STRUCTURE GAUGING:

OPTIMISING THE LOAD CARRYING CAPACITY

OF EXISTING RAILWAYS

Graham Scott

British Rail Research

PO Box 2
London Road, Derby DE24 8YB
United Kingdom

Tel.: +44 332 264691

Abstract: Structure gauging of railway vehicles is carried out to ensure that they can run
safely along a particular route without coming unacceptably close to lineside structures
and equipment, or to other vehicles running on adjacent tracks. Traditionally, this process
has been carried out with the help of fixed static gauges for the vehicles and lineside
structures, separated by a minimum clearance to allow for tolerances and track move-
ments. If the amount of space surrounding the tracks is large, this appears to be a
reasonably straightforward exercise. However, if commercial pressures require larger
trains to be run on an existing railway line, it is possbile that clearance requirements will
be difficult, or even impossible, to satisfy. In order to provide a more detailed assessment
of the ability of a vehicle to pass along a route, BR has developed a method of kinematic
gauging which has allowed the continued introduction of larger vehicles on an already
restricted network. This paper describes the philosophy of kinematic gauging and some
of the problems which need to be addressed if the method is to be applied successfully.

Keywords: structure gauging, kinematic gauging, clearances

215
1 • INTRODUCTION

Structure gauging of railway vehicles is carried out to ensure that they can run safely
along a particular route without coming unacceptably close to lineside structures or
equipment, or to other vehicles running on adjacent tracks. This apparently straight-
forward question is, in reality, very complicated.

The amount of space required for the safe passage of a railway vehicle is significantly
greater than its static body profile for a number of reasons:

as the vehicle runs along the track, the track input causes the vehicle to move on the
flexibility of its suspension,
on curved track its geometric position leads to curve overthrows,
allowance has to be made for track movement over the maintenance cycle, for
vehicle component deterioration, wheel and rail wear, etc.

2• TRADITIONAL METHODS

The traditional method on BR for determining the acceptable size of railway vehicles
was to define a set of ·Loading Gauges• which were the maximum static sizes to which
vehicles could be built. A standard amount of clearance was then added to this gauge to
allow for all vehicle movements giving the ·structure Gauge• which was the space
around the track within which lineside structures and equipment could not be placed.

The chief drawback of this method is that all vehicle movements, together with an
acceptable clearance, are assumed to be contained within the specified allowance. As
the business pressure for improved passenger comfort increased, vehicles were desi-
gned with increasingly flexible suspensions and it became clear that this assumption
would no longer be safe for passenger vehicles.

The UIC approach to the problem of gauging differs from that of BR in a number of
respects. The starting point is a "reference profile", which is part way between a loading
gauge and a structure gauge. The mechanical engineer then works inwards from this
profile allowing for anticipated vehicle dynamic movements, and vehicle end and centre
throws on a 250m radius curve to derive a body size. The civil engineer works outwards
from the profile allowing for the effects of track irregularities, gauge widening on curves
and vehicle roll to obtain the limiting dimensions for structures.

The allowances made by both methods are treated as constant for quite wide classes
of vehicle types, no detailed account is taken of particular vehicle suspension designs
and individual track locations are not treated separately.The inclusion of end and centre
throws from a 250m curve for all track down to that radius in the UIC method produces
more clearance than necessary on larger radius curves. Therefore, in most circum-
stances the UIC method leads to a more restricted vehicle size than the BR method.On
BR, the combination of a restricted space envelope along with business pressures for
longer and wider vehicles with more flexible suspensions demanded a more sophist~
cated method and the method of kinematic gauging was derived.

Most railway administrations within the UIC have much more space available around
the tracks than BR as shown by the comparison between the static profiles of a UIC and
a BR vehicle in Figure 1. These administrations are therefore less restricted in vehicle
design than BR, and have historically benefitted from the UIC gauging method being
more simple to apply than a kinematic method. With increasing commercial pressures for
larger vehicles this position may need to be reviewed.

216
 ----- --- - , UIC BODY PROFILE
'
'' \
I
I
I
I

BR BODY PROFILE

:01! ~

I
I
I
I .
I
I
I
I

\. ]1 l
~ I
TRACK C/1..

Figure 1. Comparison of UIC and BR vehicle profiles

3• KINEMATIC GAUGING

The method of kinematic gauging attempts to allow for actual suspension movements
rather than assuming all vehicle movements are limited to a fixed tolerance. The
important factors which determine the movements of the vehicle relative to the track are
the kinematic envelope of the vehicle on its suspension and body overthrows on curved
track. Movements from these sources can be combined to generate swept envelopes
which are then compared with the structure gauge at a particular location.

3.1. Kinematic Envelopes

The important factors which influence the movement of a vehicle relative to the track
are:

response to steady cant deficiency or excess,

response to track alignment irregularities,
• wheel and rail wear,
• wheel-rail flangeway clearance,
• body building tolerance,
• suspension failure conditions.

All of these factors must be taken into consideration when calculating kinematic
envelopes and, as several of them are dependent on local track layout (curvature, cant)
and vehicle speed, it will be seen that the kinematic envelope is not a single profile. If a
single envelope were to be derived then it would need to include the worst possible
combinations of speed, cant, etc. which would be unnecessarily restrictive at most track
locations.

217
 The main component of the kinematic envelope is the amount of suspension move-
ment, and hence vehicle sway, that results from the track input. This movement has two
parts, that due to steady cant deficiency or cant excess at a location and the speed-
related dynamic movement in response to track alignment irregularities.

In the kinematic gauging method developed by BR, the lateral acceleration produced by
dynamic movements is converted to an amount of cant which would produce the same
amount of lateral acceleration. The combination of cant deficiency or excess and cant
related to dynamic movement is known as the WEquivalent Canr for that particular track
location.

The method therefore requires knowledge of the amount of body movement (or sway)
which will result from a given level of equivalent cant. There are a number of possible ways
of determining this. A set of equations have been derived which make some simplifying
assumptions about suspension behaviour but which are valid for much modern rolling
stock. Alternatively, computer simulation software, such as the VAMPIRE program, could
be used to build a model of the vehicle suspension and to derive the movements.

The relationship between sway and cant depends on the stiffness of the vehicle
suspension. As modern vehicles generally include bumpstops in both lateral and vertical
directions the suspension stiffens as the displacement increases and the relationship is
usually of the form shown in Figure 2.

Sway Cant Graph For a Typical Vehicle

50 100 150 200 300 350 400

Equivalent Cant (mm)

Figure 2. Typical Sway-Cant Relationship

In order to confirm that the behaviour derived from calculations is representative of

the vehicle as built, all passenger vehicles and locomotives on BR are subject to a Type
Test for Sway. In this test, a cant is imposed on the vehicle in the laboratory by inserting
increasing levels of packing under the wheels on one side of the vehicle and measuring
the resulting movement of the body from a datum position. The results of this test are
used to validate the calculations and any discrepancies are investigated.

218
3.2. Curve Overthrows

As a vehicle passes along a curved section of track, geomet ric effects will cause the
vehicle to throw towards the inside of the curve between bogie pivots and towards the
outside of the curve beyond the bogie pivots, as shown in Figure 3. Curve overthrows will
occur in both lateral and vertical directions. Again curve overthrows can be calculated
according to the track curvature at a particular location. H the body ends have a tapered
profile then a number of different positions need to be considered and different points will
give the maximum outer throw depending on the curve radius.

Outer o ver throw

-
_
.---- --- - ------- - .. ___
--
~

.....
' '
/
Inner overthrow

R:idiusR

\ Figure 3. Curve Overthrows

3.3. swept Envelopes

The appropriate curve overthrows for each location can be combined with the rele-
vant kinematic envelopes to give the swept envelope. The swept envelope represents
the maximum amount of space which would be needed in order for a vehicle to pass a
particular piece of track, taking all possible speeds into consideration.

The maximum swept envelope to the outside of any curve will be generated by a
vehicle operating at the maximum line speed and cant deficiency for that location,
together with the overthrow of the worst point on the body end taper.

For the worst case on the inside of the curve, two factors need to be considered.
When a vehicle is stationary it has the maximum cant excess and will lean inwards on
the curve. As the speed increases the cant excess, and hence the steady lean, will
decrease; however, the dynamic movements will increase. The speed at which the
combination of these two effects gives the maximum movement towards the inside of the
curve is referred to as the "trundle" speed. This speed depends on the curve radius and
on the dynamic characteristics of the vehicle.

Combination of the worst case movements to the inside and outside of the curve at a
particular curve gives the space envelope required for the vehicle to pass that point. H
this envelope is calculated as the vehicle moves along the track, a swept envelope is
obtained. The swept envelope is an imaginary tube within which the vehicle will always
remain as it passes along the track under all conditions.

219
3.4. Appllcatlon

Kinematic gauging was originally used to compare new vehicles for any given route
with existing vehicles already running on that route to check that the swept envelope of
the new vehicle was no larger than the existing one. This comparative approach has the
advantage that any simplifying assumptions made in the kinematic envelope calculat ion
are applied equally to both vehicles, although care is needed if the operating conditions
(speeds, cant deficiency) of the two vehicles at a particular location are not the same.
Passenger businesses are keen to maximise the number of passengers per vehicle,
resulting in longer and wider vehicles. As vehicles become longer, tapered ends are
required to minimise overthrow problems towards the outside of curves. Soft vehicle
suspensions are generally required in order to improve the ride quality of vehicles, and
larger permitted suspension displacements, to reduce the incidence of bumpstop con-
tacts. However, both of these lead to greater dynamic movements and therefore larger
kinematic envelopes.

New vehicles which are larger, and have softer suspensions, than existing vehicles
will clearly not produce swept envelopes which are within those of existing vehicles .
More recently therefore, kinematic gauging has been applied in an absolute sense to
compare a vehicle with measured structure positions rather t han with other vehicles . In
order to do this, it is of course necessary to know the precise location of the lineside
structures, relative to the track.

Automated ways of measuring the clearance to lineside structures over long track
lengths have therefore been developed and a computer software package produced
which automates the calculation of swept envelopes and the subsequent comparison of
swept envelopes with lineside structure profiles (Figure 4).

..'
' I I '
'
'I .
I
''
.'
'
.
I I

I/
I

11
I I I I

I/ I/
...
II
- II

I:'
__ , 11

Figure 4. Computer comparison of swept envelopes and structure

4• CONCLUSION

Structure Gauging of Railway Vehicles is a complicated, but essential, activity. Struc-

ture gauge requirements often conflict with other design considerations leading to

220
compromise solutions being necessary. As operating and business requirements lead to
an increasing amount of space being necessary for a train to pass along the track, the
methods necessary to confirm safe passage need to increase in complexity. The kine-
matic method developed by BR has successfully addressed these problems and allowed
the continuing introduction of such trains.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The author wishes to thank the Managing Director of British Rail Research and the
British Railways Board for permission to publish this paper.

221