Chapter 5 – basic planning parameters

1. Page 5/238 – Add in the second para next to the first sentence –
“Nevertheless basis of design parameters for the permanent civil structure and track
has been adopted for higher speed up to 250 kmph forecasting the possibility of
introduction of higher speed tilting train on a later stage”

2. Page 5/238 – 3 rd para second sentence to be modified –

“These are applicable for SG (1435 MM) and for a system speed of 200 kmh
(operational speed) and are permissive and amenable for introduction of higher
speed tilting train on a later stage

3. Page 5/239 –item no. 5 in the table

“Limiting gradient’’ to be replaced as - “limiting gradient inclusive of curve
compensation”.

4. Page 5/240 – Table, item 14 - 3 rd column to be changed as follows

“NH/SH/Major district raod – 5.5 m, for other minor roads 4.5 – 3.66 m / as per the
provisions in IRC as the case may be”.

5. Page 5/241 – Para no. 5.2 – Third sentence to be removed and replace with the
following.
“It is imperative that safety is to be ensured not only during the construction and the
project execution stage but in operation and continued use of the assists as well.
Effort is made in this report two outline the requirement and the standards for
ensuring the desired level of quality, serviceability and maintainability of the SHSR
Structure with a perspective of maximising the return value of the money spent on
the project.

6. Page 5/242 –Insert as the second sentence of the para 5.2.1

“Ballast less track has been widely recommended and adopted all over the railway
system in world as a viable alternative to conventional ballasted track especially for
high speed and metro rail project”.
Existing/present 3 rd sentence in the para to be deleted.

7. Page 5/242 – Second para 6 th / last sentence to be deleted. After that the following
to be added in the para.
“However strategy for selection of the appropriate track supporting structure is
guided by the following factors”.
Item 1- Technical feasibility
Item 2 – Cost of contraction – the cost of construction is extremely higher for
viaduct/ elevated structure in comparison with the structures constructed at grade
as emblements etc
 Item 3 – Local availability of the construction material.
Item 4 – Scope of reusing of the materials generated by the construction for the
adjoining reaches
Item 5 – Accessibility for heavy duty construction machinery
Item 6 - Site specific constrains and requirement
Item 7 – Ecological environmental and social factor etc
The strategical factors considered for deciding the type of track supporting
structures to be adopted was elaborated in details in chapter 8. A combination of
embankments, cuttings, cut and cover, viaduct and tunnels are adopted as track
supporting structures.
To decide the suitable type of track structure to be adopted for the SHSR an in-depth
study of the various features, merits and demerits etc of Ballast less track and
Ballasted track has been done. A comparative statement of various features, merits
and demerits etc of ballasted track and ballast less track are furnished below.
8. Page 5/243 – Table 5/2 – Item 5- Column 3 replace as follows
“Life is commensurate with the standard of Maintenance-Not less than 30years with
good maintenance practices
Item no, 6 of the table – Column 3 replace as follows
“Adequately stable with the soffit, lateral and longitudinal ballast resistance.
Standard and compacted ballast section with adequate shoulder and crib ballast to
be ensured.
Item no. 6 6 of the table- column 4- replace as follows-
“Stable with adequate lateral and longitudinal restraints offered by the fastening
system.”
Item no. 7 of the table - 3 rd column- replace as follows
“Satisfactory – full and well compacted ballast section with adequate crib and
shoulder ballast to be ensured”.
Item no 13 of the table– Replace the 3 rd column as follows-
“Intergranular friction under the traffic result in grinding and pulverising of ballast in
service reducing the permeability and resilience by chocking. Periodical ballast
cleaning/screening is necessary. “

9. Page 5/245 – Selection of the type of track (ballsted or ballesteless track) – The
complete text in the first para under this heading to be deleted and to be replaced as
follows

“The comparative statement furnished above depicts the inter se merit and de-
merits of the ballasted and ballast less track. Obviously the BLT has many advantage
in respect of maintenance aspects inclusive of maintenance cost and overall
possession/occupation of the track for maintenance etc. But with the advent and
introduction of highly sophisticated modern track maintenance machine, the
maintenance of ballasted track has become more simple and effective especially for
the ballasted track laid on heavy flat bottomed PSC sleepers at uniform closer
spacing. Moreover, the retention of the track geometry is considerably longer with
the deployment of the modern track machine and tampers for maintenance. Hence
frequency of track tamping and track maintenance also has been considerably
reduced. By proper planning and streamlining the maintenance operation, it is
possible to optimise and reduce the overall track occupation time for maintenance.
Moreover, there is also scope for cost reduction of the maintenance by adopting
scientific, quality and planned maintenance practices for ballasted track.
On the other hand, the initial capital cost for installing the BLT track is extremely high
in comparison with the ballasted track. Besides the additional cost involved in
designing and constructing the structures- especially the elevated structures -to with
stand the additional forces developed by rail structure interaction, also contribute
for the escalation of the overall cost of the structure. Apparently the maintenance
cost of the BLT is less. But rectification of track parameters is difficult in BLT in
comparison with the ballasted track. Such rectification often necessitates in retro
fixing of the anchor bolt etc of the fastening system of the BLT by chemical
anchoring. This may also warrant replacement of the costly fastening
systems/components of the fastening. In case of BLT, for carrying out the major
repairs, complete demolishing and recasting of the track plinth/track slab shall be
seldom necessary which is extremely costly and may impediment the traffic badly.
From the above aspects it is evident that BLT has its own limitations with respect to
the maintenance aspects of the track is concerned. Even though the overall life cycle
cost of BLT and Ballasted track may be comparable with a marginal advantage for
the BLT, the factors explained above and listed down substantiate the advantage of
ballasted track over BLT.
1. Initial capital cost of installation is very high for BLT and considerably lesser for
Ballasted track.
2. For the track laid at grade section, embankment etc the track slab arrangement
for BLT, - considering the overall terrain with weaker subsoil/subgrade- shall requires
very higher cost.
3. Difficulty and additional efforts are required for correction of the geometrical
parameters of the track in BLT although the normal maintenance is easier. But
correction of geometrical parameters of track is relatively easier in Ballasted track.
4. Impediments to the traffic in case of major repair and restoration etc are
comparatively higher in BLT than ballasted track.
5. Cost factor involved for the major repair and restoration etc. shall also be higher
for BLT in comparison to the Ballasted track.
6. Resilience of the track is only provided by the elastic pads in BLT. The elastic pads
are very costly and are to be in good condition for ensuring the required resilience
and riding comfort. In practice the replacement of the elastic pads is found necessary
at shorter intervals whenever riding indices are deteriorated in BLT.
7. With the advent of modern sophisticated track machine, the geometry and riding
comfort of ballasted track should be maintained more easily.
In the light of the above discussion, it is sagacious to adopt the type of track
structure for the SHSR corridor (Silver Line) as furnished below.
a) BLT has been proposed to minimum extend.
b) BLT is proposed only in longer elevated section (more than 2 km continues
stretch) and in tunnels.
c) The ballasted track is recommended for the rest of the reaches.