACK STANDARDS COMMITTEE – DECEMBER, 2010

ITEM NO.1187

SUBJECT: Provision of Pathways on long girder bridge for inspection and


maintenance.
(Proposed by Railway Board)
(SD/REV/BG/MG)
RDSO FILE REF: CT/SD/REV/BG/MG

AGENDA:

As per Railway Board’s order on ITEM No 1008 of 79th meeting of BSC, Bridge
directorate of RDSO has referred the item as under:

NOTES BY SECRETARY of BSC:

Due to increase in axle load, increase in speed potential and GMT on Indian
Railways. It is necessary to strengthen the maintenance of bridges and ensure their
regular repairs to achieve our goal of higher speeds and higher load carrying capacities.
While carry out maintenance it is also necessary to provide proper inspection facilities
to the staff for efficient working and their safety. Presently pathway are provided
between rails for walking of staff and trolley refuges are provided for safe place on the
face of approaching train.

The provision of pathways on long girder bridges proposed by Western Railway


was also discussed in CBE Seminar held on 6th & 7th June 2001. The item was:
“Traditionally central footpath plates and man/trolley refuges have been provided on
long girder bridges. Now there is demand for providing side pathways on such bridges
by other departments of Railways to facilitate movement of staff in case of hose un-
coupling, train parting etc. The cost of such works will be huge in addition to increase
in regular maintenance efforts. This may lead to trespass through Railway Bridge by
outsiders, as is already prevalent on many important bridges where such facility exists
on date. The practice being followed in other Railways and suggestions in this regard
may please be discussed.”

In PCE’s Conference held on 15th & 16th March 2004, provision of footpath on
girder Bridges was discussed and responsibility for safety and maintenance of bridge,
trolley/main refuges and footpath was given to CBE/Zonal Railway.

The same agenda was proposed by SECR in Chief Bridge Engineer’s Seminar
held on 13th & 14th September 2007. In this seminar the item was: “In case of Alarm
Chain Pulling (ACP) on long bridges, access of loco pilot is restricted, as there is no
connection available between loco and rear coaches. On bridges loco pilot cannot
detrain to reset the ACP system. Keeping in view of running of 24/26 coaches passenger
trains, access should be provided by provision of pathways by the side of bridges, as a
normal feature.” Railway Board vide letter no. 2006/CE-I/BR/Seminar/3-Pt dated 30-

51
81st MEETING OF THE TRACK STANDARDS COMMITTEE – DECEMBER, 2010

05-2008 has conveyed their orders as “Accepted”. In this regard nothing has been heard
regarding the progress of the same on Zonal Railways to RDSO.

This issue has also been raised by AM/CE vide his letter no. 2009/CE-
I/BR/Safety(MR) dated 08-12-2009.

As per item no. 276 of IRPWM, “over all girder bridges, foot walks should be
provided in the centre of the track over sleepers to help the engineering staff for
inspection”. But mere provision of foot walks in the centre of track shall be found
lacking in case of long span Open Web girders, especially in case the inspecting
officials are near the mid of span and a high speed train is approaching the bridge. This
problem is compounded on high GMT traffic routes. Provision of pathways for long
span bridges shall not only ensure unhindered inspection of such bridges but also reduce
the occurrence of tragic accidents.

As per item No. 15 (i) & (ii) of Schedule I of SOD


Maximum distance apart of trolley refuges :
(i) On bridges with main spans of less than 100m = 100m
(ii) On bridges with main spans of 100m or more = A refuge over
each pier
Approximate time required for reaching to nearest trolley refuge, considering
walking speed of 3 kmph and 2 second reaction time will be approximate 75 second, if
the staff has to walk for 60 meters. Considering train speed of 120 kmph, the train will
cover 1500 m in 75 secs. Such long visibility over bridges is generally not available.
Hence it is very difficult to reach to trolley refuges against fast approaching train.
RDSO’S VIEW
RDSO is of view (A) To modify Item 15 (i) and (ii) of Schedule I of SOD as
under :
Maximum distance apart of trolley refuges:
(i) On bridges with main spans of less than 45m = 45m
(ii) On bridges with main spans of 45m or more = A refuge over
each pier
(B) A pathway of minimum 0.75m be provided on long bridges.
(C) A bridge of overall length 100m or more should be treated as long
bridge.
Hence the committee may
(i) Consider the provision of pathways on long girder bridges and make
suitable recommendations.
(ii) Define the long bridges for the purpose of providing pathway.
(iii) Decide minimum width of pathway to be provided.

52
81st MEETING OF THE TRACK STANDARDS COMMITTEE – DECEMBER, 2010

(iv) Location of pathway.

Bridge Standards COMMITTEE’S OBSERVATIONS:

There is a need to provide pathway for movement of staff for maintenance &
inspection. The spacing between trolley refugee should be reduced.

Bridge Standards COMMITTEE’S RECOMMENDATIONS:

Following recommendations are made:

(A) Indian Railway Schedule of dimension Item 15 (i) and (ii) is recommended
for amendment as under:

Maximum distance apart of trolley refuges:

(i) On bridges with main spans of less than 50m = 50m

(ii) On bridges with main spans of 50m or more = A refuge over


each pier

(B) A pathway of minimum 0.75m be provided on all major bridges.

RDSO should develop GAD for provision of pathway. Zonal railways should
send their practices and drawings on the subject for study and development of drawing.

RAILWAY BOARDS ORDERS:

(i) Recommendations be discussed in TSC.

(ii) RDSO to develop GAD for provision of pathway.

NOTES BY SECRETARY of TSC:

COMMITTEE’s OBSERVATIONS:

1. Pathway should be for PSC bridges also and for all type of bridges especially
major and important bridges in addition to trolley refuges.

2. In existing bridges it should be provided wherever possible and for new bridges
is must be provided.

3. For existing bridges strengthening of bridge may be required.

4. Pathways are required for Gangmen and Keymen.

53
81st MEETING OF THE TRACK STANDARDS COMMITTEE – DECEMBER, 2010

5. Pathway should not be accessible for Motorcycle.

6. SR, WCR and SECR will send drawing of Pathway for steel and PSC bridges.

7. Providing Pathway inside of girder beyond sleeper.

COMMITTEE’s RECOMMENDATIONS:

1. Pathway should be provided on all existing major and important bridges


wherever possible and on all new major and important bridges to ensure safety
and maintenance requirement.
2. Pathway should be provided inside of the track on through girder bridges to
avoid misuse by public and accordingly proper design may be developed by
RDSO.

RAILWAY BOARD’s ORDERS:

1. Approved.
2. Approved.

54
81st MEETING OF THE TRACK STANDARDS COMMITTEE – DECEMBER, 2010

ITEM NO.1188

SUBJECT: Trial policy for track items.

RDSO FILE REF: CT/Policy

AGENDA:

To decide trial policy for track items.

NOTES BY SECRETARY:

Committee may decide the trial policy for track items to expedite the field trial on Zonal
Railways.

COMMITTEE’s OBSERVATIONS:

There is a problem of fund for trial of components in the field, provision of fund should
be made for field trials to expedite the field trial on Zonal Railways.

COMMITTEE’s RECOMMENDATIONS:

There is a constituted committee of Railway Board to frame trial policy for all R&D
items, the matter of arrangement of funds and other issues related to locations etc. for
trial should be referred to the committee for deliberations and necessary
recommendations to Railway Board for expediting field trial on Zonal Railways.

RAILWAY BOARD’s ORDERS:

Approved

55
81st MEETING OF THE TRACK STANDARDS COMMITTEE – DECEMBER, 2010

ITEM NO.1189

SUBJECT: Provision of Notch at bottom of joggle fish plate.


(Proposed by NWR)

RDSO FILE REF: CT/FF

AGENDA:
North Western Railway has proposed the item as under:-

As per Para 429 & Para 277 (A) (T) of IRPWM AT welds are to be joggle fish plated
on outer rails of curve and on bridge approaches. Joggle fish plating of AT welds is also
to be carried out on ‘DFW’ welds. On NWR, there have been some welds failures with
horizontal fracture at rail web at the location of weld resulting in a gap at fracture site to
an extent of 200-225mm which can be a potential cause for derailment. On
investigation, it is found that this type of fractures occurred due to point load transferred
by joggle fish plates at the weld collar on bottom flange at the location of riser
projecting above the weld collar. Existing design of joggle fish plate provide for only
10mm notch at the bottom to allow for weld collar. In field there are imperfections at
the location of riser due to improper and premature removal of mould while doing the
welding. This type of problem is seen more in case of old gauge converted sections
where as welding was resorted to en masse. Hence it is suggested that notch provided at
bottom of fish plate should be at least 20mm on the radius of rounded portion in the
centre should be increased ensuring that no portion of joggle fish plate come in contact
with weld collar.

NOTES BY SECRETARY:
Committee may deliberate.
COMMITTEE’s OBSERVATIONS:

Presentation on failure of joggled fish plate AT welded joints was made by CTE/NWR
in which photographs of broken joints were shown. These failures of AT welding joints
are due to improper finishing of joints after welding i.e. improper removal of riser. The
provision of 20mm notch will make the fish plate weaker. Instead, execution of weld by
following laid down procedure should be ensured:

COMMITTEE’s RECOMMENDATIONS:

The provision of 20mm notch in joggled fish plate will make the joggled fish plate
weaker. Instead, AT welding should be done by following laid down procedure. In case
of improperly finished joints, joggled fish plate should be provided after finishing the
joints properly.
RAILWAY BOARD’s ORDERS:

Approved. Item is closed.

56
81st MEETING OF THE TRACK STANDARDS COMMITTEE – DECEMBER, 2010

ITEM NO.1190

SUBJECT: Measurement of Rail stresses and stress free temperature of LWR by


non destructive portable state of art equipment.

RDSO FILE REF:

AGENDA:

Measurement of Rail stresses and stress free temperature of LWR by non destructive
portable state of art equipment.

NOTES BY SECRETARY:

RDSO has sent global EOI to Railway Board for approval.

COMMITTEE’s OBSERVATIONS:

Committee observed that instead of procurement of equipment for measuring rail


stresses and stress free temperature service contract for same may be done. When
system is established its procurement can be considered.

COMMITTEE’s RECOMMENDATIONS:

Committee recommends that instead of procurement, service contract should be done.

RAILWAY BOARD’s ORDERS:

RDSO should take further action in the matter for validation of technology/Equipment.

57
81st MEETING OF THE TRACK STANDARDS COMMITTEE – DECEMBER, 2010

ITEM NO.1184

SUBJECT: REVIEW OF PENDING ITEMS

S. No.1:

SUBJECT: Review of accident proforma for measurement of Rolling stock.

(958/73/02/Safety) (1167/1/80)

COMMITTEE’s OBSERVATIONS:

1. Revised accident proforma for measurement of Rolling stock sent by RDSO to


Railway Board was shown to the committee and committee expressed
satisfaction on important items included in said proforma.

2. Committee requested Railway Board to finalise the issue.

COMMITTEE’s RECOMMENDATIONS:

1. Railway Board is requested to finalise the proforma for measurement of Rolling


stock.

RAILWAY BOARD’s ORDERS:

Approved . Matter under consideration with Board.

58
81st MEETING OF THE TRACK STANDARDS COMMITTEE – DECEMBER, 2010

S. No.2:

SUBJECT: LWR/CWR over Ballasted Deck Bridges. ( Provision of LWR with


SEJ on pier to pier, continuation of LWR on Bridges, development of
code of practice similar to UIC code 774-3R. Trials of continuation of
LWR with multi span bridges with/without ballasted deck.).
(982/7th Ext./02/IM/LWR) (1167/2/80)
(1091/77/IM/LWR) (1167/2/80)
(1092/77/IM/LWR) (1167/2/80)
(1093/77/IM/LWR) (1167/2/80)

COMMITTEE’s OBSERVATIONS:

1. The issue is being deliberated by HAG committee.

2. The presentation on issue of additional rail stresses coming in rail due to track
bridge interaction in respect of total stresses coming on rail along with possible
solutions i.e. provision of NCC and Cu-MO rails was made and discussed.

3. Committee should expedite finalization of its recommendations.

COMMITTEE’s RECOMMENDATIONS:

1. HAG committee is requested to finalization of its recommendation and


submission of report to Railway Board.

RAILWAY BOARD’s ORDERS:

HAG committee to expedite and submit report within 60 days.

59
81st MEETING OF THE TRACK STANDARDS COMMITTEE – DECEMBER, 2010

S. No. 3:

SUBJECT: Possibility of permitting 26m rails on major and important bridges.

(986/74/JW/SWR) (1167/4/80)

COMMITTEE’s OBSERVATIONS:

1. Since the draft correction slip to IRPWM has been sent Railway Board.
Railway Board is requested to expedite its approval and issue.

COMMITTEE’s RECOMMENDATIONS:

1. Railway Board is requested to approve and issue the correction slip.

RAILWAY BOARD’s ORDERS:

Advance correction slip no 125 dt 21.02.11 vide board’s letter no 2009/CE-II/CS/1 has
already been issued Item is closed.

60
81st MEETING OF THE TRACK STANDARDS COMMITTEE – DECEMBER, 2010

S. No. 4:

SUBJECT: Modification in design of combination fish plate


(1015/74/FF) (1167/5/80)

COMMITTEE’s OBSERVATIONS:

1. CTE/SER informed that so far agency for designing and fabrication of modified
combination fish plate could not be found.

2. CTE/SER assured that he will further try to locate agency for design and
fabrication of modified combination fish plate.

COMMITTEE’s RECOMMENDATIONS:

1. CTE/SER is requested to expedite design and fabrication of modified


combination fish plate.

2. CTE/SER should send the detailed of modified combination fish plate to RDSO
within three months for technical check of design and further action.

RAILWAY BOARD’s ORDERS:

1. SER should expedite design and fabrication of modified combination fish plate.

2. SER should submit the details of modified combination fish plate to RDSO by
May 2011 for technical check of design and further action.

61
81st MEETING OF THE TRACK STANDARDS COMMITTEE – DECEMBER, 2010

S. No. 5:

SUBJECT: Change of Rail Section in LWR/CWR.


(1042/75/ IM/LWR) (1167/6/80)

COMMITTEE’s OBSERVATIONS:

1. None of the Zonal Railways have submitted demand of junction forged rails to
Railway Board.

2. Zonal Railways should expedite submission of demand of junction forged rails


to Railway Board.

COMMITTEE’s RECOMMENDATIONS:

1. Zonal Railways should submit the demand of junction forged rails to Railway
Board within a month.

RAILWAY BOARD’s ORDERS:

Zonal Railways should submit the demand of junction forged rails to Railway Board
by May 2011.

62
81st MEETING OF THE TRACK STANDARDS COMMITTEE – DECEMBER, 2010

S.No.6:

SUBJECT : Modification in the lifting barrier assembly for level crossings.

(1070/76/EL) (1167/8/80)
COMMITTEE’s OBSERVATIONS:

1. CR, SCR, WR and WCR have not done trial of modified lifting barrier.

2. Zonal Railways are using drawing of Signal Directorate of RDSO for provision
of lifting barriers at level crossing and procuring the same through approved list
of vendors of Signal Directorate of RDSO so that same lifting barrier can be
used for interlocking with least modification and least additional expenditure.

3. In view of the same, no further trials need to be conducted.

COMMITTEE’s RECOMMENDATIONS:

1. Item may be closed in view of availability of drawing of lifting barrier of Signal


Directorate of RDSO and its usefulness for interlocking due to increase in TVU.

2. Item will be referred to S&T directorate for comments on the design of SR.

RAILWAY BOARD’s ORDERS:

1. Approved.

2. In view of committee’s recommendation in para 1. above, no further action is


required. Item is closed.

63
81st MEETING OF THE TRACK STANDARDS COMMITTEE – DECEMBER, 2010

S. No. 7:

SUBJECT: Machine Maintenance of Track


(1073/76/TM/GL/70) (1167/9/80)
COMMITTEE’s OBSERVATIONS:

1. In depth study of world wide practices of other world Railways should be


carried out by RDSO. In this regard various World Railways can be
approached and help of Railway Advisors may also be taken.

2. Literature study to be completed in six months time positivel.

COMMITTEE’s RECOMMENDATIONS:

RDSO should further carry out in depth study of world wide practices of other world
Railways and put up technical report to the committee formed for this purpose within
six months time positively..

RAILWAY BOARD’s ORDERS:

While reviewing the recommendation of 80thTSC ,Railway Board had ordered that
“RDSO should collect the data through internet/correspondence and study of literature
and put up to the committee for the purpose. Recommendations should be submitted to
Board by June 2011.” RDSO should expedite the study, finalization of committee,s
recommendations and submit the report by june,2011.

64
81st MEETING OF THE TRACK STANDARDS COMMITTEE – DECEMBER, 2010

S. No.8:

SUBJECT: Non-destructive stress free temperature measurement of CWR


by force application method.
(1077/76/IM/LWR/RSM) (1167/11/80)
COMMITTEE’s OBSERVATIONS:

1. CTE/NER informed that equipment with Lucknow Division of NE Railway was


out of order which has been repaired by bringing spare parts from Manmad
Workshop.

2. The trial to validate the equipment can be conducted on nominated section of


NE Railway within a month.

3. Other Zonal Railways should conduct further trials to validate the equipment.

COMMITTEE’s RECOMMENDATIONS:

1. NE Railway to expedite and conduct trial within a month in association with


RDSO to validate the equipment as per trial scheme prepared by RDSO.

2. Other Zonal Railways should continue trial of equipment for measurement of


non-destructive stress free temperature by force application method and submit
report to RDSO about the reliability of the equipment.

RAILWAY BOARD’s ORDERS:

1. Approved. NE Railway should conduct trial at the earliest.

2. Approved. Report to be discussed in next TSC.

65
81st MEETING OF THE TRACK STANDARDS COMMITTEE – DECEMBER, 2010

S. No.9:

SUBJECT: Review of Rail Stress Calculation Methodology

(1078/76/Track Stress/FEM & DG/Research) (1167/12/80)

COMMITTEE’s OBSERVATIONS:

1. There is a need to study management of contact stress in rail top to reduce RCF
defects on heavy axle load by control of rail wheel interaction by rail grinding.

2. CTEs should send the details as per the monitoring format of rail profile
grinding for test sites on SCR, NCR & ECoR before and after grinding to
RDSO.

COMMITTEE’s RECOMMENDATIONS:

1. CTEs should send the details after introduction of rail grinding as per the
monitoring format of rail profile grinding for test sites on SCR, NCR & ECoR
before and after grinding to RDSO for study of reduction in contact stress.

2. Increase in Rail life will also be studied by RDSO on account of control of


contact stress and RCF by rail grinding.

RAILWAY BOARD’s ORDERS:

1. Approved.
2. Approved.

66
81st MEETING OF THE TRACK STANDARDS COMMITTEE – DECEMBER, 2010

S. No.10:

SUBJECT : Revision of work load of PWIs.


(1087/77/IRPWM) (1167/13/80)

COMMITTEE’s OBSERVATIONS:

1. Railway Board order on 80th TSC recommendation are awaited from Railway
Board.

COMMITTEE’s RECOMMENDATIONS:

1. Railway Board is requested to issue orders on 80th TSC recommendations


already sent.

RAILWAY BOARD’s ORDERS:

Item is under consideration in Railway Board.

67
81st MEETING OF THE TRACK STANDARDS COMMITTEE – DECEMBER, 2010

S. No.11:

SUBJECT : Criteria for re-alignment of curve


(1055/75/IRPWM) (1167/14/80)

COMMITTEE’s OBSERVATIONS:

1. Presentation on RDSO’s reply to issues raised by Railway Board was made


along with revised draft correction slip suggested by RDSO.

2. Railway Board may take further decision.

3. Rate of change of lateral acceleration should be 1.0m/sec.3 on circular portion.

COMMITTEE’s RECOMMENDATIONS:

1. Railway Board is requested to give further decision on the basis of draft


correction slip suggested by RDSO vide letter no. CT/IRPWM dated 16.11.2010
for modification in the same for rate of change of lateral acceleration as
1.0m/sec.3 on circular portion for speed up to 160kmph.

RAILWAY BOARD’s ORDERS:

RDSO should send detailed technical comments on the recommendation made by TSC
to decide the matter.

68
81st MEETING OF THE TRACK STANDARDS COMMITTEE – DECEMBER, 2010

S.No.12:

SUBJECT: Necessity of detailed guidelines for USFD testing of Tongue Rails


and CMS crossings.
(1098/78/USFD) (1167/15/80)
COMMITTEE’s OBSERVATIONS:

1. During normal USFD testing, SEJ tongue rail is not tested but hand probing is
done as per para 11.8.2 of USFD manual.

2. During normal USFD testing, flaw is not detected in SEJ as per procedure laid
down in para 11.8 of USFD Manual 2006.

3. M&C directorate of RDSO should check whether USFD testing of SEJ is


effective or not as per procedure laid down in USFD manual 2006.

4. Roughness on machined portion on SEJ should be monitored to avoid sudden


fractures.

COMMITTEE’s RECOMMENDATIONS:

1. Sample of fractures of tongue rail and CMS crossing along with fracture
investigation replies should be sent to RDSO by zonal Railways for finalizing
guidelines for USFD testing of tongue rail, SEJ tongue rail and CMS crossings.

2. RDSO should finalise the USFD testing method for tongue rail, SEJ and CMS
crossing on the basis of non detected flaws observed in fractures of these
components. This should be done within next three months or early.

3. Till such time procedure is evolved hand probing of SEJ tongue rails should
continue as per provision of USFD manual.

RAILWAY BOARD’s ORDERS:

1. Approved.
2. Approved.
3. Approved.

69
81st MEETING OF THE TRACK STANDARDS COMMITTEE – DECEMBER, 2010

S.No.13:

SUBJECT: Corrosion on rails at contact points of liners resulting into fractures

(1102/78/ACP/RP) (1167/16/80)
COMMITTEE’s OBSERVATIONS:

1. Railway Boards orders on 80th TSC recommendation along with action taken on
them were discussed. Action on them is to be monitored.

2. Vossloh type fastening which is liner cum fastening system has already been
tried in IR and performing satisfactory. This fastening may be adopted.

3. RDSO is also trying to develop the liner free fastening system for existing PSC
sleeper and fastening assembly.

COMMITTEE’s RECOMMENDATIONS:

1. Action on Rly. Board orders to be expedited and monitored closely.

2. Vossloh type fastening system or similar may be adopted.

3. RDSO expedite the development of liner free fastening system for existing PSC
sleeper and existing fastening assembly.

RAILWAY BOARD’s ORDERS:

1. Approved.
2. Approved.
3. Approved

70
81st MEETING OF THE TRACK STANDARDS COMMITTEE – DECEMBER, 2010

S. No.14:

SUBJECT : Maintenance of Steel channel sleeper


(1121/79/JE)(1167/19/80)
COMMITTEE’s OBSERVATIONS:

1. Committee consisting of ED/B&S/RDSO, ED/Track-II/RDSO, CTE/SWR,


CTE/SECR & CTE/SCR has finalized the proposed new para to be included in
IRPWM for maintenance of Steel channel /H beam sleeper. CTE/SWR
presented the new para to the members of TSC.

2. All the members agreed to the recommendations of committee for introduction


of new Para in IRPWM for steel channel sleeper.

COMMITTEE’s RECOMMENDATIONS:

1. The proposed new para for maintenance of Steel channel/H beam sleepers
should be sent to Railway Board for approval as a correction slip to IRPWM.

2. After approval of Railway Board, this item may be closed.

RAILWAY BOARD’s ORDERS:

1. Approved.
2. Not approved.

71
81st MEETING OF THE TRACK STANDARDS COMMITTEE – DECEMBER, 2010

S.No. 15:

SUBJECT : Standard deviation based track maintenance standards for


130Kmph to 160Kmph and spot values for 140Kmph to 160
Kmph.
(1124/79/ TM/GL/70 79th) (1167/20/80)
COMMITTEE’s OBSERVATIONS:

1. RDSO should expedite the fixing of transition coupling in LHB coaches of


RDSO and thereafter conduct the trial.

COMMITTEE’s RECOMMENDATIONS:

1. Trial to fix standard deviation based track maintenance standard should be


conducted within next six months after fixing the transition coupling in LHB
coaches of RDSO.

RAILWAY BOARD’s ORDERS:

Approved. Trial should be done at the earliest and report should be submitted to
Railway Board.

72
81st MEETING OF THE TRACK STANDARDS COMMITTEE – DECEMBER, 2010

S.No. 16:

SUBJECT : Improving small track machine organization

(1125/79/TM/GL/70 79th) (1167/21/80)

COMMITTEE’s OBSERVATIONS:

S.No. 1 (A to H except C) – Correction slip to Indian Railways Small Track Machine


Manual is being issued by RDSO which should be issued within 15 days.

S.No. 1 C – RDSO should regularly review the specification of Small Track Machine.

S.No. 2 – Board has already issued instruction for pilot project of MMU.

COMMITTEE’s RECOMMENDATIONS:

S.No. 1 (A to H except) – Recommended for closure as correction slip to Indian


Railway Small Track Machine Manual is being issued.

S.No. 1 C – Recommended for closure.

S.No. 2 – Recommended for closure.

RAILWAY BOARD’s ORDERS:

S.No. 1 (A to H except C) – Approved. Item should be closed after issue of correction


slip.

S.No.1 C - Closed

S.No. 2 - Closed

73
81st MEETING OF THE TRACK STANDARDS COMMITTEE – DECEMBER, 2010

S.No. 17:

SUBJECT : Reduction in thickness of end post of glued joints.

(1127/79/CT/MT/GJ) (1167/22/80)
COMMITTEE’s OBSERVATIONS:

1. The use of better material for end post to reduce its thickness to 6mm has to be
done in conjunction with improvements the glued joints to enhance its service
life, hence this item needs to be clubbed with item no. 1174.

2. The process for invitation of Global EOI for developing improved glued joints
for better service life along with reduced thickness of end post should be
expedited by RDSO.

COMMITTEE’s RECOMMENDATIONS:

1. This item may be clubbed with item no. 1174 regarding improvement in design
of improved glued joint.

2. RDSO to expedite the process of development of improved glued joint with


reduced thickness of end post and improved material.

RAILWAY BOARD’s ORDERS:

1. Approved.
2. Approved.

74
81st MEETING OF THE TRACK STANDARDS COMMITTEE – DECEMBER, 2010

S.No.18:

SUBJECT : Formation treatment and recommendations of RDSO for


treatment other than blanketing.

(1128/79/GE/Gen/13 TSC Vol-X) (1167/23/80)


COMMITTEE’s OBSERVATIONS:

1. Committee discussed the issue and asked SCR to complete the trials for geogrid
form the available 15 types of geogrids. SCR assured to complete the trials with
in 6 months as per the scheme given by RDSO.

2. Railway Board may procure high performance formation treatment machine


which can lay geogrid also.

COMMITTEE’s RECOMMENDATIONS:

1. SCR to carry out trials of available geogrid 15 in nos. within six months and
send trial report to RDSO.

2. Railway Board may procure high performance formation treatment machine.

RAILWAY BOARD’s ORDERS:

1&2 RDSO should review the item afresh and carry out cost benefit analysis.
RDSO should also find cost effective method of deep screening after 10-12
years in locations having geogrid without any damage to the geogrid.

75
81st MEETING OF THE TRACK STANDARDS COMMITTEE – DECEMBER, 2010

S.No.19:

SUBJECT : Issues pertaining to improvement in A.T.Welding.

(1133/79/CT/Welding/Policy) (1167/26/80)

COMMITTEE’s OBSERVATIONS:

1. M&C directorate of RDSO is to submit the trial report by March 2011.

2. SCR should submit the detailed report of thermometer and its specification for
trial by RDSO.

COMMITTEE’s RECOMMENDATIONS:

1. SCR should submit the detailed report of thermometer and its specification for
trial by RDSO.

2. RDSO should finalize the issue and send correction slip of thermit welding
manual to ensure proper heating of rail ends and as additional check by digital
rail thermometer in addition to prescribed pre heating time for pre heating of rail
ends in the manual.

RAILWAY BOARD’s ORDERS:

1. Approved.
2. Approved.

76
81st MEETING OF THE TRACK STANDARDS COMMITTEE – DECEMBER, 2010

S.No.20:

SUBJECT : Use of 700 (2MHz) 8mm probe for detection of Half Moon Crack.

(1134/79/CT/USFD) (1167/27/80)
COMMITTEE’s OBSERVATIONS:

1. Correction slip for detection of half moon crack using side looking probe has
been issued by RDSO vide letter no. CT/USFD dated 26/28.05.2010.

COMMITTEE’s RECOMMENDATIONS:
1. Item may be closed as correction slip no. 05 of May 2010 to USFD manual has
already been issued.

RAILWAY BOARD’s ORDERS:

1. Approved.

77
81st MEETING OF THE TRACK STANDARDS COMMITTEE – DECEMBER, 2010

S.No.21:

SUBJECT : Carrying out deep screening by BCM at a speed of 40kmph.

(1136/79/TM/GL/70 79th) (1167/28/80)


COMMITTEE’s OBSERVATIONS:

1. Draft correction slip to IRPWM submitted by RDSO is under consideration of


Railway Board.

2. Correction slip should be revised to include 4 hours effective traffic block


during day 5 hrs during night.

COMMITTEE’s RECOMMENDATIONS:

1 RDSO will revise the correction slip to include 4 hours effective traffic block
requirement during day 5 hrs during night.

RAILWAY BOARD’s ORDERS:

As per Board’s extant instructions, minimum duration of block for BCMs is 3 hrs
Railways have been provided with DTS machines for opening the track at 40 kmph.
Necessary lighting should be arranged for night working .Instructions should be
implemented irrespective of day or night working.

78
81st MEETING OF THE TRACK STANDARDS COMMITTEE – DECEMBER, 2010

S.No.22:

SUBJECT : Maintenance problem in 1 in 12 fan shaped layout.

(1142/79/CT/PTX) (1167/30/80)
COMMITTEE’s OBSERVATIONS:

1. RDSO has modified the drawing for special bearing plates at sleeper no. 24, 25,
26 & 27 for holding tongue rail by steel shoulder (RT-7074). This drawing has
been circulated to all zonal railways vide letter no. CT/PTX dated
22.06/16.07.10.

2. CTE/SWR informed the committee that the special bearing plates as per
modified drawing are functioning satisfactorily in field.

COMMITTEE’s RECOMMENDATIONS:
1. Since the performance of special bearing plates at sleeper no. 24, 25, 26 & 27
for holding tongue rail as per modified drawing is satisfactory; all zonal railways
should adopt the modified drawing for special bearing plates on fan shaped
layout.
2. This item is recommended for closure.

RAILWAY BOARD’s ORDERS:

1. Approved.
2. Approved.

79
81st MEETING OF THE TRACK STANDARDS COMMITTEE – DECEMBER, 2010

S.No.23:
SUBJECT : Yardstick for USFD testing.
(1143/79/CT/USFD) (1167/31/80)
COMMITTEE’s OBSERVATIONS:

1. Central, Western and N.F Railway to expedite the work study report using
analogue as well as digital rail/weld tester.

2. Committee has not met even once.

COMMITTEE’s RECOMMENDATIONS:

1. Central, Western and N.F Railway to under take the work study using analogue
as well as digital rail testers/weld testers and submit report to RDSO for
consideration by committee.

2. Committee should finalize the report of work study within next three months
and submit to Railway Board for consideration.

RAILWAY BOARD’s ORDERS:

1. Approved.
2. Approved.

80
81st MEETING OF THE TRACK STANDARDS COMMITTEE – DECEMBER, 2010

S.No.24:
SUBJECT : Visibility requirement for unmanned LCs
(1147/80/ EL)

COMMITTEE’s OBSERVATIONS:

1. Draft correction slip to IRPWM submitted by RDSO is under consideration of


Railway Board.

COMMITTEE’s RECOMMENDATIONS:

1. Railway Board is requested to expedite approval and issue correction slip to


IRPWM.

RAILWAY BOARD’s ORDERS:

Item is to be closed after issue of correction slip to IRPWM.

81
81st MEETING OF THE TRACK STANDARDS COMMITTEE – DECEMBER, 2010

S.No.25:

SUBJECT : Discrepancies in IRPWM & USFD Manual regarding provisions


pertaining to metallurgical testing of rails/welds.

(1148/80/ IRPWM, USFD & AT Welding Sub Committee)

COMMITTEE’s OBSERVATIONS:

1. Draft correction slip to IRPWM is under consideration of Railway Board.

2. RDSO to expeditiously submit draft correction slip to USFD manual and AT


welding on issue of correction slip to IRPWM.

COMMITTEE’s RECOMMENDATIONS:
1. Railway Board is requested to expedite approval and issue correction slip to
IRPWM.

2. RDSO to expeditiously submit draft correction slip to USFD manual and AT


welding manual to Railway Board for approval after issue of correction slip to
IRPWM by Railway Board in reference to item 1 above.

RAILWAY BOARD’s ORDERS:

1. Approved.

2. RDSO should submit draft correction slip to USFD manual and AT Welding
manual for approval after issue of correction slip to IRPWM by Railway Board
in reference to item 1 above.

82
81st MEETING OF THE TRACK STANDARDS COMMITTEE – DECEMBER, 2010

S.No.26:

SUBJECT :Flaw detected in SKV welds with 3 piece moulds by 450 2 MHz single
crystal probe
(1150/80/ USFD & Welding/Policy)
COMMITTEE’s OBSERVATIONS:

1. Matter may be closed as there is improvement in results obtained by testing of


AT welds using digital AT weld testers.

COMMITTEE’s RECOMMENDATIONS:
1. Item may be close as procedure has already been issued by RDSO.
2. Digital weld testers should be used to avoid false DFW flaws in welds.

RAILWAY BOARD’s ORDERS:

1. Approved.
2. Approved.

83
81st MEETING OF THE TRACK STANDARDS COMMITTEE – DECEMBER, 2010

S.No.27:

SUBJECT : Maintenance of thick web switches


(1151/80/ TWS)
COMMITTEE’s OBSERVATIONS:

1. RDSO has developed a proforma for inspection of thick web switches with
location of wear measurement and this proforma has been circulated to all zonal
railways vide letter no. CT/PTX dated 30.7.2010 for their comments. However,
none of the zonal railways have sent comments to RDSO till now.

2. CTE/CR informed that recording of knife edge included in proforma is not


required in case of thick web switches.

3. Members of the TSC observed that there should be only one proforma for
inspection of Points & Crossings for both overriding and thick web switches.

COMMITTEE’s RECOMMENDATIONS:

Zonal railways should send comments to RDSO on the proforma developed by RDSO
for maintenance of thick web switches . After getting the comments, RDSO should
finalize the proforma for inspection of thick web switches.

RAILWAY BOARD’s ORDERS:

Approved.

84
81st MEETING OF THE TRACK STANDARDS COMMITTEE – DECEMBER, 2010

S.No.28:

SUBJECT : Maintenance of Spring Setting Devise :

(1152/80/ TWS)
COMMITTEE’s OBSERVATIONS:

1. As decided in the last meeting, zonal railways have not sent report on
maintenance problem of SSD in field. Nor did they suggest maintenance
procedure to RDSO.

2. However, RDSO has developed laying and maintenance instructions along with
proforma to record the performance of SSD. The same has been circulated to all
zonal railways vide letter no. CT/PTX/TWS/Design dated 23.11.2010.

COMMITTEE’s RECOMMENDATIONS:
Zonal railways should send their comments on laying and maintenance instructions
developed by RDSO at the earliest. After getting the comments from zonal railways,
RDSO should finalize the laying and maintenance instructions of SSD.

RAILWAY BOARD’s ORDERS:

Approved

85
81st MEETING OF THE TRACK STANDARDS COMMITTEE – DECEMBER, 2010

S.No.29:

SUBJECT : Emergency sliding boom at level crossing gates.

(1154/80/ LC/Safety)
COMMITTEE’s OBSERVATIONS:

1. CTEs felt that provision of additional boom is not required and existing chain
arrangement is sufficient.

2. The item may be closed.

COMMITTEE’s RECOMMENDATIONS:
1. Railway Board is requested to close the item as the existing safety chain
arrangement is adequate as an emergency lifting barrier on level crossing.
RAILWAY BOARD’s ORDERS:

Approved. Item is closed.

86
81st MEETING OF THE TRACK STANDARDS COMMITTEE – DECEMBER, 2010

S.No.30:

SUBJECT : Formulation of procedure for testing of vertical flaws in USFD


testing.
(1156/80/ USFD)
COMMITTEE’s OBSERVATIONS:

1. SCR has conducted trial to detect vertical transverse flaw with 73.5o and WR
with 73o and this will replace 70o probe.

2. Results are satisfactory as conducted by 73.5o by SCR and 73o probe by WR


for detecting vertical flaws.

3. RDSO has suggested some more study with flat bottom artificial vertical
transverse defects.

COMMITTEE’s RECOMMENDATIONS:
1. SCR and WR should submit detailed report as desired by RDSO vide letter no.
CT/USFD dated 17.09.10 and 03.11.10 respectively for testing of vertical flaw.
2. On getting report from SCR and WR, RDSO should standardize 73o/73.5o probe
for testing of transverse flaws including vertical transverse defects in rail head.
RAILWAY BOARD’s ORDERS:

1. Approved.
2. Approved.

87
81st MEETING OF THE TRACK STANDARDS COMMITTEE – DECEMBER, 2010

S.No.31:

SUBJECT : Minimum track centre for new 3rd and 4th lines.

(1157/80/ SD/Rev/BG/MG)
COMMITTEE’s OBSERVATIONS:

1. If track center to center distance is not increased then safety of trackmen will be
endangered.

2. No trolley on middle line inspection is going on.

3. In suburban section trolley is not operated.

4. Mega block should be introduced on suburban sections for push trolley inspection
of track as well as multiple lines.

COMMITTEE’s RECOMMENDATIONS:

1. Centre to Centre distance of track for 3rd and 4th lines should be 7.8 m from safety
consideration of trackmen doing track maintenance for new lines.
2. Mega block should be introduced on suburban sections and multiple lines for
inspection of track by push trolley as center to center distance can not be increased
for the existing tracks.
3. Area should be demarcated outside the moving dimensions of the train in both
directions for use of patrol man & keyman on multiple lines.

RAILWAY BOARD’s ORDERS:

Board’s orders on the matter have already been issued vide no 1157 of 80thTSC wherein
this recommendation of TSC was not approved.

88
81st MEETING OF THE TRACK STANDARDS COMMITTEE – DECEMBER, 2010

S.No.32:

SUBJECT : Trial of different fastening components on Indian Railways.

(1160/80/ EF/TRIAL)
COMMITTEE’s OBSERVATIONS:

1. Thermoplastic elastomeric pad has been laid by NR, NCR, ECoR, SCR and CR
and about one year time has passed. The pads laid in NCR has been inspected
by RDSO for six months performance.

2. Improved Rubber pad trial can be deferred for the time being as testing machine
of impact attenuation and inclined repeated load test are being procured by
M&C Directorate of RDSO. CTE/CR proposed that these tests can be done in
laboratory out side India. If Central Railway get these tests done outside India
in any Lab, they can procure the item for trial.

3. Nylon cord reinforced GRSP for turn out have not been procured by zonal
Railways. Some Zonal Railways have called tenders. Trial of this item should
be expedited.

4. Rail pad developed by M/s Rawatsons - Only SCR has laid these pads. Other
railway are in process of procurement. SCR should send the report on proforma
in one month.

5. Insulated metal liner developed by M/s Rawatsons - Only SER has procured
these insulated metal liner. Other railways are in the process of procurement.

6. ERC Mk-V and G-clip has been discussed in TSC as separate item (item no.
1182).
7. PSC sleepers for 25 t – ECoR and SER have placed PO. Laying of these
sleepers is to be done at the earliest.

8. Insulated fitting for steel channel sleeper – Joint performance report has not
been sent by any railways except SCR. SCR has reported satisfactory
performance of these fittings. The performance of insulated fittings of M/s
Shree Bihari Ji Corporation has not be reported by Northern Railway. Other
zonal railways should also sent joint performance to RDSO.

9. The trial need to be expedited to reach conclusions and take benefit out of it.

10. There is still problem of indent vetting in CR regarding funds and allocation.
There is need to frame policy for trial. Railway Board ordered that trial should
be charged to DRF/Revenue. One committee consisting of Railway Board
officials and RDSO official including Finance member exists for formulating
uniform trial policy.
89
81st MEETING OF THE TRACK STANDARDS COMMITTEE – DECEMBER, 2010

COMMITTEE’s RECOMMENDATIONS:
1. Trials should be expedited to arise at conclusions.
2. The trial of improved rail pad may be deferred due to non-availability of testing
facilities in India. However, if railway can arrange for testing of pads from out
side India, they can go ahead with trial.
3. Concerned zonal railway should send the performance report for the item
Thermoplastic elastomeric pads and Insulated fittings for steel channel sleeper.
4. Concerned zonal railway should expedite the trial for the item Nylon chord
reinforced GRSP, rail pad developed by M/s Rawatsons, Insulated metal liners
developed by M/s Rawatsons and PSC sleepers for 25t.
5. Finalisation and issue of uniform trial policy being dealt by committee should be
expedited.

RAILWAY BOARD’s ORDERS:

1. Approved.
2. This issue is under consideration of board.
3. Approved.
4. Approved.
5. Approved.

90
81st MEETING OF THE TRACK STANDARDS COMMITTEE – DECEMBER, 2010

S.No.33:
SUBJECT : Inspection and maintenance of points and crossings

(1161/80/ PTX)

COMMITTEE’s OBSERVATIONS:

1. IRICEN/Pune is modifying the proforma for inspection of points & crossings.


Accordingly Sr. Professor/IRICEN/Pune presented the revised proforma to the
Members of TSC.

2. Members of TSC observed that the revised proforma should be circulated to all
zonal railways for their comments first, then only it can be scrutinized in detail.

3. IRICEN/Pune should involve RDSO also for development of proforma.

COMMITTEE’s RECOMMENDATIONS:

IRICEN/Pune should circulate the revised proforma to all Zonal Railways and RDSO
for their comments. Zonal railways should send comments to IRICEN at the earliest
after receiving the draft proforma for inspection of points & crossings.

RAILWAY BOARD’s ORDERS:

Approved

91
81st MEETING OF THE TRACK STANDARDS COMMITTEE – DECEMBER, 2010

S.No.34:

SUBJECT: Increase in top formation width


(1163/80/ GE/Gen/TSC/13)
COMMITTEE’s OBSERVATIONS:

Members discussed the issue afresh and have the opinion that the increase in formation
width from two criteria below is based on purely technical reasons.

1. Increase in ballast cushion from 300mm to 350mm.


2. The side slope of ballast haunches/profile 1.5H :1V,
should be adopted keeping in view the ballast cushion of 350mm and stability
requirement for lateral stability. The increase in the width based upon above
both criteria will be one meter both in single line as well as in double line (in
formation and cutting).
3. The increase in cess width from 1065 mm to 1200 mm can be dispensed with for
time being as it will increase the cost of project as per the view of Railway
Board.

COMMITTEE’s RECOMMENDATIONS:

Committee recommends that formation width be increased as under:


1. In Embankment – Single line 6.85 to 7.85 m
Double line 12.16 to 13.16m
2. In Cutting Single line 6.25 to 7.25m
Double line 11.55 to 12.55 m

RAILWAY BOARD’s ORDERS:

Board’s orders on the matter have already been issued vide item no 1163 of 80th TSC
wherein the recommendation of TSC was not approved.

92
81st MEETING OF THE TRACK STANDARDS COMMITTEE – DECEMBER, 2010

S.No.35:

SUBJECT : Criteria for Deep Screening of ballast

(1166/80/ GE/Gen/TSC/13)

COMMITTEE’s OBSERVATIONS:

1. The issue was discussed. RDSO apprised that no Rly. has given the requisite
information to evaluating the criteria for deep screening though proforma was
sent in Feb. 2010. However WCR mentioned that the same had been given by
them to RDSO in Sept. 2010. Director/IRICEN also mentioned that some data
available with Shri Manjul Mathur/Chief Engineer/S.Rly. can also be taken by
RDSO. Director/IRICEN has also suggested RDSO should improve upon the
proforma by incorporating maintenance effort put in the track between two deep
screening.

COMMITTEE’s RECOMMENDATIONS:
1. Committee recommends that RDSO should issue new proforma which include
maintenance efforts put in by the Rly. in the track between two deep screening.
The revised proforma should be issued to Rly. within one month i.e. Jan. 2011.
2. Contamination Index evolved by RDSO should be validated based on frequency
of tamping between successive deep screening.

RAILWAY BOARD’s ORDERS:

RDSO is to evolve new criteria of deep screening which incorporates maintenance


efforts.

93
81st MEETING OF THE TRACK STANDARDS COMMITTEE – DECEMBER, 2010

S.No.36:

SUBJECT : Maintenance tolerance of gauge


(1168/80/ IRPWM)
COMMITTEE’s OBSERVATIONS:

1. Draft correction slip to IRPWM submitted by RDSO is under consideration of


Railway Board.

COMMITTEE’s RECOMMENDATIONS:

1 Railway Board is requested to expedite approval and issue of correction slip to


IRPWM.
RAILWAY BOARD’s ORDERS:

Vide Board’s letter no.2010/CE-II/CS/1 dt.01.10.2010,RDSO was asked to send


correction slip to para 1404 of IRPWM as it was decided not to change maintenance
tolerance of gauge and keep provision for special slack gauge sleepers for curves
sharper than 40 in para 1404.RDSO should send correction slip within a fortnight.

94
81st MEETING OF THE TRACK STANDARDS COMMITTEE – DECEMBER, 2010

S.No.37:
SUBJECT : Modification in F/S Turn Out (1 in 8.5 & 1.12) Drawings.

(1169/80/ PTX/Policy)
COMMITTEE’s OBSERVATIONS:

1. The design of longer sleeper have been completed and drawing issued to N.C.
Railway.

2. RDSO should issue the drawing to other Zonal Railway also.

3. The use of longer sleeper will improve the maintenance of Points and Crossing
in regard to machine tamping.

COMMITTEE’s RECOMMENDATIONS:

1. RDSO should issue drawings of longer sleeper for 1 in 8.5 fan shaped turnouts
and 1 in 12 fan shaped turnouts to all other Zonal Railways.

2. Since the design of longer sleepers has been completed by RDSO and drawing
issued to NCR, the item may be closed after issue of drawings to other Zonal
Railways also.

RAILWAY BOARD’s ORDERS:

1. Approved.
2. Approved.

95

You might also like