Coach Dev Elopement

Developments in Coach Design on

Indian Railways

S.Singh. AP/C&W

IRIMEE

Historical Development

• Pre-1955 Wooden bodied IRS coaches• 1955 ICF set up at Perambur, Chennai in

collaboration with Schlieren of Switzerland to make coaches with

– Steel integral coach shell– Fabricated bogie– Coil primary springs– Laminated secondary springs– Speed potential of 96 km/h

Historical Development

• Secondary suspension modified to Coil springs

• Length of bolster hanger increased to 410 mm in place of 286 mm

• Side bearers to transfer body weight in place of centre pivot

Historical Development

• 16t bogie for AC coaches

• Adoption of Air brakes

• Bogie mounted air brake system

• Composition brake blocks in place of Cast Iron

Historical Development

• RCF set up at Kapurthala to make coaches to ICF design

• Variants developed like:– AC self-generating and End-on-

generating– MG versions– 2-tier AC, AC chair cars, 3-tier AC

Historical Development

• EMUs were imported from Metrocamel/UK and SIG/ Switzerland

• EMUs manufactured at ICF and Jessops/Kolkata

• Variants developed:– Metro coaches– Rail-cars– DMUs, MEMUs

ICF coach - Speed Up-gradation

Speed Year Remarks96 1955 Original design of Schlieren105 1965 All coil spring, weight transfer

through side bearer120 1969 Improved track standards to

C&M 1(Vol 1) 130 1971 Trials - Introduction of

Rajdhani140 1988 Trials - Introduction of

Shatabdi

Design Objectives

• Corrosion Control

• Weight Reduction

• Increase in speed potential

• Increased Payload

• Increased train length

• Passenger amenity

• Safety and Maintainability

Corrosion Control

• Low alloy steel IRS M-41 specified– Similar to Corten-A– UTS 460 N/sq mm YS – 320 N/sq mm

• Decolite on wooden floor-boards replaced by 2mm PVC on 12 mm compreg boards

• Stainless steel/ epoxy inlay for toilets• Ferritic SS for sole bar, pillars, turn-under• Austenitic SS for trough floor

Weight Reduction

• IRS M-41 use reduces 1.1t per coach

• PVC flooring reduces 1.1t per coach

• Change from 24V DC to 110V reduces 0.6t per coach– Weight increase:

• Increased water tank capacity of 1820 l (from1280 l)

• Upholstered seats in II class

• Additional fans

• Increased height 4025 mm from 3889 mm

Increased speed potential

• Original coach had a speed potential of 96 km/h on main line track

• Modified all-coil bogie has a speed potential of 105 km/h on main line track and 140 km/h on C&M-1 standard track

Limitations of ICF bogie

• Dashpot prone to leakage – uncontrolled damping

• Longitudinal and lateral flexibility of axle guidance cannot be controlled independently

• Space constraints limit use of low frequency vertical and lateral suspension design

• Bogie headstock increases its yaw inertia

• Friction damping in lateral direction is not controlled

• Requires frequent maintenance – springs, roller bearings

IR-15 bogie• ICF bogie upgraded for speed of 160 km/h:

– Secondary suspension made softer, with longer springs. Space made by lowering the spring beam, raising the bogie frame and coach body bolster. Stiffness of 88.57 kg/mm against existing 191.75 kg/mm.

– Length of bolster hanger increased from 410mm to 630mm. Space created by lowering the lower spring beam and raising the bolster suspension bracket from below the bogie frame to the middle. Natural frequency lowered from 0.95 to 0.74 Hz. Transverse resilient stops with non-linear characteristics act after 25mm swing of the bolster.

IR-15 bogie (contd.)– Dashpots replaced by 4 shock absorbers of 200 kg

capacity

– Transverse spacing of secondary springs has been increased from 2254 mm to 2310 mm, to reduce tendency for rolling

– Tapered roller bearings TAROL 130 x 230 (UIC 130C)

– Axle mounted disc brakes for high speed

– Wheel diameter reduced from 915 to 865 mm, reducing unsprung mass by 140 kg/wheelset

– Bogie frame weight reduced by 300 kg by using IRS M41steel

IR-15 bogie (contd.)– Corresponding IRX shell developed with straight side

walls (no turn-under) and no pockets for corrosion

– IRX shell has body bolster modified to suit IR-15 bogie

– Stress investigation for fatigue done. Maximum stress was 106.7 N/sq mm

– Riding was found satisfactory during simulation by NUCARS. Results at 180 km/h:

IR-15 ICF

Vertical RI 3.34 3.72

Lateral RI 3.44 3.41

– Project closed due to development of IR-20 bogie

IR-20 Bogie – Design Concepts

• Axle flexibility in longitudinal and lateral direction to be optimised independently

• Flexi-coil secondary suspension

• Y-frame design to provide space for secondary suspension

• No head-stock and shorter wheel-base

• Better noise isolation

IR-20 Bogie – Design Concepts

• IRY shell developed to suit

• Bogie suitable in Fatigue tests and NUCARS simulation

• Shell suitable in squeeze test and FE simulation

• Shell is lighter by 2.5t

• Coach is lighter by 1.5t

• Field Tests at 140 km/h (limited by CRS):

IRY/IR-20 ICF

Vertical RI 2.91 3.21

Lateral RI 3.08 3.28

Projects Completed Recently

High Capacity Parcel Van

VPH

High Capacity Parcel Van VPH

• Existing limitationsParcel Van VP/VPU

• Pay load limited to 17 tonnes.

• Maximum speed limited to 110 km/h on Rajdhani standard track.

• Solution conceptUse of progressive coil spring suspension.

• ScopeDesign of two stage secondary suspension bogies.

High Capacity Parcel Van VPH

High Capacity Parcel Van VPH

• Results• Pay load increased from 17 to 23 tonnes.• Cleared for speed of 130 km/h on Raj. Standard

track.• Route proving run has been conducted and

railways advised to obtain sanction for running at speeds upto 130 km/h on NDLS-SBC route.

• Project completed in March 2002.

High Capacity Parcel Van VPH

• Cost Implication• Estimated Rs. 1.38 lakhs per coach.• Pay-back period of 7 months.

• Benefit • Each coach adds Rs. 3 lakhs / year to earning

potential. Manufactured 305 VPHs giving earning potential of Rs. 9 crores / year.

High Capacity Parcel Van VPH

• The Road Ahead• Railways to

• obtain CRSs’ sanction for operation at speeds of 110 - 130 km/h on other high speed routes.

• Establish mechanism to prevent overloading.

Coaching Container Flat

CCF

Coaching Container Flat (CCF)

• Existing limitations– Parcel vans have to be loaded/ unloaded at platforms.

– Maximum load of VPH is 23 tonnes.

• Solution conceptUse of container flats fit for service on express trains.

• Scope– Design of container flat on coaching bogies.

Coaching Container Flat (CCF)

Coaching Container Flat (CCF)

• Project start : Sep-98• Project completed : Sep-2001• Results

• Pay load increased to 31 tonnes, on three 81/2 feet high 20-feet ISO containers per flat.

• Speed certificate for 105 km/h on main line standard track issued in September 2001.

• Board have identified 5 trains for CCF operation.

Coaching Container Flat (CCF)

• Cost Implication• Estimated Rs. 30 lakhs per CCF as against Rs.

47 lakhs per VPH.• Estimated additional earning potential of each

flat, as compared to VP is Rs. 6 lakhs per year.

• The Road Ahead• Board have to include further manufacture in

RCF’s Production Programme.

Introduction of LHB Coaches

• Coaches received Dec 2000– 3 Executive Chair Cars– 3 Generator vans– 18 Chair cars

• Oscillation trials completed Feb 2001• Braking and coupler force test completed Mar 2001 • Route proving trials completed Mar 2001• Coaches introduced

in NDLS-LKO Shatabdi Express May 2001

• Service Experience– Favourable reaction to riding, seat design, noise

control and interiors.– Problems noticed:

• Uncoupling - Modifications made and service re-introduced. M/s LHB to replace couplers.

• Air-conditioning - software modified.

Salient Features- Body– Light weight– Stainless steel body for low corrosion– Longer coach by 2m - additional capacity– Better use of fire retardant material– Improved interiors– Modular state-of-the-art lavatory– Speed control discharge toilet– Efficient heat and sound insulation– Double seal glass windows

Salient Features - Coupling

• Introduction of tight-lock CBC coupler in coaching stock

• Elimination of shuttling effect

• Anti-climbing feature in case of accident

• Eliminate train parting

• ACP with emergency braking

• Eliminates un-coupling of coaches during accident

Salient Features - Bogie

• Bogie frame - EUROFIMA type bogie– Y-shape two side frames

– Side frame connected with 2 tubular cross members

– Simple in construction

BOGIE FRAME

Salient Features - Bogie

Primary Suspension:

• Nested steel coil springs

• Hydraulic dampers

• Control arm axle guidance

• Rubber spring over steel spring

• Lateral flexibility - reduced wheel wear

Salient features – Bogie Primary Suspension

Salient features - Bogie

Secondary Suspension:• Nested flexi-coil steel spring

• Rubber bellow inside coil springs for progressive characteristics

• Rubber springs at top and bottom of steel springs

• Hydraulic vertical and lateral damper

Bogie Secondary Suspension

Secondary suspension

Anti-roll bar

• Body bogie connection:– Provides rigid connection between body and

bogie – Consists of disc spring– Capable to transmit 0.25g acceleration in

normal operation and 5g in emergency condition

Body-bogie connection

• Brakes:– Disc brake system with two discs per axle– Brake cylinder with built-in slack adjuster– Upgradable to EP feature– Provision of ACP with emergency braking– Stainless steel pipes– EBD 1200m at 160 kmph on level track for 18

coach train.– Upgradable to magnetic brakes– Brake disc dia 640mm

• Others:– Wheel slip protection device to overcome flat

wheel problems– Permanent earthing connection to safeguard

axle bearings– Tapered roller bearings– Wear adopted wheel profile– Speed potential upto 160 kmph upgradable to

200 kmph– Superior ride comfort

FIAT BOGIE

FIAT BOGIE

FIAT BOGIE

LHB coach - improved safety• Complete elimination of swing link

arrangement

• No dashpot damping

• No brake linkages

• Permanent earthing connection - Protection to bearings

• Body-bogie connection to withstand 5g forces

• Wheel slip protection arrangement

LHB coach - improved safety

• Tight lock CBC coupler:– Reduced train parting– Anti-climbing feature– ACP with emergency braking

• Improved riding means better safety against derailment.

Ride Comfort on Improved Design

Oscillation Trial Results on LHB coach having FIAT bogie

Maximum Acceleration Maximum Ride Index

Speed (kmph) Vertical Lateral Vertical Lateral

120 0.16 0.12 2.20 2.10

130 0.16 0.098 2.18 2.21

140 0.14 0.14 2.38 2.19

150 0.18 0.13 2.40 2.28

160 0.19 0.13 2.41 2.54

170 0.29 0.12 2.44 2.19

180 0.18 0.11 2.46 2.19

Features FIAT ICF IR20 Speed Potential (kmph) 160 140 160 Ride Index (max.) 2.75 at

180kmph 3.5 at

140kmph 3.0 at

160kmph Weight (t) 6.5 5.72 (13t)

6.5(16.25t) 6.8

Wheel base(mm) 2560 2896 2440 Inner axle distance (m) 12.34 11.89 12.33 Wheel dia new (mm) 915 915 890 Wheel dia worn (mm) 845 814 814 Axle box guidance Articulated Rigid Articulated Dampers – Primary Hydraulic

damper Dashpot Hydraulic

damper

COMPARISON OF FIAT WITH ICF

Composition Brake Blocks

Composition Brake Blocks

• Existing limitations of Cast Iron brake blocks• Low life, high weight and maintenance intensive• Inconsistent friction over speed range

• Solution concept• use of high quality non-metallic composite material

• Scope• Development of non-asbestos based composition brake

blocks

Composition Brake Blocks

Composition Brake BlocksResults• Two sources have been developed. Dynamometer

and field trials indicate that:-– four times less wear than cast iron blocks; giving an

average life of 88 days as compared to 21 days.

– reduced braking distance due to uniform coefficient of friction

– very much lighter in weight (2.9 kg against 11 kg for Cast iron)

– less wear on brake rigging

– less noise during braking

Composition Brake Block

• Cost implications• Cost Rs. 400 per brake block, two times higher

than cast iron, but lasts four times longer.• Benefit• Full introduction of L type blocks on coaches

with underframe mounted brakes will give an estimated saving of Rs. 46 crores per year.

Composition Brake Blocks

• The Road Ahead• Board have directed the Railways and

PUs to effect the change.

Air Springs on EMUs

Air Springs on EMUs

• Existing limitationEMU suspension unable to cope up with the super-dense-crush loads of Mumbai and Kolkata.

• Solution conceptUse of self-leveling progressive pneumatic suspension.

• ScopeDesign and development of bogies fitted with air springs for DC & AC EMU coaches.

GROWTH OF PASSENGERS ON SUB-URBAN SECTION Trailer Motor Tare Wt. (t) 32.5 51.0 Pay load (t) PAST DCL 18.0 15.5 PDCL 28.5 21.0 PRESENT SDCL 34.0 28.0 (Approx.)

PROBLEMS DUE TO SUPER DENSE CRUSH LOAD

• LARGE SCALE BREAKAGE OF BOGIE COMPONENTS

• COACH BODY GRAZING AGAINST PLATFORM

• POOR RIDING

POSSIBLE SOLUTIONS

• SHORT-TERM– Strengthening of bogie components

• LONG-TERM:– Upgrade existing coil suspension– Design improved suspension bogie

UPGRADED COIL SUSPENSION

IMPROVED COIL SUSPENSION ON DC-EMU (1997)

COACH EXISTING IMPROVED

PRIMARY SECONDARY PRIMARY SECONDARY

MC 55.96 143.06 81.68 32.341

(2 nest spring set) (4 nest spring set)

TC 55.55 82.5 76.158 tare 41.144

gross 121.679

(2 nest spring set) (4 nest spring set)

* Values in Kg/mm.

* Did not show acceptable behaviour beyond 65 kmph.

AIR SUSPENSION WITH AIR SPRING AT SECONDARY STAGE

COMPARISON OF AIR SPRING AND STEEL SPRING:

STEEL SPRING AIR SPRING

* Constant stiffness * Variable stiffness

* Variable Height * Constant height

* Simple in design & * Complex in design &

construction construction

* Self-supporting * Needs control equipment and air pressure

COMPARISON OF AIR SPRING AND STEEL SPRING

AIR SPRINGS vs STEEL SPRINGS

Tare Load Full Load

Tare LoadFull Load

Steel Spring Air Spring

dymS S S

stat dym

Stotal(tare) (full)

Deflection S

Sp

rin

g F

orc

e F

dymS

dymSDeflection S

totalS

Sp

rin

g F

orc

e F

Tare

Full Unlike steel springs, air springs retaintheir height under changing loads.The low natural frequency remainsvirtually constant. Thus, air suspensionis especially suitable where passengersor fragile goods are to be transported.

Air springs vs Steel Springs

Fig

.No.

Working Principle of Pneumatic Suspension

RequiredActual

Supply reservoirEqualization

Air suspension control loop

EL

Q Q+ Q

LE

Loading Supply reservoir

Act. Req.

LE

Supply reservoir

Actual Required

UnloadingQ- Q

V V

V

• AR

AS

DV MR 150 LitresICLV

20 LIT.

LV

AR

AS

IC

FT

NRV

EXISTING M.R. PIPE

* IC - ISOLATING COCK* NRV-NON-RETURN VALVE* LV - LIMITING VALVE* AS - AIR SPRING* FT - FILTERS* MR - MAIN RESERVOIR* AR - AUXILIARY RESERVOIR* DV - D.C. VALVE

Fig. : 4 - POINT CONTROL SYSTEM

AR

AS

AS

AR

20 LIT.

LV

LVICDV

ISOLATING COCK

AIR FILTER

150 Lit. RESERVOIRNON-RETURN VALVE

FROM MAIN AIR

ISOLATING COCK

ISOLATING COCK

SUPPLY LINE

SCHEMATIC DIAGRAM OF EQUIPMENTS ON UNDERFRAME

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5

1

2

3

4

5

Air release Air addmission

litre/sec

Throttled

Lever deflection

DELAYED REACTION OF CONTROL VALVE TO AVOIDEXCESSIVE AIR CONSUMPTION

AIR SPRING

AIR SPRING DEPICTING EMERGENCY SPRING

Emergency Spring

Vo

Self - Damping Characterstics

TV

Dis

pla

cem

en

t

Time

Orifice

Lateral Spring Action

X

2Re

l2l1

Vertical Spring Action

• ELIMINATION OF SWING HANGERS AND SPRING PLANK

• PROVISION OF LOWER SPRING BRACKET

• MODIFIED BOLSTER

• PROVISION OF AIR SPRING CONTROL SYSTEM

BOGIE GENERAL ARRANGEMENT FITTED WITH AIR SPRING

INSTALLATION LEVER

LEVELLING VALVE

VERTICAL DAMPER

AIR SPRING

BOGIE FRAME

LOWER SPRING BEAM

(Secondary Suspension)

STEEL SPRING(Primary Suspension)

Rail Level

BOGIE BOLSTERAXLE BOX

PRESENT STATUS

• DC-EMU:– Two prototype coaches (1 MC & 1 TC)

manufactured in 1997– Oscillation trials passed in October 98– Service trials completed in March 2001 of one

year– Performance, found satisfactory

PRESENT STATUS

• AC-EMU:– Prototype coaches manufactured at ICF in

Feb.2000– Oscillation trials passed in July-Aug. 2000– Final speed certificate issued in Nov. 2000– Coaches are in service on ER since Mar.2001

PRESENT STATUS

• HP-DMU:– Prototype coaches manufactured at ICF in

Feb.2000– Oscillation trials passed in July-Aug. 2000– Final speed certificate issued in Nov. 2000– Coaches are in service on SR since May 2001

PRESENT STATUS

• AC/DC-EMU:

– AC/DC EMU under manufacture at ICF with air suspension.

Air Springs on EMUs

• Results• Oscillation trials successfully completed for 110 km/h.

• Service trials for one year on DC section over.

• The Road Ahead• Board have decided that future builds should be with

air springs.

• M/s Contitech/ Germany developed as a source.

• M/s Firestone under development.

Air Springs on EMUs

• Cost Implication– Estimated cost Rs. 6 lakhs per coach.– Pay-back period 6 Years.

Emergency Exit Windows

ForICF Coaches

Emergency Exit Windows

• Existing limitationsEvacuation is hampered at the time of accidents when the

door approach is blocked or door is jammed.

• Solution conceptUse of hinged windows in AC compartments.

• ScopeDesign of hinged 2’ and 4’ windows for AC coaches with

emergency opening arrangement.

Emergency Exit Windows• Project Started : Feb-01• Project Completed : Sep-01• Results

• The following designs have been standardised:

• Non-AC coaches - Grill window as per ICF/STD -5-4-005.

• AC Two feet windows: ICF/SK-5-4-168 -Side opening.

• AC Four feet windows: RDSO SK-98161 - Bottom Opening.

Emergency Exit Windows

Emergency Exit Windows

Emergency Exit Windows

• Cost Implication• Marginal

• Benefit • Will fulfill a major safety requirement

Emergency Exit Windows

• The Road Ahead• Pus have been asked to implement with

immediate effect

• Railways have been asked to implement during POH

Lighter Brake beam

For

Coaches with bogie mounted brakes

Lighter Brake beam• Existing limitations

Brake hanger failures are partly attributed to the heavy weight of the existing brake beam ( 46 kg ).

• Solution conceptTo take advantage of lower brake force with ‘K’ type

composite brake blocks

• ScopeUse a lighter brake beam for Bogie mounted brake

coaches

Lighter Brake beam

Lighter Brake beam• Project Started : June-01

• Project Completed : Feb-02

• Results• A lighter brake beam (30 kg) to drawing no. T-

3-2-624 has been selected and FEM analysis has established its adequacy.

Lighter Brake beam

• Cost Implication• Reduction in cost

• Benefit • Will reduce brake hanger failures• Will reduce weight by 128 kg per coach

Lighter Brake beam

• The Road Ahead• Railways have been asked to implement

the change during POH

Operation of 24 coach trains

on

The Mumbai Ghats

Operation of 24 coach trains• Existing limitations

24 coach trains were not being run through NE and SE ghats of Mumbai division of Central Railway.

• Solution conceptTo establish operating conditions for their operation

• ScopeConduct braking distance and coupler force measurement

trials under different conditions of loco combinations.

Operation of 24 coach trains

• Project Started : Dec-2000

• Project Completed : Dec-2002

• Results• Controllability, braking distance and coupler force

trials were conducted and conditions established:-

• Draw bar and screw coupling of steel to IS-5517

• Main & banking locos combination specified

• Single loco not suitable for descent on controllability considerations

• Double headed loco not suitable for ascent on coupler force considerations

Operation of 24 coach trains

• Cost Implication• nil, as standard stock and materials are to be

used

• Benefit • Enable running 24 coach trains in and out of

Mumbai on the Central Railway routes.

Operation of 24 coach trains

• The Road Ahead• 24 coach trains are now being planned to

run through the Central Railway route

Road Railer

Road Railer• Existing limitations

• Poor interface of road with rail

• high handling time

• Solution concepts• Use of multi-modal transport system

• Scope• development of Road Railer for door to door service

ROAD RAILER

Road Railer• Results

• Road Railers proposed by M/s Kirloskar Pneumatic are cleared up to 80 km/h on Main line standard track.

• Service trials conducted for six months on NGP-Pune.

• Speed certificate for running at speeds upto 80 km/h issued for Kodal-Cochin section.

• Oscillation trials completed satisfactorily upto 110 km/h on Pune - Lonavala section.

Road Railer• Infrastructure required

– For KPC• Road railer units -Estimated cost Rs. 20 lakhs each.

• Tractor units

– For IR• Transfer lines with level track.

• The Road ahead– Marketing and terminal arrangements are to be made.

Fire Control

Fire retardant components

Objective:Materials used in coach furnishing should delay/retard propagation of fire so that enough

time is available for passengers to evacuate the train and for fire fighting methods to be put into operation.

NOT release toxic fumes or melt and drop when they burn.

Fire retardant componentsDevelopments Made by RDSO:

Location Change Year

Roof Ceiling Hard boards replaced by Limpet Asbestos sheets

1982

Vestibule Canvas bellows replaced by Metal/Rubber UIC vestibules

1991

Interior Panels LP sheets to upgraded specification C-9602

1996

Upholstery Rexine upgraded to C-9503 1998

Curtains Specified fire resistant fabric to C-9911

2002

Wheel Failures

Investigations and Remedial Measures

Wheel Failures- Investigations and Remedial Measures

• 11 wheels failed from Dec’99 to Dec’2001 leading to derailment of passenger trains.The following causes were identified– High carbon, manganese and silica inclusions

led to lower fracture toughness of wheels.– Rim quenching not carried out at Durgapur

Steel Plant (DSP)– Ultrasonic testing not carried out on all wheels

Remedial Measures undertaken by RDSO

• At Durgapur Steel Plant:– Wheel specifications R-19/93 incorporating

lower carbon content, rim quenching and residual stress measurement implemented.

– On line ultrasonic testing, Magnetic Particle Testing & cold stamping machine for identification installed. Fatigue tests done.

– Wheel inspection guidelines CMI-K003 framed and issued.

Modular Toilets

Modular Toilets

• Existing limitations• Maintenance intensive

• Difficult to keep clean

• Appearance is not attractive

• Solution concept• Use of improved material and layout

• Scope• Development of Modular Toilets in composite material.

Modular Toilets

• Action taken• Collaborative project was taken up with

Department of Science and Technology (TIFAC) ,M/S Hindustan Fibre Glass Works, Calcutta as industry partner and IIT, Mumbai.

• Four prototypes for one coach developed. Under service trials.

Modular Toilets

Modular Toilets

Modular Toilets

Modular Toilets

Modular Toilets

Modular Toilets• Results

– light in weight

– Corrosion resistant

– modular, easy maintainability

– attractive granite finish, anti-skid flooring

– concealed piping with flexible composite pipes

• Cost implications• Estimated extra cost - Rs. 2 lakhs per coach

Modular Toilets

• The Road ahead

• Further fitment by PUs• Development of vendors

On-Going Projects

Fitment of CBC on BG ICF coaches

Fitment of CBC on coaches• Existing limitations

– Limit of utilisation with screw coupling has been reached. Max. weight (30 kg) has been reached. Max. draft load of 53t cannot be increased further.

– Alarm chain actuation has to be limited to keep coupler forces within limit.

– There is no anti-climbing feature.

– Energy absorption of buffing gear is only 20 kJ.

– Risk to shunting staff.

– Higher inter coach distance.

Fitment of CBC on coaches

• Solution conceptUse of AAR ‘H’ type tight-lock centre buffer

coupler.

• Scope– Development of specification for coupler and

draft gear and suitable coach shell design.

Fitment of CBC on coaches

Fitment of CBC on coaches

• Results• Specification for CBC to suit IR developed, featuring

• Tight-lock feature.• Energy absorption in buff raised to 45 kJ.• Emergency brake application from coaches feasible.

• Board have invited tenders for 150 nos.• ICF have built one shell which has passed squeeze test

in May 2001.

• The Road Ahead• Board have to nominate services for conversion.

Fitment of CBC on coaches

• Cost Implication• Estimated Rs. 8.5 lakhs per coach.• Pay back period of 8.9 years.

ADAMS/Rail

Automatic Dynamic Analysis of Mechanical Systems

‘NUCARS’ limitations• Existing software’s limitations:

NUCARS ver.1.z cannot model Air springs, Rubber elements, active suspensions and control systems like WSP.

Is a text based software hence is difficult to use and troubleshoot.

NUCARS is a ‘closed code’ software hence cannot interface with any CAD package or control system package like ‘IDEAS’, ‘MATLAB’ etc.

Design optimization is convoluted and very time consuming since result interpretation and task iteration has to be done manually for each variable individually.

ADAMS/Rail Ver.11

• Solution: Upgrade NUCARS with a more powerful and

current software – ADAMS/Rail. • Scope:

Sanctioned and included in Pink Book 1988-89.

Sanctioned Cost = Rs. 1.7414 Crores. Purchased through Global Open Tender

through ‘two-packet’ system.

ADAMS/Rail Ver.11 ADAMS/Rail Ver.11 software purchased from

M/s Mechanical Dynamics Inc. USA in 2000. Hardware and ADAMS/Rail software installed

and commissioned in 2001. Initial training given to 15 trainees from various

Directorates for 30 days at RDSO. Proposal for advanced training including

customisation of software and assessment criteria as per IR requirement is pending with Board.

Validation of the software by M/s MDI Inc. USA is in advanced stage and shall finish by June 2002.

ADAMS/Rail - Virtual prototyping Sample simulation of a bogie prone to hunting as

seen during ADAMS/Rail simulation:

ADAMS/Rail• Accuracy of the software can be seen from

the graph below of actual case study:

Non linear dynamic response of the vehicle to a track switch

ADAMS/Rail results ERRI reference results

ADAMS/Rail Ver.11…• The Road Ahead:

Conversion of appx. 3000 legacy model files from NUCARS to ADAMS/Rail format.

Understanding algorithm and logics used by ADAMS/Rail in modelling and solving a problem.

Creating seamless integration between CAD software/hardware and ADAMS/Rail through LAN.

Adams Rail Simulation Software

• Cost Implication• Cost of software Rs. 1.74 crores

• Pay back period 1.7 years

ADAMS/Rail users worldwide:RDSO, IndiaADtranzLinke-Hofmann-BuschGM Electromotive ARGE CAREBharat Heavy Electrical Ltd. National Research CouncilJapanese Railroad SPOORNET CKD TatraDe DietrichDornierFiat FerroviariaFinnish RailwaysFraunhofer GesellschaftGEC AlsthomGE TransportationGeorge Fox UniversityGundersonIndustrial Packaging SystemsKorea Rail Research Institute

LTK AEG WestinghouseMinistry of Railways China NS Materieel EngineeringNippon SharyoOregon Graduate InstitutePolitecnico di TorinoSIFANG Rolling Stock InstituteSITFASKODA LocomotiveSLMCSISTSumitomo Metal IndustriesThyssen IndustrieTU BerlinUniversity of MilanUniversity of Perugia University of RomeZhuzhou Electric LocomotiveZi Yang Diesel Locomotive WorksBureau Magistral MoscowESTECH

Brake Cylinder Relief Valve

Brake Cylinder Relief Valve

• Existing limitations• Brake binding due to DV malfunction cannot be

corrected.

• Solution concept• Monitoring of brake pipe and cylinder pressures.

• Scope• Development of Brake cylinder relief valve based on

Brake pressure

Brake Cylinder Relief Valve

• Results• Lab trials on samples of M/s Escorts completed

successfully.

• Field trials on Gomti Express completed.

• The Road Ahead• Techno-economic evaluation in hand.

Brake Cylinder Relief Valve

• Cost implications– Estimated cost Rs. 5000 per coach

Solid Wheels for EMU’s

Solid Wheels for EMU’s

• Existing limitations of tyred wheels• Poor thermal resistance

• Comparatively low life

• Maintenance intensive

• Solution concept• Adoption of solid wheel technology

• Scope• Development of Solid Wheels of EMU’s

Solid Wheels for EMU’s

• Results• Developmental orders placed by Railway Board.

• One design FEM approved.

• The road ahead• Visit of officer to witness tests proposed to Rly. Board.

• Cost implication• Rs. 21,000 per wheel

• Target date of Completion : Mar-2003

Development of LHB coach Variants

Development of LHB coach Variants

• Suspension and layout of 4 EOG variants have been developed and are under manufacture at RCF:– AC First Class

– AC 2-tier Sleeper

– AC 3-tier Sleeper

– AC Hot Buffet Car

Development of LHB coach Variants

• Passenger CapacityCoach LHB type ICF

AC First 24 18

AC 2-tier 54 48

AC 3-tier 72 67

Development of LHB coach Variants

• Suspension, layout and Electrical drive for 6 Self Generating coach variants have been developed :– AC First Class

– AC 2-tier Sleeper

– AC 3-tier Sleeper

– Sleeper Class - 3-tier

– Second class, Luggage and Brake (SLR)

– General Second class (GS) - (under simulation)

MG DMU

• Specification with 350 hp engine was finalised in Nov-2000.

• RCF has made one prototype Driving Power car and one trailer car. DPC is currently undergoing squeeze test at RCF.

• Expected date of Completion: Mar-03.

New Shell for EMU

• One composite steel shell was developed with the help of Japanese expert (JICA) in 93-94.

• Solebars, body pillars, trough floor and side walls upto height of 600 mm are of Stainless steel.

• ICF has done a FEM study and has planned for manufacture by July 2002.

• Expected date of Completion: Mar-03.

MG Version of IR-20 bogie for Export

• RDSO has designed IR-20 bogies for BG with Speed potential of 160 km/h. They are successfully operating in the Swarn Shatabdi Express since 1998.

• The MG version design has been made by RCF, checked and tested on simulation by RDSO. Fatigue test has been completed in Nov-01.

• RCF is making the Prototype.• Expected date of Completion: Mar-03.

Development of sintered brake blocks

Objective• To increase the interval for brake block change to

18 months. Savings abot 4 crores per annum• To reduce the incidence of thermal cracks on

tyred wheels.

Status• Samples of M/S Carbon Lorraine tested on

dynamometer.

High capacity buffers

Objective• To increase the energy absorption capacity of side

buffers to withstand impact of shunting.• To increase life of buffer elements.

• To improve maintainability Status• Parameters for development identified.

FRP MAIN DOOR

Advantages• Light weight• Low cost• Easy to break in the event

of accidentsStatus• FRP doors developed.• Draft specifications

prepared.

Thank you