FprCEN/TR 15273-5
(Main)Railway applications - Gauges - Part 5: Background, explanation and worked examples
Railway applications - Gauges - Part 5: Background, explanation and worked examples
This document presents the background of gauging methods, gives calculation examples for both rolling stock and infrastructure based on gauging methods from prEN 15273-2 and prEN 15273-3, and also demonstrates some relevant formulae.
Bahnanwendungen - Begrenzungslinien - Hintergrund, Erläuterung und praktizierte Beispiele
Applications ferroviaires - Gabarits - Partie 5 : Contexte, explication et exemples
Železniške naprave - Profili - 5. del: Ozadje, razlaga in praktični primeri
General Information
Standards Content (Sample)
SLOVENSKI STANDARD
01-februar-2019
äHOH]QLãNHQDSUDYH3URILOLGHO 2]DGMHUD]ODJDLQSUDNWLþQLSULPHUL
Railway applications - Gauges - Part 5: Background, explanation and worked examples
Bahnanwendungen - Begrenzungslinien - Hintergrund, Erläuterung und praktizierte
Beispiele
Applications ferroviaires - Gabarits - Partie 5 : Contexte, explication et exemples
Ta slovenski standard je istoveten z: FprCEN/TR 15273-5
ICS:
45.060.01 Železniška vozila na splošno Railway rolling stock in
general
2003-01.Slovenski inštitut za standardizacijo. Razmnoževanje celote ali delov tega standarda ni dovoljeno.
FINAL DRAFT
TECHNICAL REPORT
RAPPORT TECHNIQUE
TECHNISCHER BERICHT
November 2018
ICS 45.020; 45.060.01
English Version
Railway applications - Gauges - Part 5: Background,
explanation and worked examples
Applications ferroviaires - Gabarits - Partie 5 : Bahnanwendungen - Begrenzungslinien - Hintergrund,
Contexte, explication et exemples Erläuterung und praktizierte Beispiele
This draft Technical Report is submitted to CEN members for Vote. It has been drawn up by the Technical Committee CEN/TC
256.
CEN members are the national standards bodies of Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia,
Finland, Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania,
Luxembourg, Malta, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Serbia, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland,
Turkey and United Kingdom.
Recipients of this draft are invited to submit, with their comments, notification of any relevant patent rights of which they are
aware and to provide supporting documentation.
Warning : This document is not a Technical Report. It is distributed for review and comments. It is subject to change without
notice and shall not be referred to as a Technical Report.
EUROPEAN COMMITTEE FOR STANDARDIZATION
COMITÉ EUROPÉEN DE NORMALISATION
EUROPÄISCHES KOMITEE FÜR NORMUNG
CEN-CENELEC Management Centre: Rue de la Science 23, B-1040 Brussels
© 2018 CEN All rights of exploitation in any form and by any means reserved Ref. No. FprCEN/TR 15273-5:2018 E
worldwide for CEN national Members.
Contents Page
European foreword . 4
Introduction . 5
1 Scope . 6
2 Normative references . 6
3 Terms and definitions . 6
4 Symbols and abbreviations . 6
5 General . 6
6 Historical background . 7
6.1 Why gauging? . 7
6.2 Defined gauges . 8
6.3 Absolute and comparative process . 9
7 Technical background . 11
7.1 Defined gauges . 11
Rolling stock . 11
Infrastructure . 56
Creating a defined gauge . 67
7.2 Absolute and comparative process . 71
Main steps to performing an absolute gauging assessment . 71
Main steps to performing a comparative gauging assessment . 71
Clearances and control measures . 72
Effective position of the track . 73
Platform stepping distances . 73
Generation of track data for use in absolute and comparative process . 77
Background to statistical evaluation and clearance categories in prEN 15273-1 . 84
Information on vehicle “datum” used in calculation of swept envelopes . 85
Guidance on choosing between two or three datum points for calculation of maximum
suspension displacement . 86
Determining survey and measurement accuracy . 86
8 Examples: defined kinematic gauges . 87
8.1 General . 87
8.2 Rolling stock . 87
Passenger coach with 2 trailer bogies without rotation bump stops with gauges G1 + GI2
............................................................................................................................................................................. 87
Passenger coach with 2 trailer bogies with rotation stops with G1 + GI2 . 93
Multiple unit with 1 trailer bogie + 1 motor bogie with GB + GI2 . 96
Application for particular articulated trainset . 102
Checking the pantograph in collecting position . 106
Analysis of an open door and steps for FR 3.3 and GI2 . 108
Calculation of bogie gauge for G1+GI2 . 112
Tilting trains with an active system . 116
Passive tilting passenger vehicles with single axles. 123
Wagon and marshalling hump . 131
Defined new formulae in special cases . 134
8.3 Infrastructure . 137
General . 137
Gauge GB + GI2 on straight track . 137
Gauge GB + GI2 in curve track . 146
Pantograph. 155
Platform calculation . 158
Distance between the track centres . 160
Transition curve . 164
9 Examples: defined dynamic gauges . 169
9.1 Rolling stock . 169
Multiple unit . 169
Pantograph. 176
9.2 Infrastructure . 178
General . 178
Gauge SEa on straight track . 178
Gauge SEa in curved track . 184
Pantograph for SEa . 192
Platform calculation for Sea . 193
Distance between track centres for Sea . 194
10 Examples: absolute and comparative gauging process . 197
10.1 Absolute example . 197
Introduction . 197
Input . 197
Methodology . 199
Calculating the swept envelope . 202
Building the swept envelope . 203
Including the effective track position . 204
Calculating the clearance . 205
10.2 Comparative example . 206
Input data . 206
Methodology . 207
Results . 208
10.3 Hybrid example – combination of comparative and absolute method . 209
10.4 Absolute gauging example for pantographs . 210
Introduction . 210
Method 1 – static pantograph gauge example . 210
Method 2 – Benchmark sway values example . 212
Bibliography . 214
European foreword
This document (FprCEN/TR 15273-5:2018) has been prepared by Technical Committee CEN/TC 256
“Railway applications”, the secretariat of which is held by DIN.
This document is currently submitted to the Vote on TR.
This document is part of a series of standards that consists of the following parts:
— prEN 15273-1, Generic explanations and methods of gauging, which gives the general explanations of
gauging and defines the sharing of the space between rolling stock and infrastructure;
— prEN 15273-2, Rolling stock, which gives the rules for dimensioning vehicles;
— prEN 15273-3, Infrastructure, which gives the rules for positioning the infrastructure;
— prEN 15273-4, Catalogue of gauges and associated rules, which includes a non-exhaustive list of
reference profiles and parameters to be used by infrastructure and rolling stock; and
— FprCEN/TR 15273-5, Background, explanation and worked examples (present document).
Introduction
The aim of this Technical Report is to define the rules for the calculation and verification of the
dimensions of rolling stock and infrastructure from a gauging perspective.
This document gives gauging processes taking into account the relative movements between rolling stock
and infrastructure and the necessary margins or clearances.
This part of the series prEN 15273 covers generic explanations and methods of gauging and is used in
conjunction with the following parts:
— Part 1: Generic explanations and methods of gauging;
— Part 2: Rolling stock;
— Part 3: Infrastructure gauges;
— Part 4: Catalogue of gauges and associated rules.
1 Scope
This document presents the background of gauging methods, gives calculation examples for both rolling
stock and infrastructure based on gauging methods from prEN 15273-2 and prEN 15273-3, and also
demonstrates some relevant formulae.
2 Normative references
The following documents are referred to in the text in such a way that some or all of their content
constitutes requirements of this document. For dated references, only the edition cited applies. For
undated references, the latest edition of the referenced document (including any amendments) applies.
prEN 15273-1:2018, Railway applications — Gauges — Part 1: Generic explanations and methods of
gauging
prEN 15273-2:2018, Railway applications — Gauges — Part 2: Rolling stock
prEN 15273-3:2018, Railway applications — Gauges — Part 3: Infrastructure
prEN 15273-4:2018, Railway applications — Gauges — Part 4: Catalogue of gauges
EN 50119, Railway applications — Fixed installations — Electric traction overhead contact lines
EN 50367, Railway applications — Current collection systems — Technical criteria for the interaction
between pantograph and overhead line (to achieve free access)
3 Terms and definitions
For the purposes of this document, the symbols and abbreviations given in prEN 15273-1 apply.
ISO and IEC maintain terminological databases for use in standardization at the following addresses:
• IEC Electropedia: available at http://www.electropedia.org/
• ISO Online browsing platform: available at http://www.iso.org/obp
4 Symbols and abbreviations
For the purposes of this document, the terms and definitions given in prEN 15273-1 apply.
5 General
This document (FprCEN/TR 15273-5:2018) has been prepared by Technical Committee CEN/TC 256
“Railway applications” for better reading and understanding of the standard. All examples contained in
this Technical Report are for guidance and are not contractual.
This document aims at defining the obstacles implementation, the tracks implementation and the sections
for rolling stocks in order to ensure the service safety. These rolling stocks are designed according to the
different types of existing or future configuration.
This document explains the general philosophy of the methods used and of the history of the evolution of
the rules. Therefore, the reader should be able to adapt the philosophy or formulae to his specific cases.
6 Historical background
6.1 Why gauging?
The following photographs demonstrate the importance of gauging.
Figure 1 — Container contact on the bridge
Figure 2 — Clearance between access doors and platform
6.2 Defined gauges
The historical development of the rules of kinematic gauge is the subject of the UIC 505-5. As a summary,
the needs of transport and of interoperability led the railways operators in 1913 to adopt a common
gauge.
This gauge was defined as the UT (Technical Unit) and was a static gauge.
Until then, the rules practiced by the networks were not unified and pose interoperability problems. The
UT static gauge consists of a reference contour and associated rules which allow infrastructure managers
to set up barriers and responsibility for the design of rolling stock to define the vehicles allowing safe
traffic next to the obstacles and next to cruisers trains.
Given the evolution of rolling stock: the lengthening of the wheelbase vehicles and bogies, the increase of
the speeds and passenger comfort, etc., many parameters have therefore had an impact on the increase
flexibility suspensions as well as clearance between carbody and bogie, UIC was requested in 1953 to
develop a kinematic gauge. Thus was published in 1956 a first version of UIC 505, completed in 1957 by
a table defining the lateral projections.
The basic principle of the method used at the time was the use of a reference profile that allowed to clearly
separate the responsibilities of rolling stock and infrastructure, dividing the lateral movements so that
they are taken into account a single time.
This breakdown leads to the standard values such was the case for cant that is shared between the rolling
stock and infrastructure. Thus, the first 50 mm of cant or cant deficiency is covered by the rolling stock.
The rest of the cant or the cant deficiency is taken into account by the infrastructure.
The same goes for the flexibility coefficient (For example, for the gauge G1 its value is 0,4) except that its
reference value this time is limited by the infrastructure. If this value is exceeded by the designers of the
rolling stock, it is to their responsibility to adapt the vehicle's exterior dimensions to respect the space
cleared by the infrastructure.
Thus were developed the UIC 505 (all parts) for various type of rolling stock and for infrastructure.
In 1991, the 5th and 7th UIC Commissions decided to group the first three leaflets under the name
UIC 505-1 and maintain UIC 505-4 and UIC 505-5.
Subsequently, the implementation of European Standards development led to renew these calculation
methods while
— optimizing, for example using generic formulas in the calculation of the lateral reductions,
— adapting,
— because they were such striking passage reduction formulas on marshalling humps for special
wagons,
— creating rules for the area of wheels and live parts on the roof.
Rolling stock sized following UIC 505-1 and UIC 506 is compatible with the requirements of EN 15273 for
kinematic gauges below:
— G1, GI1, GI2 and G2 for UIC 505-1;
— GA, GB, GB1, GB2, GC and GI3 for UIC 506.
6.3 Absolute and comparative process
The historical development of the absolute and comparative gauging process originated in the rail
network of Great Britain (GB). Early trains and infrastructure built were small; it was only once their
popularity was established that larger rolling stock was produced. Fortunately, the difference in size
between structures built and the limiting structure gauge meant that larger trains could be easily
accommodated. Today's railway is very different in GB; a requirement for larger, high-capacity trains,
containerised freight (in 9'6" high boxes) presents quite a different problem to small goods wagons. The
combination of cross-sectional area, shape, length and speed all place a space requirement on today's
railway that could not be dreamed about in Victorian times, although GB continues to use much of the
same infrastructure. Historically not only were many structures built bigger than required, but the space
allowed between trains and structures was large also. This space is known as clearance. Clearance is
provided to accommodate movement of the train as it travels and to provide a safety margin to
accommodate track maintenance, unknown situations, tolerances, etc. and sometimes to provide safe
walking routes.
As GB has built progressively larger trains, they have reduced the clearance originally provided. Tracks
have been moved to accommodate the often conflicting demands of wide passenger trains and tall freight
container trains (which don't fit neatly through arched bridges and tunnels).
The simplest form originally used by GB was using static gauges. Following nationalisation, standard
gauges for locomotives (L1), carriages (C1) and wagons (W1 to W5) were introduced in 1950, these being
gauges that would fit virtually anywhere on the national railway network. The W6 gauge, larger than W5
and quickly replaced with W6a once issues regarding clearances to third rail electrified track were
identified, was added later. The W6a gauge is now the most widely used wagon gauge on the modern GB
railway network. W6a however does not guarantee route compatibility with the entire British railway
network (‘go-anywhere’), and assumes wagon type suspension parameters which makes it unsuitable for
use in building other types of rolling stock such as passenger vehicles. Whilst GB retains the use of static
gauges in some circumstances, their use has been superseded by more sophisticated analysis to make
better use of space.
Following extensive research the 1970-80s, a methodology was established by British Rail Mechanical
and Electrical Engineering Department for the calculation of vehicle sways and drops named Design
Guide 501 or “BASS 501”. This hand-calculated technique enabled the calculation of simple vehicle body
sways from speed and cant deficiency or excess from which the dynamic space required could be
calculated and compared to structures along a route.
Since then, increasingly sophisticated computer modelling systems were developed, together with more
accurate tools for measuring the actual size of infrastructure. The systems and processes were adopted
by the GB Rail Industry as the absolute and comparative process which allowed the understanding of how
much trains move and how much safety margin to provide, to make more effective use of the existing
Victorian built infrastructure.
It is through the use of these systems and processes and that tilting trains, large containerised freight
trains and modern commuter rolling stock can be run in GB – this would not have been possible using
traditional processes without vast expenditure in providing additional (and arguably unnecessary) space
to accommodate them. Avoiding these large capital expenditures is traded off against a need to tightly
control infrastructure position and maintain a high level of asset knowledge.
The absolute and comparative gauging process cover a series of techniques that ensure that sufficient
space exists around a moving train (clearance) to provide safe operation. The complex, computer
modelling processes used in the absolute dynamic gauging process provide the greatest level of 'fit'
between trains and structures (and passing other trains).
Comparative gauging provides for the certification of compatibility by a process of demonstrating that
new rolling stock can be operated in 'the shadow' of rolling stock which already has certification on the
routes that new rolling stock is to be operated on. In absolute gauging, the actual space required to run a
vehicle along a route is compared with the actual size of structures and the position of adjacent tracks
along that route.
In practice, both can only be done through computer simulation, where the dynamic swept envelopes of
candidate and comparator vehicles are compared over the range of speeds and cant deficiencies /
excesses that would be experienced on the route, where the route data is kept up to date by the
infrastructure manager.
7 Technical background
7.1 Defined gauges
Rolling stock
Before beginning a gauge calculation it is necessary to collect, reference contour and associated rules (see
prEN 15273-4) as well as product-related data:
— the vehicle data: type of configuration conventional or non- conventional, the pivot centre distance
“a”, the length of the carbody, variation law of lateral clearance between the carbody and bogies “𝑤𝑤”
depending on the curve radius;
— characteristics bogies (motor or trailing bogie) and their suspensions ( flexibility coefficient s,
downward displacements 𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴, distance between suspension springs 𝑏𝑏 or 𝑏𝑏 ) wheelbase axle 𝑝𝑝,
1 2
wheel wear 𝑈𝑈𝑈𝑈𝑈𝑈 and 𝑑𝑑;
— associated rules (see prEN 15273-4);
— data on conditions of operation and maintenance.
prEN 15273-1:2018, 5.2 gives further explanations and links between the different parts of this standard.
The generic procedure can be summarized as:
a) know and assimilate standard(s) to respect any pertinent requirements;
b) know and understand the rolling stock configuration;
c) determine the position of the bumps stops between carbody and bogie, check the free movement of
the bogies without interference with the carbody in very small radius curve (think comfort of the
passengers);
d) determine clearances 𝑤𝑤 in the cross-section of the bogie pivot (may depend on the curve radius);
e) determine the lateral reductions;
f) determine the vertical reductions depending on the suspension characteristics and connections;
g) determine the maximum construction gauge in the relevant cross-section;
h) complete this calculation by taking into account the particular components: implantation of the
pantographs, sensor location, antenna, reducing gaps in access steps.;
i) write all results in the calculation file in order to get the homologation;
j) the calculated values may change according to the updating of the project: a new calculation should
be performed.
When developing new configurations such as an articulated vehicle with an offset articulation or other
solution, it is necessary to apply the philosophy stated in the standard to implement secure calculations
as practiced throughout modelling.
The aim of the calculations is to search for a given configuration for maximum space offer travellers
comfort and for freight vehicles better cargo capacity.
To take into account all criteria and architectural organization of the train (switching module) it is
necessary to design vehicles that make up the train according to the gauge rules. Caution is necessary to
adapt the formulae of this standard according to the chosen configuration as in the current version of this
standard are only treated the two bogies on conventional vehicles and articulated vehicles (see
prEN 15273-2:2018, A.1.3) for example for tilting trains and vehicles installation and track maintenance.
Figure 3 and Figure 4 show different classical configurations.
Figure 3 — Example of conventional vehicles with 2 bogies
Figure 4 — Example of articulated trainset with standard and Jakobs bogies
Figure 5 and Figure 6 show different hybrid configurations for which formulas should be adapted.
Key
1 key vehicle
2 bogie pivot
3 articulation between cars
Figure 5 — Example of configuration with offset articulation
Key
1 key vehicle
2 bogie pivot
3 articulation between cars
Figure 6 — Example of configuration with suspended carbody
An example of development of formulas is proposed in 8.2.10 of this document for the same conditions
as conventional vehicles: straight line and constant radius.
It is necessary to check these configurations for other conditions such as s-curves, switches and crossings
in order to be sure that these vehicles do not infringe the infrastructure gauge. Two specific cases should
be checked:
a) S-curve of 190 m radius without an intermediate straight section;
b) S-curve of 150 m radius with an intermediate straight section of 6 m.
The figure below shows the difference in the geometric overthrow with respect a conventional vehicle
when considering train configuration corresponding to Figure 5 in an s-curve without intermediate
straight track.
Key
1 additional geometric overthrow
2 S-curve without an intermediate straight section corresponding to the case n°1
3 conventional vehicle centreline
4 direction of the additional lateral displacements of the carbody
Figure 7 — Example of configuration with offset articulation in a s-curve
The bogies and suspension systems permit to support the loads and to distribute the load generally on
two axles, filter track defects and improve the comfort in vehicles, including sometimes active or passive
tilting devices.
The gauging calculation of the bogie is similar to that of a vehicle on two axles but is only applicable in
the lower parts of the reference profile (see prEN 15273-4).
Components linking the carbody and the bogie should respect the gauge. Their worst position should be
analysed case by case taking into account displacements of bogie and carbody (for example dampers,
cables, deflated pneumatic suspension, etc.).
Two types of bogies, motor bogies and trailer bogies, have the main functions to support the suspended
masses, to insure the guidance on the track, and for our purpose to maintain the carbody within the limits
set by the rules of the gauging process.
For that, some bump stops limit the lateral displacements between carbody and bogies (see Figure 8 and
Figres 9 to 14). The suspension systems limit the carbody rolling (flexibility coefficient) and the vertical
displacements by filtering the track defects.
Key
1 bump stop by the bogie pivot
2 curve dependent bump stops
Figure 8 — Example of position of the lateral bumps stops on a trailer bogie
(See prEN 15273-2:2018, Figure D.1.)
See UIC 505-5:2010, 10.4.
The behaviour of the bogie is dependent on the adhesion between the wheel and the rail.
For the purposes of this standard, the bogies are classified according to their adhesion factor 𝜇𝜇 on starting.
If 𝜇𝜇≥ 0,19 the bogie is designated “motor”.
If 𝜇𝜇 < 0,19 the bogie is considered “trailer”.
Historical note:
Previously the formula for calculating the value of this coefficient was expressed for a stopped vehicle in
a curve with a cant (D) 0,100 m and calculated as follows:
2 2
𝐹𝐹𝑤𝑤 𝐷𝐷
�
𝜇𝜇 = � � +� �
𝑔𝑔.𝑀𝑀 𝐿𝐿
𝑒𝑒
2 ²
𝐷𝐷 0,1
Very often this formula has been written with � � = 0,0044444 … (= � � ) and used with this
𝐿𝐿 1,5
numerical value for all European networks, whatever the distance L between the top of rails.
To avoid incoherence, and mainly for vehicles equipped with bogies having the possibility to change their
distance between wheels, this standard uses a simplified formula leading to the same result:
Fw
𝜇𝜇 = with a limit value = 0,19
g.M
e
�( 0,19² + 0,0044444 … ) = 0,20 as in the previous version of the standard.
Thus, the new calculation of this ratio no longer takes into account the effects of cant:
𝐹𝐹𝑤𝑤
𝜇𝜇 =
𝑔𝑔.𝑀𝑀
𝑒𝑒
The resulting positions of the bogies in the track are given in prEN 15273-2 (see coefficient 𝐴𝐴 in
prEN 15273-2).
The gauge calculation involves specific calculations and checking in accordance with technologies used
for example
— from envelope of displacement of the bogies,
— from the deformation of pneumatic secondary suspensions,
— the positioning of the dampers; anti-yaw dampers, other, .,
— existing or not anti-roll bars,
— sanding systems,
— the lubrication systems,
— grounding of braids (current return),
— tilting bogie,
— electrical and pneumatic flexible connections between carbody and bogie,
— etc.
The lateral clearance 𝑤𝑤 is limited by lateral bump stops which are located between carbody and the
bogies.
Depending on the bump stop design, "𝑤𝑤"may have a fixed value or a value variable with curve radius.
For the purposes of this standard, these values are transposed at the bogie pivot.
In most cases, they are located in the lateral axis of the bogie pivot. Their design can vary and are flexible
in most cases to improve passenger comfort on contact. In this case, the deformation of the latter is
included in 𝑤𝑤.
NOTE The amount of deformation taken into account depends on the gauging method (see prEN 15273-2).
The figure below gives an example of the position of this bump stop.
Key
1 carbody
2 bogie pivot
3 lateral bump stop with elastic element
Figure 9 — Bump stops on the bogie pivot
When present, their purpose is to limit the lateral displacement of the carbody relative to the bogies in
small radii curves, so as to obtain a wider vehicle.
The figure below gives an example of simple design of curve dependent bump stops arrangement.
Key
1 carbody
2 bogie
3 bump stops beyond the pivots (clearance 𝑤𝑤 )
𝑎𝑎,(𝑅𝑅)
4 bump stops between the pivots (clearance 𝑤𝑤 )
𝑖𝑖,(𝑅𝑅)
5 bogie centreline
6 carbody centreline
7 bogie pivot
Figure 10 — Curve dependent bump stops
The curve dependent bump stops located beyond bogie pivots limit the displacement outside of curve
(𝑤𝑤 ), those between pivots limit the displacement inside of curve (𝑤𝑤 ).
𝑎𝑎 𝑖𝑖
Key
1 centreline of the track
2 centreline of the carbody
3 centreline of the bogie
4 curve dependent bump stops between bogie pivots
5 curve dependent bump stops beyond bogie pivots
Figure 11 — Displacements of the carbody w and w
i a
Depending on their design, the contact surfaces of these bump stops could be simple (flat bump stops) or
more complex.
The figure below gives an example of a vehicle with progressive bump stops.
Figure 12 — Example of a vehicle with progressive bump stops
As mentioned in prEN 15273-2:2018, A.3.2 the value of lateral clearance between the carbody and the
bogies is determined for a position of the axis of the bogie centered in the track. In order to simplify the
process, only the geometrical rotation Δ of the bogie is taken into account, but not the skew of the bogie
and the carbody.
Key
1 centreline of the track
2 centreline of the bogie
Figure 13 — Rotation angle of the axis of the bogie according to the track radius
The value of the angle Δ can be calculated using the following simplified formula:
𝑎𝑎
𝑈𝑈𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠∆=
2𝑅𝑅
NOTE In this calculation, the effect due to geometric overthrow of the bogie is not taken into account.
The figure below illustrates the evolution of the lateral clearance between the stops and bogies frame
depending on the variation of the angle ∆:
Key
1 path of the bogie frame
2 lateral clearance between bump stops in curve of 1 000 m
3 lateral clearance between bump stops in curve of 250 m
4 lateral clearance between bump stops in curve of 150 m
Figure 14 — Carbody/Bogie w clearance in a curved track
i
When analyzing the lateral displacement of the carbody as a function of the curvature of the track
(function1/𝑅𝑅), the contribution of each bump stop is determined.
For a given curve radius, only the maximum value of 𝑤𝑤 applies for gauging.
This approach determines the radii at which a "discontinuity point" appears (point 4 in figure below).
The figure below gives an example of this variation law of 𝑤𝑤 depending on value of 1/𝑅𝑅 and the radius at
which the curve dependent bump stops are considered.
Key
1 bump stops by bogie pivot
2 curve dependent bump stops between bogie and carbody for a flat form
3 curve dependent bump stops between bogie and carbody for a progressive form
4 discontinuity point (change in the bump stop to be taken into account)
Figure 15 — Lateral clearance "w" according to the curve radius
The discontinuity points give the supplementary critical radii 𝑅𝑅 for the calculation of the gauge (see prEN
15273-2:2018, A.4.1.1).
𝐷𝐷 𝐼𝐼
The full quasi-static roll is 𝑄𝑄 =𝑈𝑈∙ ∙ |ℎ−ℎ | for inside the curve or 𝑄𝑄 =𝑈𝑈∙ ∙ |ℎ−ℎ | for outside the
𝑐𝑐 𝑐𝑐
𝐿𝐿 𝐿𝐿
curve.
The rolling stock takes into account a value 𝑧𝑧 inside the reference profile and the infrastructure
𝑐𝑐𝑖𝑖𝑐𝑐
manager takes into account 𝑞𝑞𝑈𝑈 outside the reference profile. 𝑄𝑄 =𝑧𝑧 +𝑞𝑞𝑈𝑈.
𝑐𝑐𝑖𝑖𝑐𝑐
For 𝐷𝐷≤𝐷𝐷 or 𝐼𝐼≤𝐼𝐼 , no quasi-static roll is taken into account by infrastructure.
0 0
For 𝐷𝐷 >𝐷𝐷 or 𝐼𝐼 >𝐼𝐼 , the value 𝑞𝑞𝑈𝑈 taken into account by the infrastructure depends on the height ℎ >ℎ
0 0 𝑐𝑐0
for the value 𝑈𝑈 . No quasi-static roll is taken into account by infrastructure for ℎ ≤ℎ .
0 𝑐𝑐0
The value 𝑧𝑧 depends on 𝑈𝑈 and ℎ of the vehicle under consideration, the height ℎ and the fixed values
𝑐𝑐𝑖𝑖𝑐𝑐 𝑐𝑐
of 𝐷𝐷 or 𝐼𝐼 .
0 0
For ℎ≥ℎ the entire quasi-static roll is taken into account by the rolling stock with 𝐷𝐷 or 𝐼𝐼 and 𝐷𝐷
𝑐𝑐0 0 0 𝑚𝑚𝑎𝑎𝑚𝑚
or 𝐼𝐼 .
𝑚𝑚𝑎𝑎𝑚𝑚
For the lower parts of a not tilting vehicle, the roll effect 𝑧𝑧 in direction opposite to the clearances 𝑞𝑞 +𝑤𝑤
𝑐𝑐𝑖𝑖𝑐𝑐
is not taken into account by the rolling stock for ℎ ≤ℎ , because 𝑞𝑞 +𝑤𝑤 is considered to be bigger.
𝑐𝑐
NOTE Nevertheless in lower parts, for vehicle with 𝑈𝑈 >𝑈𝑈 , it should be verified and taken into account the
possibility to have 𝑧𝑧 higher than 𝑞𝑞 +𝑤𝑤.
𝑐𝑐𝑖𝑖𝑐𝑐
Key
1 clearance 𝑞𝑞 +𝑤𝑤
2 value 𝑧𝑧 in the opposed direction
𝑐𝑐𝑖𝑖𝑐𝑐
Figure 16 — Taking into account the roll effect in the lower parts of not tilting rolling stock
Key
1 value 𝑧𝑧 taken into account by the rolling stock
𝑐𝑐𝑖𝑖𝑐𝑐
value 𝑞𝑞𝑈𝑈 taken into account by the infrastructure manager
Figure 17 — Agreement splitting the roll effect between infrastructure and not tilting rolling
stock
Key
1 𝑧𝑧 calculated with the value s of the candidate vehicle and 𝐷𝐷 or 𝐼𝐼
𝑐𝑐𝑖𝑖𝑐𝑐 0 0
2 𝑞𝑞𝑈𝑈 calculated with the value s and (𝐷𝐷−𝐷𝐷 ) or (𝐼𝐼−𝐼𝐼 )
0 0 >0 0 >0
3 supplementary 𝑧𝑧 calculated with the value (𝑈𝑈−𝑈𝑈 ) and 𝐷𝐷 −𝐷𝐷 or 𝐼𝐼 −𝐼𝐼
𝑐𝑐𝑖𝑖𝑐𝑐 0 >0 𝑚𝑚𝑎𝑎𝑚𝑚 0 𝑚𝑚𝑎𝑎𝑚𝑚 0
Figure 18 — Agreement between infrastructure and not tilting rolling stock when 𝒔𝒔 >𝒔𝒔 and
𝟎𝟎
𝒉𝒉 =𝒉𝒉
𝒄𝒄 𝒄𝒄𝟎𝟎
Key
1 𝑧𝑧 calculated with the value s of the candidate vehicle and 𝐷𝐷 or 𝐼𝐼 (taken into account by the rolling stock)
𝑐𝑐𝑖𝑖𝑐𝑐 0 0
𝑞𝑞𝑈𝑈 calculated with the value s and (𝐷𝐷−𝐷𝐷 ) or (𝐼𝐼−𝐼𝐼 ) (taken into account by the infrastructure)
0 0 >0 0 >0
3 supplementary 𝑧𝑧 calculated with the value (𝑈𝑈−𝑈𝑈 ) and 𝐷𝐷 −𝐷𝐷 or 𝐼𝐼 −𝐼𝐼 (taken into account by the
𝑐𝑐𝑖𝑖𝑐𝑐 0 >0 𝑚𝑚𝑎𝑎𝑚𝑚 0 𝑚𝑚𝑎𝑎𝑚𝑚 0
rolling stock)
General case if 𝑞𝑞 +𝑤𝑤 >𝑧𝑧 in the opposed direction.
𝑐𝑐𝑖𝑖𝑐𝑐
Figure 19 — Agreement between infrastructure and not tilting rolling stock when 𝒉𝒉 >𝒉𝒉 and
𝒄𝒄 𝒄𝒄𝟎𝟎
𝒔𝒔 >𝒔𝒔
𝟎𝟎
In EN 15272-2, A.3.3.2 «Contact ramps» in a lateral distance of 0,065 m have been introduced in
Formulae (A.24) and (A.25). This distance aims to give an acceptable limit for to give a good electrical
contact between the brush and the contact ramp.
Key
1 track centreline
2 brush
3 contact ramp “crocodile”
4 maximum value of displacement (65 mm)
5 contact ramp width (100 mm)
6 brush width (90 mm)
7 minimum contact width (30 mm)
Figure 20 — Contact between ramp and brush
This value of 65 mm is obtained as follows:
Contact ramp width(5) + Brush width(6)
� �− Minimum contact width(7) ≤ 65 mm(4)
Gauge compliance should be checked individually for each line.
The operation of tilting trains is dependent on a series of infrastructure parameters, a risk analysis of the
behav
...
Questions, Comments and Discussion
Ask us and Technical Secretary will try to provide an answer. You can facilitate discussion about the standard in here.