Infrastructure Standards Committee / Industry Standards Coordination Committee DATE: 6 January 2015 / 21 January 2015 SUBJECT:

Transcription

1 MEETING: Infrastructure Standards Committee / Industry Standards Coordination Committee DATE: 6 January 2015 / 21 January 2015 SUBJECT: SPONSOR: AUTHOR: Agenda item 2.6 TSI / RGS / Network Rail initial standards comparison Plain Line Track Anson Jack Bridget Eickhoff, Chairman Infrastructure Standards Committee 1. Purpose of the paper 1.1 The purpose of this paper is to update Infrastructure Standards Committee (INS SC) and Industry Standards Coordination Committee (ISCC) on the comparison of requirements related to Plain Line Track in the revised Infrastructure Technical Specification for Interoperability (INF TSI), Railway Group Standard (RGS) GC/RT5021 Track System Requirements, related Network Rail (NR) standards and relevant Euronorms (ENs). 2. Background 2.1 The TSIs relating to the structural subsystems have been revised and the updated versions were published in late 2014 to come into force in January Concern has been expressed by some industry parties that the extension of scope, and application of the TSIs to a wider range of projects, could add significant cost to the GB industry without releasing the envisaged benefits. 2.3 This was discussed at the ISCC meeting on 16 May 2014 and ISCC requested RSSB and NR to work together to understand the related issues. 2.4 The remit for the first phase of the study is attached this phase took the technical scope of plain line track in order to: a) Trial the proposed process b) Develop suitable tools for the work and the reporting c) Identify any show stoppers in this area prior to January Work undertaken 3.1 Documents referenced The relevant clauses of the following documents have been reviewed: a) The revised INF TSI (Version EN03 RISC69 dated ) Sections 4.2.3, 4.2.4, 4.2.6, 4.2.8, , 5.3 and related parts of Chapters 6 and 7. INS SC / ISCC January 2015 Report on initial INF / RGS / NR standards comparison Page 1 of 10

2 b) RGS GC/RT5021 Issue 5 Parts 2 and 3 c) NR company standards NR/L2/TRK/001, NR/L2/TRK/042, NR/L2/TRK/061, NR/L2/TRK/2102, NR/L3/TRK/2049, RT/CE/S/002 d) EN , pren13803:2014, EN13848 Parts 5, Process used Four meetings were held, attended by relevant technical experts from both NR and RSSB, with detailed work undertaken by the experts between meetings A Microsoft Word table was developed and initially populated by RSSB with each relevant clause of Chapter 4 of the revised INF TSI, together with Interoperability Constituent (IC) details from Chapter 5, assessment requirements from Chapter 6 and GB specific cases from Chapter RSSB then reviewed the RGS and the relevant clauses were added alongside each TSI clause and compared, with any inconsistencies being identified Where the RGS contained requirements that were not covered by the INF TSI these were added to the most relevant sections of the table NR then reviewed their relevant company standards and added the text into the table, again identifying any inconsistencies and adding missing requirements EN requirements were also included either where they are called up by other documents or where they are known to cover the same areas. An exhaustive review of ENs was not part of the remit At each stage the RSSB and NR experts reviewed the emerging information and considered whether the inconsistencies were a real technical or commercial issue Where the inconsistency was caused by or was the cause of misunderstanding or the clarity could be improved, this was highlighted in one or more of the documents. 3.3 Outputs The completed table (35 pages of landscape A3) is available as reference on request A list of the identified areas of inconsistency has also been developed (see Appendix A) For each key area of inconsistency an initial one page summary has been developed and examples of these are attached for information (see Appendix B). These include the proposals for resolving the inconsistencies. INS SC / ISCC January 2015 Report on initial INF / RGS / NR standards comparison Page 2 of 10

3 4. Conclusions 4.1 The investigation is a valuable exercise and the process developed for phase 1 is suitable and effective. 4.1 The fact that the TSI mandates interoperability requirements must not be confused with design standard limits which may be defined nationally, embedded in the approach to Safety Management Systems and form the basis of the industry s approach to whole life cost asset management and associated funding. 4.2 No show-stoppers have been identified in the area of plain line track. 4.3 A number of RGS clauses do duplicate TSI requirements and these will be considered for withdrawal through the normal industry processes when GC/RT5021 is next reviewed. 4.4 A few inconsistencies where the more onerous RGS / NR limits appear more appropriate for future developments than the less onerous TSI limits will need further discussion with DfT/ORR on the balance of economic and political benefit. Use of the GB limits would not affect interoperability or compatibility with other TSI conforming sub-systems. 4.5 No urgent changes are needed to the revised INF TSI in this area but there are a number of hidden open points that should be addressed at a future revision. It is suggested that these are included in the GB Strategic Direction for the INF TSI when it is revised. 5. Next steps 5.1 This paper (to both INS SC and ISCC) is intended to start discussions on the next steps for this and the remaining TSIs. 5.2 It is proposed that the next steps should include: a) Clarification of the technical areas to be covered (see Item 4.2 of attached remit). b) Consideration of the priority order and timescale for each of the identified areas. c) Consideration of the relevant technical experts (NR and RSSB) for each technical area. d) Consideration of how to ensure that interfaces between the different technical areas are covered. 6. Recommendations 6.1 INS SC / ISCC is asked to NOTE the draft conclusions of the requirements comparison for plain line track 6.2 ISCC is asked to DISCUSS the next steps. INS SC / ISCC January 2015 Report on initial INF / RGS / NR standards comparison Page 3 of 10

4 Appendix A Draft Conclusions Plain Line Track A.1 Areas of inconsistency identified A.1.1 The areas of inconsistency identified have been listed below under the headings: A.1.2 a) Areas where apparent inconsistency or misinterpretation arise from lack of clarity or misunderstanding. b) Areas where TSI is silent (hidden open points). c) Areas where more detailed investigation and specific actions are required but no show stoppers expected. d) Areas where RGS / NR requirements are more demanding than the TSI and this is judged to be appropriate for maintainability / compatibility with existing vehicles and in the long term interests of the GB mainline railway system. e) Areas where existing RGS / NR requirements are less demanding but the TSI (more demanding requirements) would be used for new TSI compliant infrastructure. Minor editorial or tolerance issues have not been listed, for example: a) The GB specific case in the TSI for distance between track centres is 3400mm whilst the value in NR/L3/TRK/2049 is 3405mm. A.2 Areas where apparent inconsistency or misinterpretation arise from lack of clarity or misunderstanding Immediate action limit for track twist - TRK/001 has a different interpretation of Intervention Limit (IL) and Immediate Action Limit (IAL), although the values and intervention timescales are consistent A.3 Areas where TSI is silent Gauge widening on curves Check rails on curves Jointed track (cant deficiency, profiles of joints, gaps between rail ends) Non flat-bottomed rail section designs Special permission for higher cant deficiency (eg tilting trains) the TSI requirements are effectively an open point, RGS / NR have more detail Design of transition curves (curvature and cant) Cant gradient (rate of change of cant with distance) and rate of change of cant (with time at line speed) Rate of change of cant deficiency (with time) Rail head width and sidewear limits Rail depth and loss of section Discontinuity in joining rail sections Electrical performance of rail fastenings (is this covered elsewhere?) INS SC / ISCC January 2015 Report on initial INF / RGS / NR standards comparison Page 4 of 10

5 A.4 Areas where more detailed investigation and specific actions are required but no show stoppers are expected Minimum length of straight track for reverse curves from 300m to 160m radius Reduced permitted values of cant on small radius curves Track resistance to applied loads (await results of R&D project T1073) HP rail is not covered in EN13674 In-service track gauge (tight or wide), static and dynamic values Comparison of TSI requirements for rail fastenings with EN13841 and EN13146 (ENs not called up by the TSI) A.5 Areas where RGS / NR standards are more demanding (for maintainability and compatibility with existing vehicles) Gradients of line (exceptional limiting values) Minimum radius of vertical convex curve (TSI 500m, GB 600m) Design cant requirements for mixed traffic lines (TSI 160mm, GB normal 150mm without special permission) Cant deficiency for freight operation (TSI 130mm, GB 110mm) Abrupt change of cant deficiency Performance requirements for track bed (discussed by ERA WP and deemed out of scope of TSI) Requirements for in-service track standard deviations Track alignment through station platforms Gradients of line (eg for stabling track TSI permits 2.5mm/m, RGS and NR 2mm/m) A.6 Areas where RGS / NR are less demanding but the TSI requirements would be used for new TSI compliant infrastructure Maintenance plans INS SC / ISCC January 2015 Report on initial INF / RGS / NR standards comparison Page 5 of 10

6 TSI-EN-RGS-TRK alignment Summary sheet of GB interpretation and application of clauses Combined TSI for Rail Document No at November 2014 Appendix B Example One Page Summaries B.1 Principles adopted B.1.1 The following principles have been considered by NR in developing these summaries: a) Route strategy required for conversion to TSI. b) Where existing routes are constructed to former standards, achievement of in-service limits will suffice for compliance. c) Route is consistent with the TSI if standards limits are safety related or integral to a design and optimal whole life cost and do not prevent other, interoperable, vehicles from using the route. d) National safety values may be higher or lower than the TSI and still meet interoperability intentions. INS SC / ISCC January 2015 Report on initial INF / RGS / NR standards comparison Page 6 of 10

7 TSI-EN-RGS-TRK alignment Summary sheet of GB interpretation and application of clauses Combined TSI for Rail Document No at November 2014 B.2 Nominal track gauge Clause Text (1) European standard nominal track gauge shall be 1435 mm Comparison New and relaid track shall be designed to give a nominal track gauge of 1435 mm New track systems designs shall have a minimum track gauge of 1435 mm Issue Factors considered Proposed adopted implementation Affected parties Nature of effect Next steps and Consequences This was only adopted in 2002 (Back track in standards) therefore much of the network remains at 1432mm nominal Cascaded materials used in renewals Conicity in Cat 3 track (high speed low tonnage) Track recording systems 1435mm +3/-0mm remains the GB standard dimension DfT and NR Volumes of cascaded materials available for re-use on lower category routes will affect unit cost and productivity Acts against sustainability aspirations and available material Review whether volumes of material historically available from renewals remain useable Commercial effect to be assessed Risk Course of action Declare 1432mm as an NTR accepted UK nominal gauge for lower category lines Declare in RINF Declare issue is not significant because the serviceability limit state is achieved INS SC / ISCC January 2015 Report on initial INF / RGS / NR standards comparison Page 7 of 10

8 TSI-EN-RGS-TRK alignment Summary sheet of GB interpretation and application of clauses Combined TSI for Rail Document No at November 2014 B.3 Design Track Cant Clause Text (1) The design cant for lines shall be limited as defined in Table 7 Comparison Table 7: Design cant [mm] The Cants in normal limiting excess of 150 Freight Passenger design values mm will only be and traffic for cant shall be: permitted mixed where they traffic c) 150 mm existed before elsewhere. Ballasted st July 1999 / Exceptional track EPS TWA / limiting design PHT approved values for cant Issue Factors considered Proposed adopted implementation Affected parties Nature of effect Next steps and Consequences Risks Non ballasted track TSI values numerically greater Operational factors Safety factors HMRI guidance No change to GB figures The exceptional limiting design values for cant shall be: c) 180 mm elsewhere. Cants in excess of 110 mm in platforms will only be permitted if platforms are to gauge.. None This is the comparison of a safety dimension (NR) and operability limits The NR design limits do not restrict access to the network or the operational use of rolling stock designed for 180mm cant Whilst there may be some limitation on potential speed of vehicles, this will be minor. 180mm can be granted by exception but is not a minimum whole life cost solution to asset management Agree the application of 150mm as the design value The higher value is perceived to be available for whole route speed improvements without realignment or maintenance change This is not the case. To change would require reconfiguration of :- TG recording and analysis systems Track design computer systems There would be no float in the maintenance parameters available on implemented routes (currently at 150mm demands ATG systems to be implemented for maintenance) Course of action 150mm be recognised as the safety limit which does not compromise the interoperability limit INS SC / ISCC January 2015 Report on initial INF / RGS / NR standards comparison Page 8 of 10

9 TSI-EN-RGS-TRK alignment Summary sheet of GB interpretation and application of clauses Combined TSI for Rail Document No at November 2014 B.4 Abrupt Change of Cant Deficiency Clause Text Comparison Issue Factors considered Proposed adopted implementation Affected parties Nature of effect Next steps and Consequences Abrupt change of cant deficiency The maximum values of abrupt change of cant deficiency shall be: (a) 130 mm for V 60 km/h, (b) 125 mm for 60 km/h < V 200 km/h, (c) 85 mm for 200 km/h < V 230 km/h (d) 25 mm for V > 230 km/h No TSI equivalent to RGS Range 55 70mm/s Where possible, a transition curve shall be provided between two circular curves or between a circular curve and straight track. Curvature shall increase (or decrease) regularly over the whole length of the transition curve Abrupt change of cant deficiency is interpreted as occurring over a Virtual Transition of 12.2m in length & measured as a rate of change of cant deficiency in mm/s TSI discusses the use of change in cant deficiency and uses values linked to speed bands which are more defined than RGS values. RGS and NR use the concept of transition curves for passenger comfort and optimised whole life cost Vehicle usage Passenger comfort Safety maximum values. Safety - implementation Maintain the existing GB requirements Transition curves are an established design requirement and present no limitation to interoperability of rolling stock Accepted peak values and comfort levels attained for passengers are defined and understood Adoption of the concepts for abrupt changes of cant deficiency would require Identification of a system wide cost model for whole life cost and maintenance Retraining of designers and maintainers Revised staffing levels to implement response times to defects New settings for computer systems and checking processes Train operators Infrastructure manager There is no restriction on interoperable rolling stock Review whether an NTR is required. Since the TSI is silent on this issue and the values achieved by UK design values fall within the limits of the TSI, no further action is required. Rolling stock is capable of generating / withstanding greater forces than will be generated by GB curves because of the acceleration values permitted. This bogie stiffness may have implications for track wear deterioration models Course of action No further action INS SC / ISCC January 2015 Report on initial INF / RGS / NR standards comparison Page 9 of 10

10 TSI-EN-RGS-TRK alignment Summary sheet of GB interpretation and application of clauses Combined TSI for Rail Document No at November 2014 B.5 Immediate Action Limit for Track Twist Clause Text The immediate action limit for track twist Comparison Twist fault Action 1 in 90 or worse Between 1 in 91 and 1 in 125 Between 1 in 126 and 1 in 199 Stop all traffic immediately and correct fault Correct fault within 36 hours of discovery Radius < 400 m: Correct fault within one week of discovery Radius 400 m: Correct fault within two weeks of discovery NR values for speeds over 75mph are more severe than RGS. See blue box Issue Factors considered NR has decided to apply a different terminology to the more urgent action timescale to twists at high speed The intervention values are compliant and aligned Safety Timescale for response Effect on train dynamic response Proposed adopted implementation Affected parties Align terminology in TRK001 NR standards documentation NR staff to use new terminology No change to train dynamics and vehicle response Nature of effect No substantial effect Systems remain fundamentally unaltered ; need to affirm presentation of reports Next steps and Consequences Commence NR standard change procedure and system change review Review of statistical presentation and trend reporting minor shift may be generated Course of action Change text in standard and declare compliance INS SC / ISCC January 2015 Report on initial INF / RGS / NR standards comparison Page 10 of 10