Uncontrolled When Printed GN - RSSB Iss 1.pdf · 2686 Guidance on Rail Vehi cle Bodyshell, Bogie...

GN

Published by: RSSB Block 2 Angel Square 1 Torrens Street London EC1V 1NY © Copyright 2010 Rail Safety and Standards Board Limited GM

/GN

2686

G

uida

nce

on R

ail V

ehic

le B

odys

hell,

Bog

ie a

nd S

uspe

nsio

n El

emen

ts

Issu

e O

ne :

Dec

embe

r 201

0 R

ail I

ndus

try

Gui

danc

e N

ote

for G

M/R

T210

0 Is

sue

Four

(Par

ts 2

, 3 a

nd 4

)

Uncontrolled When Printed Document comes into force 05/03/2011

Supersedes GMGN2560 Iss 1 on 05/03/2011

Guidance on Rail Vehicle Bodyshell, Bogie and Suspension Elements

of 36 RSSB GM/GN2686 Issue One: December 2010

Issue Record Issue Date Comments

One December 2010 Original document supersedes GM/GN2560.

Superseded documents The following Railway Group documents are superseded, either in whole or in part as indicated:

Superseded documents Sections superseded

Date when sections are superseded

GM/GN2560, issue one, October 2000 Guidance Note: Structural Requirements for Railway Vehicles

All 05 March 2011

Supply The authoritative version of this document is available at www.rgsonline.co.uk. Uncontrolled copies of this document can be obtained from Communications, RSSB, Block 2 Angel Square, 1 Torrens Street, London EC1V 1NY, telephone 020 3142 5400 or e-mail [email protected]. Other Standards and associated documents can also be viewed at www.rgsonline.co.uk.



mailto:[email protected]�


RSSB of 36 GM/GN2686 Issue One: December 2010

Contents Section Description Page

Part 1 Introduction 4 1.1 Purpose and structure of this document 4 1.2 Copyright 4 1.3 Approval and authorisation of this document 4

Part 2 Guidance on Structural Elements 5 2.1 Primary and secondary structural elements 5

Part 3 Guidance on General Structural Requirements 6 3.1 Common requirements 6

Part 4 Guidance on Structural Requirements for Rail Vehicle Bodies 14 4.1 Structural requirements for all vehicle types 14 4.2 Equipment attached to vehicle bodies 16 4.3 Requirements for vehicles carrying passengers, personnel or traincrew 19 4.4 Requirements for freight vehicles 23

Part 5 Elements

Guidance on Structural Requirements for Bogies and Suspension 25

5.1 Structural requirements for bogies and running gear 25

Part 6 Guidance on GM/RT2100 Appendix A 32 6.1 Appendix A: Derivation of load cases from test or service data 32

Definitions 34

References 35





Part 1 Introduction 1.1 Purpose and structure of this document

This document gives guidance on interpreting the requirements of Railway Group Standard GM/RT2100 Parts 2, 3 and 4. It does not constitute a recommended method of meeting any set of mandatory requirements.

Relevant requirements in GM/RT2100 are reproduced in the sections that follow. Guidance is provided as a series of sequentially numbered clauses prefixed ‘GN’.

Specific responsibilities and compliance requirements are laid down in the Railway Group Standard itself.

1.2 Copyright Copyright in the Railway Group documents is owned by Rail Safety and Standards Board Limited. All rights are hereby reserved. No Railway Group document (in whole or in part) may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or means, without the prior written permission of Rail Safety and Standards Board Limited, or as expressly permitted by law.

RSSB Members are granted copyright licence in accordance with the Constitution Agreement relating to Rail Safety and Standards Board Limited.

In circumstances where Rail Safety and Standards Board Limited has granted a particular person or organisation permission to copy extracts from Railway Group documents, Rail Safety and Standards Board Limited accepts no responsibility for, and excludes all liability in connection with, the use of such extracts, or any claims arising therefrom. This disclaimer applies to all forms of media in which extracts from Railway Group documents may be reproduced.

1.3 Approval and authorisation of this document The content of this document was approved by:

Rolling Stock Standards Committee on 03 September 2010.

This document was authorised by RSSB on 06 October 2010.





Part 2 Guidance on Structural Elements 2.1 Primary and secondary structural elements GN01 The division between primary and secondary structural elements made in GM/RT2100 is to

some extent arbitrary and it is acknowledged that for some vehicle designs the boundaries between the different sub-systems may be difficult to define precisely. In addition different sub-systems often interact, for example bodyshell deflections can affect the performance of door systems and equally mechanical door system loads will be reacted by the local bodyshell structure. As a result the overall structural integrity requirements should always be considered for the vehicle as a complete system.

GN02 Primary structures should be considered to be those elements of a vehicle whose main purpose is to withstand or distribute the loadings seen in normal operation and in exceptional circumstances such as collisions or derailments.

GN03 Primary structural elements should include:

a) Bodyshell (see Part 3 of GM/RT2100).

b) Bogies (see Part 4 of GM/RT2100).

c) Structural elements required for crashworthiness (see Part 3 of GM/RT2100).

d) Couplers and drawgear (see Part 8 of GM/RT2100).

e) Equipment rafts and cases (see Part 3 of GM/RT2100).

f) Jacking and lifting features (see Part 9 of GM/RT2100).

GN04 For the purpose of this document, secondary structural elements should be considered to be those elements of a vehicle which interface directly with passengers or traincrew.

GN05 Secondary structural elements should include:

a) Windscreens (see Part 5 of GM/RT2100).

b) Windows (see Part 5 of GM/RT2100).

c) Doors (see Part 5 of GM/RT2100).

d) Gangways (see Part 5 of GM/RT2100).

e) Interiors, for example seats, tables, panelling, partitions etc. (see Part 6 of GM/RT2100).





Part 3 Guidance on General Structural Requirements 3.1 Common requirements GN06 GM/RT2100 issue four is intended to establish either limiting values in terms of load

capacity or methods to be followed to achieve satisfactory performance. In seeking to achieve an optimum design, it is intended that there should always be sufficient scope to introduce new methods of construction or materials provided that the overall objectives of a safe vehicle are achieved.

GN07 The standard addresses not only normal operation of rail vehicles but also abnormal conditions including collisions and derailments.

GN08 Where speeds are specified in miles per hour (mile/h), for operational or historical reasons, exact conversions are not required for the purposes of GM/RT2100 issue four and this guidance note. Values converted to kilometres per hour (km/h) should be rounded. A speed of for example 100 mile/h should thus be treated as fully equivalent to 160 km/h.

3.1.1 Vehicle condition and loading GM/RT2100 issue four

Section 2.1 Common structural requirements 2.1.1 Vehicle condition and loading 2.1.1.1 Vehicles shall meet the requirements of this document over the full range of

variations in vehicle condition that are likely to be experienced.

2.1.1.2 Account shall be taken of variations due to vehicle dimensional and mass tolerances, variations and asymmetries in payload, variations in vehicle maintenance condition, potential for corrosion, effects due to material ageing and any other relevant variables.

2.1.1.3 It is permissible for load cases derived from test, service or simulation data in accordance with Appendix A to be used to support or to replace the loads specified in this document where technically justified.

GN09 It is not expected that a vehicle should be designed for sustained operation under worst case conditions. The proof and ultimate load cases are intended to define absolute limiting cases for loading but these are expected to occur so infrequently that they should not affect fatigue load cases required for cyclic loading in normal operation. For operation under degraded conditions account should be taken of the maintenance regime and systems or methods for detection of fault conditions to determine appropriate numbers of cycles where higher than normal loadings may be encountered.

GN10 In a number of cases the load values set out are well established and are considered to result in acceptable performance for a wide range of vehicle applications. It is however permissible to either determine load cases for particular applications using established engineering methods from test data and validated calculations, or by demonstrating equivalence between applications, using service experience to justify a particular design feature.

GM/RT2100 issue four Section 2.1 Common structural requirements 2.1.1 Vehicle condition and loading 2.1.1.4 Railway vehicle structures shall be designed, manufactured and maintained using

materials suitable for an external temperature range of -20°C to +40°C.

2.1.1.5 The general criteria set out in this section shall apply unless specific criteria are set out elsewhere in this document.





GN11 For metallic materials the significant temperature is usually the minimum where material grades should be selected to minimise the risk of brittle fracture at low temperature. For non-metallic materials both minimum and maximum temperatures may be equally significant.

GN12 Under some circumstances temperatures outside the specified range should be considered to take account of factors such as the operation of systems or equipment (for example diesel engines, power electronics in confined spaces) or external effects such as solar gain or wind chill.

GN13 It should be noted that BS EN 50125-1:1999 sets out a more onerous external temperature range of -25°C to +40°C for GB conditions. As given in the title and scope, this Euronorm is for electrical, electromechanical and electronic equipment on rolling stock and should not normally be applied to vehicle structural materials.

3.1.2 Structural materials GM/RT2100 issue four Section 2.1 Common structural requirements 2.1.2 Structural materials 2.1.2.1 The suitability of structural materials (for example, the suitability of properties

such as yield stress, tensile strength and elongation) shall be demonstrated by conformity with the requirements for structural material properties set out in the Euronorms mandated by this document. Where no requirements are set out in the Euronorms mandated by this document, the suitability of structural material properties shall be demonstrated by, in order of preference:

a) Conformity with an applicable Euronorm (EN).

b) Conformity with a British Standard (BS).

c) Conformity with another applicable national or international standard available in English (for example a Deutsches Institut für Normung (DIN) standard or an International Organization for Standardization (ISO) standard).

d) Evidence of established and successful use in other comparable railway vehicle structures.

e) Test data, evidence from other applications or a combination to demonstrate that the structural properties are sufficiently well understood to allow reliable predictions to be made of performance under fatigue, proof and ultimate load conditions.

GN14 In selecting structural materials, the following general design objectives should always be considered:

a) The structure should remain fully serviceable when subject to the maximum loads imposed by exceptional circumstances which are typically represented by the proof load cases set out in GM/RT2100 issue four.

b) The structure should not fail as soon as the design load cases are exceeded to ensure that there is always an acceptable factor of safety, represented by the ultimate load factor, to account for uncertainties arising from calculation or testing and to cater for variations due to manufacture, operation and maintenance and to give a reasonable margin for novel or unforeseen circumstances.

c) The structure should have sufficient durability to withstand the operational loading regime throughout the intended vehicle life, typically 30 - 35 years or, for sub-assemblies, the design life of the item if this is less.





GN15 Vehicle structures have traditionally been fabricated from steel or aluminium alloys using material grades that exhibit good levels of ductility, with typically elongation of up to 30% for mild steels and typically 6% for aluminium extrusions. In consideration of the many requirements for crashworthiness and localised impact resistance, the performance of alternative materials should be carefully considered to ensure that satisfactory behaviour is achieved under extreme loading conditions. It is often necessary to use tighter tolerances on material properties than given by the standard specifications for structural elements designed to absorb energy in order to achieve consistent behaviour. The need or otherwise for applying additional controls can be demonstrated by varying the properties in simulations or by suitable testing.

GN16 The materials used should generally exhibit good post-yield plasticity and energy absorption properties. As far as reasonably practicable vehicle structures or sub-structures should, when overloading occurs, collapse in a controlled and reasonably predictable manner. For example aluminium castings using typical commercial alloys and casting techniques would not generally be recommended for widespread structural use due to the relatively low levels of ductility normally obtained (typically 5% or less).

GN17 It is intended that there should be no barrier to the introduction of new or alternative materials. The suitability of materials should, in addition to fulfilling structural requirements, take full account of all other foreseeable material requirements such as: fire performance, safety in manufacture, repair and disposal, behaviour under fatigue loading, the potential for degradation due to ageing or environmental factors such as temperature, humidity, sunlight, salt spray etc. An understanding of fatigue and degradation properties is essential to ensure that where necessary appropriate inspection intervals can be determined.

3.1.3 Structural failure GM/RT2100 issue four Section 2.1 Common structural requirements 2.1.3 Structural failure 2.1.3.1 Structures shall be designed to ensure that, as far as is reasonably practicable,

catastrophic failure does not occur, for example by rupture or gross instability, until the proof load conditions are exceeded by a significant margin. This shall be demonstrated by achieving the proof and ultimate load reserve factors set out 2.1.5 and 2.1.6.

2.1.3.2 Structures shall be designed to achieve their required fatigue life with a survival probability of at least 97.5%, when subjected to the cyclical loads associated with normal operation.

GN18 Failure is classed as a structural defect or defects, which render the vehicle no longer safe for normal operation. Failure can be as a result of overload, fatigue loading, corrosion, degradation or any combination of all of these.

GN19 An acceptable fatigue life can be achieved by the application of national or European structural fatigue codes such as:

a) BS EN 1993-1-9:2005.

b) DD ENV 1999-2:2000 (superseded).

c) BS EN 1999-1-3:2007 (see GN020).

d) BS 7608:1993.

e) BS 8118-1:1991 (superseded).





GN20 There is a risk that the direct application of the fatigue curves set out in BS EN 1999-1-3:2007, which permits higher stress levels than the preceding document, could result in unsatisfactory or potentially dangerous structural details. Reference should therefore be made to the UK national annex and PD 6702-1 for detailed guidance. At the time of publication these documents are being further developed and therefore may be revised. As a result the status of these documents should be checked before use.

GN21 Many of these fatigue codes have been developed for relatively large structures such as bridges. In applying these codes to rail vehicle structural design the generalised nature of these codes should be taken into account and in particular, where ‘thin’ materials are being analysed, the assumptions made by these codes for material thicknesses, weld quality and residual stress levels may lead to very conservative conclusions.

GN22 The majority of recent GB rolling stock has typically been designed using BS 7608:1993 or BS 8118-1:1991, applying Miner’s law to summate the fatigue damage from different load cases to give an overall prediction of fatigue life. Where it is intended to adopt different methods for fatigue design, the fatigue load cases used and the combination of fatigue damage from different load cases should be carefully considered. The endurance limit methods set out in BS EN 12663-1:2010 and BS EN 12663-2:2010 for fatigue assessment are not generally recommended without evidence of satisfactory performance under GB operating conditions.

GN23 It should be noted that the service fatigue life for any given structural item will be the combined effect of the appropriate analysis of loadings, stresses and fatigue together with its manufacture, assembly and operation and therefore all these aspects should be dealt with in a mutually consistent manner.

GN24 Care should be exercised when interpreting the results of detailed finite element calculations where localised high stresses occur as many fatigue curves, developed for classical calculation methods, have already accounted for, either fully or in part, stress concentration effects.

GN25 It is generally permissible within these codes to develop fatigue curves from experimental data for particular design details and in some cases this will be highly beneficial in terms of structure weight and cost. Where experimental data is used to develop bespoke fatigue curves, the raw data and its post-treatment should be fully documented.

3.1.4 Demonstration of structural integrity GM/RT2100 issue four Section 2.1 Common structural requirements 2.1.4 Demonstration of structural integrity 2.1.4.1 The satisfactory performance of railway vehicle structures and structural

elements shall be demonstrated by calculation, testing, comparison with documented established practice on other vehicles or a combination of these methods.

2.1.4.2 In order to allow for uncertainties associated with methods of calculation and also for the consequences of failure, all proof or service load calculations or test results shall achieve the proof and ultimate load reserve factors as set out in 2.1.5 and 2.1.6.

2.1.4.3 Where an ultimate load is directly specified, an additional ultimate load reserve factor as set out in 2.1.6 shall not be applied.

GN26 Calculations should take into account the uncertainties associated with material properties and methods of calculation, manufacture and assembly. GM/RT2100 and associated standards such as BS EN 12663-1:2010, BS EN 12663-2:2010 or BS EN 15227:2008 assume that:





a) Calculations are carried out to a high degree of accuracy by competent people who are conversant with the methods to be used, whether finite element analysis or classical methods.

b) Scatter in material properties is catered for by using the minimum or other appropriate values. For crashworthiness where collapsible elements are required maximum values should also be controlled.

c) Manufacture is well controlled and carried out in a manner consistent with the design assumptions.

3.1.5 Proof load reserve factor GM/RT2100 issue four Section 2.1 Common structural requirements 2.1.5 Proof load reserve factor 2.1.5.1 The proof load reserve factor is defined as the allowable material proof stress

divided by the calculated or measured stress for a given proof load case. The following requirements shall be satisfied:

a) Where there is to be no experimental verification, the proof load reserve factor shall not be less than 1.15.

b) Where there is to be experimental verification, it is permissible to reduce the proof load reserve factor to 1.0.

c) For glass or materials with similar characteristics the proof load reserve factor shall be equal to the ultimate load reserve factor and shall not be less than 1.5.

GN27 The use of a proof load reserve factor is intended to ensure that there is no significant permanent deformation under proof load conditions.

GN28 Glass and similar brittle materials when loaded remain either essentially intact or break (i.e. there is either negligible or no plastic deformation) and thus a proof load reserve factor has little or no relevance. For these materials the proof and ultimate load reserve factors are therefore set to the same value.

GM/RT2100 issue four Section 2.1 Common structural requirements 2.1.5 Proof load reserve factor 2.1.5.2 When determining the proof load reserve factor, where calculations predict

relatively high localised stresses or ‘hot spots’, it is permissible for these stresses to be partially or fully discounted where it can be demonstrated that there will be no significant permanent deformation when the load is removed.

GN29 In determining at any particular localised hot-spot what constitutes significant permanent deformation, consideration should be given to:

a) The potential consequences of failure or rupture at that point.

b) The extent to which, in immediately adjacent areas, there is sufficient strain energy stored when loaded to effectively pull back any deformation when the load is removed.

c) The extent to which any apparent stress concentration may be as a result of simplifications inherent in the analysis model or due to the calculation method itself. In this case it is recommended that a more detailed local analysis is made of the detail or a typical generic detail to clarify the stress pattern wherever possible.





GN30 For finite element calculations ‘hot-spots’ can be a function of the element type, the representation of the structural geometry, the characteristics of the element mesh (element density and shape) or methods used for applying or reacting loads or the boundary conditions. Stress ‘hot-spots’ which are related to the method of calculation should be eliminated wherever possible in order to focus attention on genuine stress concentration effects.

GN31 For a friction grip bolted joint, or similar connections, the proof reserve factor should be calculated as the proof load capacity of the joint divided by the load applied rather than directly using fastener stresses. When it is considered that bolts are often torqued to a high proportion of the bolt material yield stress, a well proportioned friction grip joint may not give a reserve factor of 1.15 based on the bolt stresses, but in terms of the load capacity of the joint, the reserve factor specified will be easily exceeded.

GM/RT2100 issue four Section 2.1 Common structural requirements 2.1.5 Proof load reserve factor 2.1.5.3 A localised proof load reserve factor less than 1.15 but greater than 1.0 shall be

acceptable if it can be demonstrated that the required ultimate load reserve factor is achieved by means of detailed non-linear calculations or localised testing to validate the predicted structural performance.

GN32 The difference between proof and ultimate load reserve factors takes into account the potentially catastrophic nature of material rupture or collapse, which may involve serious injury or loss of life. The proof load reserve factor, in determining effective limits operationally, can be considered to have primarily economic consequences. In consideration of this, a localised reduced proof load reserve factor may be acceptable provided that, by detailed non-linear calculations, localised testing or a combination of these, it can be shown that the ultimate load reserve factor is respected.

GM/RT2100 issue four Section 2.1 Common structural requirements 2.1.5 Proof load reserve factor 2.1.5.4 Where structural elements, such as bodyside windows of glass or similar

material, can be considered to form part of a primary structure, these elements shall not be included in the determination of the proof load capacity.

GN33 Glazing is not usually considered to be a structural element, however, if the mounting arrangements or bonding methods are sufficiently understood and controlled, it could be possible to include the strength and stiffness of the glass panes in an overall structural assessment and thereby achieve a lighter or simpler structure. This would be an acceptable approach in terms of service or fatigue loadings but under proof and ultimate load conditions, it is essential that any breakage of the glass elements would not jeopardise the integrity of the structure.

3.1.6 Ultimate load reserve factor GM/RT2100 issue four Section 2.1 Common structural requirements 2.1.6 Ultimate load reserve factor 2.1.6.1 The ultimate load reserve factor is defined as the material ultimate tensile stress

divided by the calculated or measured elastic stress for a given proof load case. Either of the following requirements shall be satisfied:

a) The ultimate load reserve factor shall not be less than 1.5 for calculated or measured elastic stresses.

Or





b) It is demonstrated by means of detailed non-linear calculations, testing or a combination of these that material rupture or failure shall not occur under the application of the applicable proof load case factored by 1.5.

2.1.6.2 Where controlled structural deformation or post-yield energy absorption is required to satisfy particular structural (see Part 3) or interior crashworthiness requirements (see Part 6), an ultimate load reserve factor is not required for a collapse zone or collapsible component provided that:

a) It can be demonstrated that the proof load criteria are satisfied taking account of material and manufacturing tolerances.

b) Post-yield performance against the requirements for the collapse zone or collapsible component is demonstrated by detailed non-linear calculations, testing or a combination of these.

2.1.6.3 Where structural elements such as bodyside windows of glass or similar material, can be considered to form part of a primary structure, these elements shall not be included in the determination of the ultimate load capacity.

2.1.6.4 Where an ultimate loadcase is specified, an ultimate load reserve factor is not required.

GN34 The use of an ultimate load reserve factor is intended to ensure, as far as is reasonably practicable, that the structure does not fail catastrophically, for example by rupture or gross instability, when the proof loads are exceeded and create additional hazards.

GN35 Structural elements required for crashworthiness are specifically designed for a controlled failure unlike other elements which are conventionally designed not to fail under the loadings prescribed. In order to not introduce undue constraints on the design and to ensure that collapse forces and thus the decelerations that will be experienced inside the vehicle are kept within reasonable limits, a lower ultimate load is acceptable provided that it can be demonstrated that for the worst case combination of material and dimensional tolerances the proof load conditions will be satisfied, a physical proof load test may not necessarily represent this condition.

3.1.7 Vehicle repair GM/RT2100 issue four Section 2.1 Common structural requirements 2.1.7 Vehicle repair 2.1.7.1 Any structural damage shall be repaired in such a way that the overall structural

integrity is restored to:

a) The same level as for an otherwise identical undamaged vehicle. (It is permissible for this reference vehicle to be the same vehicle before the damage occurred.)

Or

b) A level which complies fully with this document.

2.1.7.2 In the event that the original design condition cannot be fully replicated, the repair shall result in an equivalent level of structural integrity consistent with the requirements of 2.1.7.1.





GN36 Depending on the type of construction employed, it may not be possible to fully restore a structure to an as-built condition, for example in the case of double walled alloy extrusions where it may not be possible to fully connect all internal ribs. In cases such as these a repair is acceptable if it can be demonstrated that both globally and locally the repair method adopted restores the functional integrity and performance of the original structure or meets the requirements of the applicable standard if this is lower.

GN37 In some circumstances, in particular with older vehicles affected by corrosion, it may be more economic and beneficial overall to make a repair using other materials such as fibre reinforced resins. In such cases care should be exercised to ensure that any repair does not appreciably alter the load paths and global distribution of forces within the overall structure in which case a more complete investigation should be undertaken. It should be demonstrated that the repaired structure is of equivalent strength and stiffness to other vehicles of the same type which have not required repair. In the majority of cases this would correspond to the original design.

GN38 Where structural adhesive bonding techniques are used, or any other processes where it is difficult or impossible to examine completed joints non-destructively, procedures should be put in place to ensure that all processes are correctly and consistently applied.





Part 4 Guidance on Structural Requirements for Rail Vehicle Bodies

4.1 Structural requirements for all vehicle types GN39 It is recommended that, at the earliest possible stage of design, the particular set of

detailed loadings and parameters to be considered is agreed to ensure any perceived commercial risk or uncertainty concerning design scrutiny and approval is minimised and not compensated for by an unnecessarily conservative design with attendant cost and weight penalties.

GN40 The structural load case requirements are applicable to a very wide range of vehicle types and operational conditions. There is additionally a degree of flexibility possible in the precise interpretation of the requirements to cater for different types and styles of construction. As a result a considerable number of outcomes are possible.

GM/RT2100 issue four Section 3.1 Structural requirements for all vehicle types 3.1.1 Rail vehicle body structures shall comply with the requirements of

BS EN 12663-1:2010 or BS EN 12663-2:2010, BS EN 15227:2008 and the specific requirements set out in Part 3 of this document.

4.1.1 Structural requirements – design categories GN41 A structural design category should be selected from BS EN 12663-1:2010, or

BS EN 12663-2:2010 in the case of freight vehicles, from the categories P-I, P-II, P-III, P-IV, P-V or F-I to F-II set out in those documents. The structural category to be used should be determined from an assessment of the intended use and the operational environment. Where vehicles are designed against BS EN 12663-1:2010 category P-III (or P-IV, P-V) for particular routes or services in order to realise benefits in reduced mass, initial and operational costs, it should be demonstrated that operation is acceptable as part of the route compatibility assessment process as set out in GE/RT8270.

GN42 It is intended that the most appropriate category is selected in order to achieve a safe, economic and lightweight vehicle design. The majority of GB passenger rolling stock is expected to fall into category P-II but possibly, in some circumstances, category P-III. Locomotives would be expected to be categorised as P-I vehicles.

GN43 A less onerous structural category, such as P-III, may be justified due to some or all of the following conditions being satisfied:

a) Service operation is on secondary routes which are completely or predominately isolated from the general network.

b) There are additional signalling or control measures in effect.

c) The pattern of traffic is such that the risk of vehicles designed to different requirements being operated on the same route at the same times is very small.

GN44 In some instances it is possible to categorise a vehicle as either passenger or freight. For example, a driving trailer or vehicle dedicated to carrying baggage or parcels without passenger accommodation but with a full gangway connection at one or both ends to the remainder of the train, would be expected to be categorised as a passenger vehicle, since it should be structurally compatible with the rest of train.

4.1.2 Structural load cases GN45 The majority of the vertical and longitudinal load cases given in previous issues of

GM/RT2100 are directly equivalent to those set out in BS EN 12663-1:2010 or BS EN 12663-2:2010.





GN46 For freight vehicle lateral fatigue loadings set out in Table 16 of BS EN 12663-1:2010 or Table 16 of BS EN 12663-2:2010, the reduction permitted by Note a) to these tables should be applied. A lateral fatigue acceleration range of ±0.2 g is an established value for GB conditions.

GN47 Twist load cases are not directly specified and it should be ensured that the structure can withstand twist loads that could be encountered in service or in the event of a derailment.

GN48 Where reference is made to coupler height or buffer height, the specified proof loads should be applied at the positions where these items are fitted to the vehicle structure. The physical characteristics of the couplers, buffers or anti-climbers do not form part of the structural requirements for the primary vehicle structure.

GN49 The characteristics of couplers, buffers or anti-climbers should be determined in consideration of their required function and the overall collision energy management strategy. For the purposes of calculation or test, relevant parts of these items or the equivalent may be included in order to correctly represent any local stiffening or reinforcement that may be gained.

GN50 In the case of shear-out coupler designs it should be determined where the effective boundary between the coupler and the structure lies. It should be noted that the primary purpose of the coupler proof load case is to determine the strength of the complete primary structure in compression and bending and the strength of the underframe headstocks locally and should not be necessarily applied to the coupler or drawgear. The coupler and drawgear characteristics should be an outcome of the overall collision energy management strategy.

4.1.3 Vehicle payload GM/RT2100 issue four Section 3.1 Structural requirements for all vehicle types 3.1.2 Vehicle payload shall be calculated in accordance with BS EN 15663:2009. As

permitted by BS EN 15663:2009, it is permissible for the vehicle load to be defined as functions of the reference cases in the standard to accurately represent actual service conditions appropriate for design purposes.

GN51 In determining maximum passenger loadings careful consideration of the passenger density corresponding to a credible worst case crush loading should be undertaken to ensure that while a safe and conservative design is achieved, the vehicle structure is not over-specified with potentially adverse consequences in terms of weight and manufacturing cost.

GN52 The vehicle mass definition standard, BS EN 15663:2009, specifies a mass per square metre (kg/m2

4.1.4 Alternative or additional loadcases

) rather than specifying a number of passengers per square metre as in previous GB specifications. The intention is to compensate for any increase in the average individual passenger mass by assuming that, since physical size will also increase, passenger density will necessarily decrease.

GM/RT2100 issue four Section 3.1 Structural requirements for all vehicle types

GN53 In accordance with 2.1.1.3 above, it is permissible for alternative load cases to be used to support or to replace specified loads where this is permitted by BS EN 12663-1:2010 or BS EN 12663-2:2010. GN53 When developing customised load cases based on actual service conditions, it should always be borne in mind that the standard load cases, while they might not necessarily reflect real conditions for a given vehicle, when taken collectively, constitute a series of performance limits which have evolved over time. These can be considered to collectively define a boundary between acceptable and unacceptable structural performance under real conditions which cannot always be accurately described.





GN54 In developing replacement or supplementary load cases the following should be considered:

a) Whether the structures have significantly different characteristics to previous generations of vehicles from which existing load cases have been evolved.

b) Whether any other underlying assumptions have changed.

c) Whether operational practices have changed.

d) For a particular application, whether the generalised load case requirements are suitable or whether a more sophisticated approach would yield benefits in terms of reduced mass or lower costs.

e) For rolling stock designed to more customised requirements, the interaction with other rolling stock and the infrastructure.

f) If alternative or additional load cases are required to correctly represent service conditions they should be expressed as functions of the reference mass states as set out in BS EN 15663:2009.

4.1.5 Fatigue loadcases GM/RT2100 issue four Section 3.1 Structural requirements for all vehicle types 3.1.4 The fatigue design life for rail vehicle structures or substructures shall be

determined and shall be at least equal to either the design life of the vehicle or a predetermined maintenance interval at which point the structure shall be considered to be life expired.

GN55 The operational payloads given in BS EN 15663:2009 vary according to vehicle category and represent the maximum loadings expected to be seen on a regular basis (for example once or twice per day). The resulting payload for a vehicle does not necessarily represent either an average value or the load condition that should be used for fatigue design. For commuter vehicles it is likely that at least two states of fatigue loading should be considered; representing respectively peak hour conditions and the rest of the day. In addition to these operational loadings (essentially when the vehicle is moving), the fatigue damage due to loading and unloading cycles can also be significant. Similar considerations apply to freight vehicles, where significant mileages could be operated when empty.

GN56 It is recommended that a thorough assessment of likely loading cycles over the vehicle life is made, based wherever possible on service data and operational experience and that the vehicle body fatigue analysis is undertaken using this set of fatigue loadcases.

GN57 Based on suspension frequencies in the range 0.5 Hz to 2.0 Hz, a railway vehicle body typically sees around 109

4.2 Equipment attached to vehicle bodies

cycles in a 30 year life. The design load cases that are normally used are simplifications of the real environment that have been found to result in an equivalent amount of damage. In consideration of this, fatigue load cases need to be specified in a manner that is consistent with the fatigue code being used.

GM/RT2100 issue four Section 3.2 Requirements for equipment attached to vehicle bodies 3.2.1 Equipment attached to vehicle bodies shall be designed according to the inertia

load values set out in BS EN 12663-1:2010 or BS EN 12663-2:2010 for the relevant vehicle category unless otherwise set out in this document.





3.2.2 The ultimate strength of the equipment attachments shall be consistent with the inertia load values set out in BS EN 12663-1:2010 or BS EN 12663-2:2010 or the maximum mean deceleration levels for the collision scenarios set out in BS EN 15227:2008, whichever is the greater.

GN58 The proof acceleration values given in BS EN 12663-1:2010 and BS EN 12663-2:2010 follow established European practice.

GN59 GM/RT2100 issue three required an acceleration of 5 g with the exception of 3 g for rigidly connected fixed formation rakes. BS EN 12663-1:2010 requires a longitudinal proof acceleration of 3 g for category P-II passenger vehicles. This apparent reduction is however mitigated by the requirements of section 6.4 of BS EN 15227:2008 which relate the ultimate strength of equipment attachments to the collision scenarios specified.

GN60 The expressions set out in BS EN 12663-1:2010 and BS EN 12663-2:2010 for vertical acceleration, FZ

GN61 GM/RT2100 issue three required the worst case combination of underframe proof load accelerations to be analysed. BS EN 12663-1:2010 and BS EN 12663-2:2010 requires the underframe acceleration loads to be analysed separately. Under some circumstances this could be less onerous but, due to the dominant effect of the longitudinal acceleration load case specified, for conventional equipment mounting arrangements, the difference between these approaches is not usually considered to be significant. Where it is considered that a combination of loadings could occur in the event of a collision or where the consequences of failure for the mounting arrangement would be severe, it is recommended that the effects of load combination are included in any analysis.

= (1 ± c) × g, where c = 2 at the vehicle end, falling linearly to 0.5 at the vehicle centre, account for the effects of vehicle bounce and pitch. The corresponding proof acceleration values that were set out in GM/RT2100 issue three were essentially the same except that no adjustment was made for equipment placed at intermediate positions between the vehicle ends; a worst case value was used.

GN62 To enhance the retention of equipment attached to vehicle bodies under overload conditions, mountings and brackets should be made wherever possible from materials exhibiting high levels of ductility.

GM/RT2100 issue four Section 3.2 Requirements for equipment attached to vehicle bodies 3.2.3 The equipment attachment strength shall be formally assessed unless, for minor

items of equipment, it can be demonstrated that:

a) For a given type or method of attachment, items at or below a given mass will be securely retained for the acceleration loads specified.

Or

b) A minor item is sufficiently contained or enclosed to prevent it becoming a potential hazard if detached in the event of a collision or derailment or for any other reason.

Or

c) Service experience in an equivalent or more demanding environment has shown the installation to be satisfactory.

GN63 Examples of minor items would be equipment or fittings of very low mass attached using a generic design of bracket or keyway attachment in which case the load capacity of the attachment may be determined and thus items which are within that design capacity can generally be considered to be satisfactory.





GN64 To determine whether an item is a minor item of equipment, consideration should be given to the consequences of failure and thus different criteria may be appropriate for different parts of a vehicle. Underframe mounted equipment, where for example detached items could result in derailment, would require potentially more stringent criteria to be applied than for items mounted inside locked equipment cubicles where they should be effectively contained and the possible trajectories, if parts are detached, will be inherently limited.

GN65 In assessing the significance of items of equipment, where there are many items that could be in direct contact with passengers or traincrew, very careful consideration of vehicle interior fittings is required. Examples could be openable panels, lighting panels or lighting diffusers where the component masses are relatively low but where there could be a significant risk of injury if detached or displaced in the event of a collision (see Part 6 of GM/RT2100 and Part 3 of GM/GN2687).

GN66 Where an installation has been used for an extended period in service in a similar or more arduous environment and has performed satisfactorily with no records of consistent unscheduled maintenance, this can be taken as evidence of acceptable performance. If adopted, this approach should be documented.

GM/RT2100 issue four Section 3.2 Requirements for equipment attached to vehicle bodies 3.2.4 Where the failure of an individual mounting could lead to the overload and the

potential sequential failure of adjacent mountings, or where a single mounting is used and a resulting failure will create a hazardous situation, secondary fasteners, retention devices or some other equivalent means shall be provided, taking into account the likelihood of detection of an initial failure when in service or during maintenance inspections.

GN67 Single point failure should not result in detachment of equipment in a manner to cause an immediate hazard. The need for enhanced equipment retention (secondary fasteners, retention devices or some other equivalent means) should be considered, taking into account the type of equipment, the potential for failure and the likely consequences of detachment.

GN68 Particular attention is recommended for self-exciting, resiliently mounted items such as engines or compressors where a substantial mass could be mounted on a vehicle underframe at only three or four points. Examples of suitable methods of enhanced retention could range from substituting lock-pins for torqued bolts, using additional fasteners for redundancy or to include secondary retention features such as hooks, catchers, slings or straps to engage when the main connection has failed.

GN69 Under some conditions minor items might be impacted by items or debris on the track or at the lineside and thus become detached. If sharp edges or corners can be avoided wherever possible in the detail design, the potential for secondary impact damage will be minimised.

GM/RT2100 issue four Section 3.2 Equipment attached to vehicle bodies 3.2.5 Locally generated accelerations, forces and resonances acting within and on

equipment shall be accounted for as well as the specified proof and fatigue inertia loads.

3.2.6 Sources of locally generated accelerations, forces and resonances to be considered for proof and fatigue loads shall include, but not be limited to:

a) Engines, gearboxes, cooler groups and hydrostatic drives.

b) Body mounted traction motors.





c) Transmission units.

d) Suspension elements (for example dampers, anti-rollbars, traction linkages).

e) Air compressors.

f) Door operating equipment.

g) Gangways.

h) Air conditioning systems.

3.2.7 The fatigue design life for equipment attachments shall be determined. If the fatigue design life is less than the design life of the vehicle, this shall be accounted for in inspection, maintenance and overhaul procedures, whereby life expired items are replaced.

GN70 Robust estimates of both peak forces and force-load cycles due to locally generated accelerations, forces and resonances should be obtained from calculation, testing or a combination of these, taking into account normal operating force cycles and equipment vibration levels.

GN71 For some loading conditions the inertia load cases specified may be insignificant compared to those generated by the engine, compressor or other self-exciting equipment. When items are resiliently mounted adequate clearances should be provided for typical service conditions or suitable bump stops installed to prevent damage when overloaded by for example a heavy shunt.

GN72 On diesel multiple units (DMUs) or locomotives, engine mounted components can be subject to accelerations and cycles significantly in excess of the normal load cases for body mounted equipment. A recent investigation of an underfloor DMU engine installation identified an instance of a peak vertical acceleration of 15 g (compared with the normal quasi-static proof load of 3 g) and also in excess of 109 fatigue cycles over the required lifetime (compared with the standard fatigue curve cut-off at 107

GN73 The design of mounting brackets can impose significant bending moments on equipment, for example engine flywheel housings, crankcases or timing gear cases. The mounting arrangement should be designed accordingly in consultation with the equipment manufacturer.

cycles).

4.3 Requirements for vehicles carrying passengers, personnel or traincrew

4.3.1 Structural collapse GM/RT2100 issue four Section 3.3 Requirements for vehicles carrying passengers, personnel or traincrew 3.3.1 Structural collapse and prevention of overriding 3.3.1.1 The structural crashworthiness requirements of BS EN 15227:2008 shall apply.

The collision scenarios set out in section 5 of BS EN 15227:2008 shall be applied in accordance with the crashworthiness design categories set out in section 4 of BS EN 15227:2008.

GN74 A crashworthiness design category should be selected from BS EN 15227:2008 from the categories C-I or C-II set out in that document. In determining the appropriate crashworthiness category to be allocated, taking into account the potential for benefits in terms of mass and cost, due consideration should be given to the intended use, operational environment and compatibility with the structural design category allocated. Reference should be made to Annex A of BS EN 15227:2008 for guidance on the collision scenarios and their applicability.





GN75 The emphasis placed on collision scenarios requires the complete train to be considered as a system. A complete collision energy management strategy should be developed such that in addition to the characteristics of the primary structure and any structural collapse zones within it, the characteristics of couplers, drawgear and anti-climbers are also fully considered.

GN76 For fixed formation units, an effective collision energy management strategy has the potential to maximise useable space that could be otherwise lost and minimise any possible weight penalties that might be incurred, by allowing the designer to tailor or adjust collapse zones according to a vehicle’s position within the train. BS EN 15227:2008 sets out details of reference trains to be used for variable or non-fixed formations (for example freight trains, traditional locomotive hauled passenger trains).

GN77 Where doorways or vestibules are placed in or adjacent to structural collapse zones, the effects of controlled structural collapse during a collision should be very carefully considered against the needs for access and evacuation afterwards, which may be compromised if some vehicle exits are rendered partially or completely unusable.

4.3.2 Prevention of overriding GN78 BS EN 15227:2008 sets out performance requirements for prevention of overriding in the

event of a collision. These form part of the collision energy management strategy and, being performance based, give considerable design flexibility. Consideration of weight and potential repair costs might determine whether separate bolted-on energy absorbing anti-climber units are fitted, fixed devices at the ends of individual vehicles or limits on coupler movements are used to achieve the required performance.

GN79 At the intermediate ends within a fixed formation rake the required functionality may be incorporated into the coupler assemblies instead of using toothed plates. Where the coupler assembly is utilised careful consideration should be given to the ability to control relative roll between vehicles by this method. For all methods performance on curves should be considered.

GN80 Currenty there is no accepted standard position or contact geometry or profile for anti-climber location in GB or Europe. Consideration should therefore be given to existing rolling stock designs that are likely to be encountered and also the likelihood of accidentally contacting vehicles fitted with conventional buffers. Many designs of multiple unit are fitted with anti-climbers at a similar height and of a similar width and depth to the Class 465 Networker units. These positions are lower than conventional buffer positions and for maximum compatibility the designer should consider catering for both situations.

GN81 A degree of protection against overriding for buffered vehicles could be offered by using retractable or shear-out buffers in conjunction with conventional anti-climber devices or with an anti-climbing fender mounted immediately above the buffers.

GN82 It is recommended that where separate anti-climber devices are fitted, a longitudinal compressive proof load equal to the force required at buffer positions should be applied at the anti-climber device positions, provided that this is consistent with the overall collision energy management strategy.

4.3.3 Vehicle end wall strength GN83 GM/RT2100 issue three required the strengthening of vehicle ends in order to resist

penetration by objects which could be struck in a collision, for example another rail vehicle, road vehicles or lineside structures. These proof load requirements were essentially to ensure that intermediate and non-driving vehicle end walls, end wall edges and the edges of all door and window apertures were strengthened in addition to the standard longitudinal proof loads at floor, waist and cantrail heights.





GN84 These objectives are considered to be addressed through the requirements of BS EN 15227:2008 for the preservation of survival space for passengers and traincrew in the event of a collision and it is considered that vehicles designed using the collision scenarios set out in BS EN 15227:2008 are considered to provide an equivalent or higher level of protection than that required by GM/RT2100 issue three. It should however be noted that the specified collision scenarios are not necessarily what will actually occur in practice and where vehicles jack-knife in a derailment, vehicle corners may come into contact with adjacent vehicle corners. The consequences of any such contact should be considered in the overall design of the vehicle.

GN85 The majority of GB passenger vehicles have end tapers for gauge clearance. The end wall should be as wide as possible to maximise protection for the main vehicle section by reducing to a minimum any ‘step’ in terms of primary structural strength that could be caused by the vehicle body end taper. This could be of significance where for example a fibre reinforced polymer moulding is used to achieve the change in vehicle cross-section.

GN86 Where vehicle body end tapers are required the tapered portion of the vehicle structure side wall should either:

a) Transfer end wall loadings into the main structure without significant permanent deformation.

Or

b) The full section side wall edges should be strengthened to withstand without significant permanent deformation a body end wall edge load directly at the position where the body end taper effectively begins.

4.3.4 Obstacle deflectors GM/RT2100 issue four Section 3.3 Requirements for vehicles carrying passengers, personnel or traincrew 3.3.2 Obstacle deflectors 3.3.2.1 The requirements of BS EN 15227:2008 for obstacle deflectors shall apply in

accordance with the crashworthiness design categories set out in section 4 of BS EN 15227:2008.

GN87 GB requirements for obstacle deflectors were first established after the accident at Polmont (30 July 1984), when an Inter-City push-pull train was derailed after the driving trailer hit a cow on the track at high speed.

GN88 GM/RT2100 issue three required for operational speeds greater than 160 km/h that the axleloads of the leading bogie of the leading vehicle were at least 120 kN to reduce the risk of derailment in the event of an impact. While a leading bogie axleload is not required by BS EN 12663-1:2010 or BS EN 15227:2008, application of the collision scenarios specified is considered to give an equivalent overall resistance to derailment in the event of a collision.

GN89 It is recommended that the deflector is mounted as far forward as possible since it is considered that in this position there is a lower probability of debris becoming wedged between the rails and the underside of the vehicle headstock or falling below the obstacle deflector with an associated increased risk of derailment.

GN90 The gap between the lower edge of an obstacle deflector and the rail should be minimised to prevent significant objects passing under the blade. In determining the clearances required, very careful consideration should be given to the likelihood of particular combinations of deflections and vehicle movements that can occur. An unrealistic combination of successive worst case movements will produce an unnecessarily large gap between the deflector blade and rail and reduce the deflector’s effectiveness.





GN91 The obstacle deflector should sweep the full width of the bogie and running gear. In maximising the obstacle deflector blade surface, consideration should be given to the possibility that additional hazards might be created by localised projections into the extremities of the permissible gauge profile. It should therefore be permissible to omit some areas of the theoretical blade surface defined by the vehicle kinematic profile and swept envelope, provided that the vehicle leading bogie and underframe are adequately shielded.

GN92 An obstacle deflector should be chevron-shaped in plan so as to encourage obstacles to move sideways in the event of a collision. An extensive series of tests on models of obstacle deflectors undertaken by Liverpool University was demonstrated that an included blade angle of 160° was the most efficient angle for clearing impact debris.

GN93 If a deflector is raked forwards or backwards in side elevation, impact debris can be either forced downwards onto the track or upwards into the body structure, from where it could later fall. In both cases, debris would not be efficiently cleared and could cause derailment.

GN94 Experiments have shown that, to minimise the risk of excessive lateral or vertical loading which could promote derailment when impacted, the deflector should be vertical, and that the underframe forward of the deflector should be smooth to encourage sideways flow of debris. A slightly concave curvature, as for a snow plough, is acceptable.

GN95 While under load, a deflector should deform in such a way that it does not itself become a danger. Many designs of obstacle deflector currently in service have blades that are hinged at the top edge which guarantees that as the blade deflects, the lower edges move away from the rail head. It is also acceptable for a complete deflector blade to deflect longitudinally but under no circumstances should striking an obstacle permanently reduce the effective gap to rail.

GN96 If there is likely to be appreciable rotation of the vehicle end under impact conditions due to a combination of the vehicle pitching on its suspension and deflection of the body structure, the resulting blade angle when the deflector is at its design load should be considered together with the rotation or displacement of the deflector blade. It could therefore be desirable under some circumstances to rake the blade forward to some extent in order to ensure that the blade is reasonably vertical when fully loaded and thus minimise any potential for the vehicle to ride up over an obstacle.

4.3.5 Derailment loadings GN97 In the event of a derailment, vehicles in a train carrying passengers, personnel or traincrew

should remain coupled and resist jack-knifing.

GN98 To address the objectives of maintaining coupling and jack-knifing resistance, GM/RT2100 issue three required that the vehicle structure should withstand as proof loads a 100 kN vertical shear force together with a 100 kN transverse shear force transferred from an adjacent vehicle by the coupling system or system of articulation. This typically resulted in structural reinforcement to limit the coupler movements vertically and horizontally in order to minimise relative movement between vehicles in the event of a collision or derailment.

GN99 Application of the collision scenarios specified in BS EN 15227:2008 is considered to give an equivalent overall resistance to excessive relative displacement in the event of a collision or derailment. It is however recommended that in addition careful consideration is given to any derailment scenarios that might not be fully addressed by the collision scenarios set out in BS EN 15227:2008. If it is considered desirable to place additional limitations on inter-vehicle displacements it is recommended that either the load cases specified in GM/RT2100 issue three are applied or suitable design values are determined by calculation or test.





4.3.6 Missile protection GM/RT2100 issue four Section 3.3 Requirements for vehicles carrying passengers, personnel or traincrew 3.3.3 Missile protection 3.3.3.1 To resist penetration into the vehicle of missiles or other objects:

a) Forward facing surfaces of vehicles occupied by people shall have an equivalent impact resistance to that required for the vehicle cab windscreens (see 5.2).

b) Roofs over areas which are freely accessible to passengers, personnel or traincrew during normal service shall withstand, without penetration, the impact of a 100 kg concrete cube with an edge length of 0.36 m dropped from a height of 3.0 m above the roof. The cube shall be dropped so that a flat surface hits the roof.

GN100 In providing protection for traincrew or passengers from missiles or other objects it is permissible for some degree of penetration to occur. The missile or object should not however penetrate to the extent that it is exposed to or enter the occupied vehicle interior or the impact result in the detachment interior components or result in debris inside occupied areas.

GN101 The roof impact test is intended to simulate an overbridge coping stone being deliberately dislodged and dropped onto a train roof. The designer should however also consider possible impact by other potential missiles of similar mass and should therefore ensure that reasonably consistent roof impact strength is maintained throughout the vehicle. Where there is roof mounted equipment, this may be used to provide the impact resistance required.

4.4 Requirements for freight vehicles 4.4.1 Applicable standards for freight vehicles

GM/RT2100 issue four Section 3.4 Requirements for freight vehicles 3.4.1 Applicable standards for freight vehicles 3.4.1.1 The Conventional Rail Freight Wagons TSI (CR WAG TSI) sets out requirements

for freight vehicles intended for operation over the conventional rail Trans-European Network (TEN).

3.4.1.2 In the case of freight vehicles for operation exclusively on other routes, these shall also be designed to comply with the requirements of the CR WAG TSI.

GN102 In the first instance compliance with the CR WAG TSI is required. Where the TSI contains open points national technical rules have been notified by the Department for Transport and a list is published on their web site.

GN103 The requirements for the transportation of hazardous goods are set out in the Regulations concerning the International Carriage of Dangerous Goods by Rail (RID) as mandated by Directive 2008/68/EC (formerly mandated by Council Directive 96/49/EC).

4.4.2 Tank wagons GM/RT2100 issue four Section 3.4 Requirements for freight vehicles 3.4.2 Tank wagons 3.4.2.1 Where a clearance of at least 920 mm from the uncompressed buffer face to the

end of the tank does not exist, tank wagons designed to carry dangerous goods shall be provided with additional end protection against overriding in the event of a collision or derailment. Such protection shall:





a) Extend upwards from the buffer centreline for at least 500 mm

b) Minimise the risk of puncturing or damaging the tank end by the provision of smooth surfaces without sharp edges or corners in areas likely to contact the tank if the end protection is deflected or deformed in the event of a collision or derailment.

GN104 Attachment 2 of GM/RT2101 (document now withdrawn) set out that the end protection required should be achieved by ‘a steel plate, or channel section mounted on top of the headstock to extend its outer vertical face by at least 300 mm upwards. The plate should be braced by intermediate gussets having a minimum base length of approximately 300 mm. The thickness of the faceplate should not be less than 5 mm and its top edge should be reinforced by a rearward facing flange width of at least 75 mm’. This remains in general terms a design option subject to meeting the performance requirements set out in GM/RT2100 issue four. In GM/RT2100 issue four the height is set out relative to the buffers to give a consistent datum and there could thus be a small difference between existing and new designs. A rear facing flange is no longer recommended. Reference should be made to RSSB research project T124 ‘Review of tank wagon end protection’.

GN105 For certain dangerous goods as specified in the individual classes, additional protection of the sides of tanks should be provided by one or more of the following techniques:

a) Enhanced thickness of the tank wall

b) Provision of side fenders

c) External lagging, enclosed within a steel cladding jacket.

GM/RT2100 issue four Section 3.4 Requirements for freight vehicles 3.4.3 Barrier and translator vehicles 3.4.3.1 It is permissible for barrier vehicles or translator vehicles, intended solely for the

purpose of permitting trains or units to be hauled by otherwise incompatible vehicles or locomotives, to be designed to the same structural design criteria as the hauled vehicles with which they interface.

3.4.3.2 It is permissible for structural criteria permitted by 3.4.3.1 to apply to either the complete vehicle or locally where required for non-standard or incompatible drawgear attachment points and associated interfaces on translator vehicles.

3.4.3.3 Compliance with the crashworthiness requirements set out in 3.3 shall not be required for barrier or translator vehicles, intended solely for the purpose of permitting trains or units to be hauled by otherwise incompatible vehicles or locomotives.

GN106 The intention is to ensure that barrier wagons or translator vehicles for use with multiple units or metro vehicles (BS EN 12663-1:2010 Category P-II or P-III) are not required to meet the more onerous requirements for locomotive hauled coaches (Category P-I) or wagons (Category F-1).

GN107 The same principles are intended to apply equally to translator vehicles for hauling existing stock built to earlier standards or specifications and to include, for example, London Underground or metro vehicles.





Part 5 Guidance on Structural Requirements for Bogies and Suspension Elements

5.1 Structural requirements for bogies and running gear GM/RT2100 issue four Section 4.1 Bogies and running gear 4.1.1 Bogie structures 4.1.1.1 The bogie design load cases shall be consistent with both the extreme and

normal service conditions under which the vehicle is required to operate.

4.1.1.2 Bogie design load cases for items of equipment and their attachments that are of sufficient mass to affect the dynamic behaviour of the bogie shall be determined from previous experience, testing, simulation, or by a combination of these techniques.

4.1.1.3 It is permissible to use bogie design load cases used for previous vehicles where it can be demonstrated that:

a) The new application is directly comparable.

b) Performance in service has been satisfactory in terms of no failures or unscheduled maintenance.

4.1.1.4 The bogie design load cases set out in 4.3 and 4.4 represent established values of inertia load for items of equipment outside the scope of 4.1.1.2 and which have resulted in satisfactory performance for typical conditions. However it shall be demonstrated that the general requirements have been met for any particular application.

GN108 Determination of bogie and suspension loads is dependent on the configuration and design of a particular bogie type and in particular, the arrangement of the bogie frame and the mounting of equipment heavy enough to affect the dynamic behaviour of the bogie. It is not possible to give a precise definition but the items of equipment to be considered as ‘heavy’ are those that contribute enough mass or inertia to have a significant influence on the dynamic performance of the bogie as a whole. Typical ‘heavy’ items would be traction motors or gearboxes for which design loads should be individually determined.

GN109 For four wheeled vehicles or where conventional bogies or suspensions are not employed, the relevant load cases should be considered to apply in the immediate vicinity of attachments to the vehicle body for a sufficient distance for suspension loads to be adequately transferred into the primary vehicle structure.

GM/RT2100 issue four Section 4.1 Bogies and running gear 4.1.2 Proof load cases 4.1.2.1 Bogie structures shall withstand as proof loads all peak forces imposed on them

in service taking full account of the full range of operational conditions likely to be encountered. Proof load cases to be considered, taking into account the layout and suspension characteristics of the bogie, shall include, but not be limited to:

a) Maximum dynamic vertical load due to track input.

b) Maximum dynamic vertical load due to low speed derailment.

c) Maximum dynamic vertical load due to abrupt application of payload for relevant freight vehicles.





d) Maximum lateral load at point of wheel lifting due to overspeeding on a curve.

e) Loads due to lifting a vehicle / bogie on its side in recovery situations.

f) Maximum dynamic longitudinal load due to shunt / buffing operations

g) Maximum twist load input.

h) Maximum steering load (shear across the frame)

4.1.2.2 Bogie structures shall withstand as proof loads all reaction forces imposed on them by the proof load cases for bogie mounted and axle mounted equipment.

4.1.2.3 Bogie structures shall withstand as proof loads all reaction forces imposed on them by the vehicle body and bogie retention proof load cases.

GN110 Reference should be made to appropriate infrastructure installation and maintenance documents for track maintenance limits and track fault conditions that can be encountered. In the majority of cases these will be Network Rail’s standards.

4.1.3 Fatigue load cases 4.1.3.1 Bogie structures shall achieve their required fatigue life with a survival probability

of at least 97.5%, when subjected to loads representative of operating conditions when in service. Fatigue load cases to be considered, taking into account the layout and suspension characteristics of the bogie, shall include, but not be limited to:

a) Vertical dynamic loads.

b) Lateral dynamic loads.

c) Repeated twist load inputs.

d) Dynamic steering loads (shear across the frame)

4.1.3.2 Each fatigue load case shall be considered as acting separately and the damage from the individual cases shall be summed.

4.1.3.3 The fatigue design life for bogie structures or substructures shall be determined and shall be at least equal to either the design life of the vehicle or a predetermined maintenance interval at which point the structure shall be considered to be life expired.

4.1.4 Derivation of bogie proof and fatigue load cases from test data 4.1.4.1 It is permissible for load cases derived from test or service data in accordance

with Appendix A to be used to support or to replace the bogie equipment loads set out in 4.3 and 4.4.

GN111 No specific guidance offered. See applicable guidance for Part 3 of GM/RT2100 issue four set out in Part 4 of this guidance note, in particular GN053 and GN054.

GM/RT2100 issue four Section 4.2 Body to bogie attachments 4.2.1 Proof load cases 4.2.1.1 As far as is reasonably practicable, bogies shall remain attached to vehicle

bodies during a collision or derailment. To achieve this objective, in addition to loads resulting from the requirements of 4.1.2, the body to bogie attachments shall withstand as proof loads the following conditions:





a) The bogie mass subject to a longitudinal acceleration of ±5 g. The relevant proportion of the maximum vertical body proof load at the secondary suspension shall be applied simultaneously.

b) The relevant proportion of the fully laden body mass, together with the associated bogie mass, subject to a lateral acceleration sufficient to lift the wheels from the rail at one side or the bogie mass subject to a lateral acceleration of 1 g, whichever is the greater.

c) A compressive vertical load of the fully laden body mass subject to an acceleration of 2 g.

d) A tensile vertical load of the bogie mass subject to an acceleration of 2 g.

4.2.1.2 For locomotives and vehicles in rigidly coupled rakes the longitudinal load shall be the bogie mass subject to an acceleration of ±3 g.

4.2.2 Ultimate load case 4.2.2.1 The body to bogie attachment shall withstand as ultimate loads the longitudinal

decelerations and forces imposed by the collision scenarios set out in 3.3.1.1.

4.2.2.2 Body to bogie connection arrangements shall ensure that failure due to overload occurs in a predictable manner and that the structural integrity of the vehicle body structure is not reduced.

4.2.3 Fatigue load cases 4.2.3.1 Fatigue loads for body to bogie connections shall be determined in accordance

with Appendix A.

4.2.3.2 The fatigue design life for body to bogie connections shall be determined and be at least equal to either the design life of the vehicle or a predetermined maintenance interval at which point the items affected shall be considered to be life expired.

GN112 The body tobogie load cases are intended to ensure that bogies will, as far as is practicable, stay attached to the body in the event of a derailment, collision and during lifting or jacking for recovery. The collision scenarios set out in 3.3.1.1 of GM/RT2100, called up from BS EN 15227:2008 are a front end impact between two identical train units; a front end impact with a different type of railway vehicle; a front end impact with a large road vehicle on a level crossing and an impact into a low obstacle (for example a car on a level crossing or a large animal).

GN113 Bogie retention is considered to be beneficial as the risk of additional injury or damage due to impacts with detached bogies is reduced and the drag or resistance to motion of a derailed train is generally considered to be significantly higher if the bogies remain attached and thus a higher proportion of a train’s kinetic energy will be dissipated by this means rather than through structural collapse. Analysis of accident data suggests a strong correlation between bogie retention and lower levels of passenger injury. Recent accidents have indicated that where vehicles have been designed to GM/RT2100, bogie retention has been generally satisfactory even for severe derailments. This represents a considerable improvement over earlier generations of vehicles designed to lesser requirements.

GN114 For the body to bogie attachments, the longitudinal load is intended to represent the effect of a heavy shunt or minor end-on collision. The difference in longitudinal acceleration for locomotives and vehicles in rigidly coupled rakes reflects the difference in effective mass of these vehicle types.





GN115 To limit structural damage, the intention is to ensure that when the ultimate loadings are exceeded, failure of the body to bogie connection should take place in a pre-determined manner and that as a result the primary vehicle structure should not suffer damage that could compromise its integrity and thus expose passenger or traincrew to additional risk of injury.

GN116 Where multiple connections are used as part of a retention arrangement, the design should as far as possible take into account the possibility of successive overload of individual connections in the course of a derailment. It should be noted that a degree of additional bogie retention capability will be provided by parts of the suspension such as roll-bars and yaw dampers even if this function is not explicitly part of their design. In taking advantage of these connections the overall bogie retention capability of a vehicle can be considerably enhanced.

GM/RT2100 issue four Section 4.3 Equipment attached to bogie frames 4.3.1 Proof load cases 4.3.1.1 Except for items of equipment in the scope of 4.1.1.1, items of equipment and

their mountings shall withstand as proof loads, the inertia forces associated with the following accelerations:

a) Vertical ±20.0 g at the wheelset centreline, ±10.0 g at the bogie centreline. Values at other positions shall be obtained by linear interpolation or extrapolation.

b) Transverse ±10.0 g at the wheelset centreline, ±5.0 g at the bogie centreline. Values at other positions shall be obtained by linear interpolation or extrapolation.

c) Longitudinal ±5.0 g or ±3.0 g according to the criteria set out in 4.2.1.

4.3.2 Fatigue load cases 4.3.2.1 Except for items of equipment in the scope of 4.1.1.1, items of equipment and

their mountings shall be assessed assuming a fatigue life of not less than 107 cycles with a survival probability of at least 97.5 %, under the inertia forces associated with the following accelerations:

a) Vertical ±6.0 g at the wheelset centreline, ±3.0 g at the bogie centreline. Values at other positions shall be obtained by linear interpolation or extrapolation.

b) Transverse ±5.0 g at the wheelset centreline, ±2.5 g at the bogie centreline. Values at other positions shall be obtained by linear interpolation or extrapolation.

c) Longitudinal ±2.5 g.

4.3.2.2 The fatigue design life for items of equipment and their mountings shall be determined and be at least equal to either the design life of the vehicle or a predetermined maintenance interval at which point the items affected shall be considered to be life expired.

4.3.3 Locally generated accelerations, forces and resonances

4.3.3.1 The accelerations set out in 4.3.1 and 4.3.2 do not include the effects of locally generated accelerations, forces and resonances acting within and on equipment. Special provision shall be made to withstand such additional forces or means provided to avoid their occurrence.





4.3.3.2 Locally generated accelerations, forces and resonances to be considered shall include, but not be limited to, the effects of:

a) Traction motors.

b) Traction gearboxes, final drive units or drive couplings.

c) Brake equipment.

d) Suspension components or actuators.

e) Shoegear (if applicable).

GN117 It is the intention that all items of equipment mounted to bogie frames should as far as is reasonably practicable remain attached in the event of derailments, heavy shunts and minor to medium collisions. Due to the proximity to the wheels and rail, the security of all bogie mounted equipment should be considered of the highest importance because of the potential for derailment in the event of complete or partial detachment of equipment.

GN118 The magnitudes of acceleration that can be seen in service are highly sensitive to the combination of operating speed and track quality that will be encountered. In some circumstances the specified values could be optimistic and it is strongly recommended that the design is validated against the limiting proof acceleration values from test data.

GN119 The acceleration magnitudes specified for bogie and axlebox mounted equipment correspond to the agreed values for the planned revision of BS EN 13749 (to replace BS EN 13749:2005). It is recommended that this standard is referred to when it is published (anticipated for late 2010, early 2011).

GN120 Research to establish load cases for bogie and axlebox mounted equipment for specifying ERTMS equipment has indicated that significantly higher values should be used for some load cases (see RSSB research project T088). It should be noted that the purpose of this study was to establish robust ‘worst case’ design parameters to allow common equipment to be specified for application to a wide variety of vehicle types and over a very broad range of possible operating and track conditions including degraded suspension modes and wheelset damage. These values would therefore not be appropriate for generic load cases from the perspective of a vehicle.

GM/RT2100 issue four Section 4.4 Equipment attached to axleboxes 4.4.1 Proof load cases 4.4.1.1 Items of equipment attached to axleboxes, together with their mountings, shall

withstand, as proof loads, the inertia forces associated with the following accelerations acting at the axle centreline. Values at other positions shall be derived using the characteristics of the suspension system:

a) Vertical ±70.0 g.

b) Transverse ±10.0 g.

c) Longitudinal ±10.0 g.

4.4.2 Fatigue load cases

4.4.2.1 Items of equipment attached to axleboxes, together with their mountings, shall be assessed assuming a fatigue life of not less than 107 cycles with a survival probability of at least 97.5%, under the inertia forces associated with the following accelerations acting at the axle centreline. Values at other positions shall be derived using the characteristics of the suspension system:





a) Vertical ±25.0 g.

b) Transverse ±5.0 g.

4.4.2.2 The fatigue design life for items of equipment attached to axleboxes, together with their mountings shall be determined and be at least equal to either the design life of the vehicle or a predetermined maintenance interval at which point the items affected shall be considered to be life expired.

4.4.3 Locally generated accelerations, forces and resonances

4.4.3.1 The accelerations set out in 4.4.1 and 4.4.2 do not include the effects of locally generated accelerations, forces and resonances acting within and on equipment. Special provision shall be made to withstand such additional forces or means provided to avoid their occurrence.

4.4.3.2 The accelerations specified shall be factored if necessary to take into account any force variation effects due to the particular primary suspension arrangement.

GN121 The same guidance for bogie frame mounted equipment (GN117 to GN120) is equally applicable to equipment attached to axleboxes which could include for example lifeguards, third rail shoegear, tripcock equipment, sanding hose brackets, flange lubricating equipment and speed probes.

GM/RT2100 issue four Section 4.5 Lifeguards 4.5.1 All leading bogies shall be fitted with lifeguards, as stipulated below, with the aim

of reducing as far as is reasonably practicable the risk of derailment due to impact by small obstacles on the rails.

4.5.2 A lifeguard shall be:

a) Made of a ductile material.

b) Able to resist a sustained concentrated proof load of at least 20 kN applied at its bottom edge horizontally and in a longitudinal direction towards the adjacent wheel, and during deformation beyond the proof load, able to resist an ultimate load of at least 35 kN.

c) Able to resist the proof load set out in b) combined with a transverse load, in either direction, of at least 10 kN.

d) Designed so that, as the load in b) or c) is increased up to the ultimate or maximum dynamic load that it can sustain during impact with the obstacle, it deforms plastically to absorb as much additional energy as reasonably practicable.

e) Designed so that, during and after deformation due to the loads specified, it does not foul the track or running gear and that contact with the wheel tread, if it occurs, does not pose the risk of derailment.

f) Designed so that, under the conditions described above, it remains securely attached to the bogie.

4.5.3 The bogie and the attachment of the lifeguard to the bogie shall not be damaged or suffer significant permanent deformation under the loads set out above.

4.5.4 If mounted on a bogie frame or mounted on an axlebox, the lifeguard and its attachments shall be:





a) Capable of withstanding the applicable proof loads.

b) Capable of withstanding without failure the inertia forces associated with all applicable fatigue accelerations.

4.5.5 The accelerations specified shall be factored if necessary to take into account any force magnification due to the particular primary suspension arrangement.

4.5.6 Lifeguards shall be positioned as close as reasonably practicable to the rail head taking into account wheel wear, suspension movements, suspension wear and assembly tolerances.

GN122 The force values and load combinations for lifeguards were developed by British Rail and British Rail Research after an extensive series of tests and development work.

GN123 It is essential that a lifeguard, when struck by an obstacle, should not itself then become a danger by breaking or by otherwise becoming detached or partially detached from the bogie, or by deforming in such a way that it could foul the track or running gear. The use of a ductile material minimises the danger of breaking and also maximises the capacity for absorbing the energy of impact.

GN124 Where a lifeguard is attached to a bogie frame or axlebox, the design of the joint or connection is usually a critical interface. On many designs of bogie this is a horizontal bolted joint between the lifeguard and the outer end of the axlebox casting. If the lifeguard is impacted and the pre-load in the joint overcome, some or all of the bolts will be directly loaded in tension. The preparation of the joint surfaces and the correct tensioning of the bolts are therefore critical for this type of installation. The detail design should ensure as far as possible that the integrity of the joint cannot be compromised due to incorrect assembly or impacts up to at least the ultimate load case specified and that any potentially dangerous defects can be easily detected.

GN125 While an ultimate load case is specified as a minimum value, lifeguards should not be so strong as to result in undesirable consequences to the structures on which they were mounted, for example, permanent deformation of bogie frames.

GN126 Research into lifeguard design and performance has been undertaken as RSSB research project T189. A concept design of lifeguard has been developed and prototypes tested in which a substantial increase in reaction force is gained by locating the lifeguard blade close to the wheel and allowing it to contact the wheel as it deforms under load. The rear face of the lifeguard is shaped so that, when contact is made with the wheel, the lifeguard is supported and the forces are directly transferred into the wheel. The increase in impact force that can be resisted by using this approach should enable significantly heavier obstacles to be removed.





Part 6 Guidance on GM/RT2100 Appendix A 6.1 Appendix A: Derivation of load cases from test or service data

GM/RT2100 issue four Appendix A Derivation of Load Cases from Test or Service Data The content of this appendix is mandatory

A.1 Introduction A.1.1 This appendix sets out minimum requirements for the derivation of load cases

from test or service data as permitted for example in Parts 3 and 4 of this document.

A.2 Data collection and processing A.2.1 Data collection methods, sample sizes and processing methods employed shall

be fully documented.

A.2.2 Due account shall be taken of all potential sources of error and limitations due to sample size.

A.2.3 It is permissible for data derived from calculation or simulations to be used where test or service data is not available.

A.2.4 Calculation methods and models shall be validated against experimental data and service experience where applicable.

A.2.5 It is permissible for historical load case data to be used where it can be demonstrated that this is applicable and that satisfactory service performance has been achieved.

A.3 Derivation of load cases A.3.1 Derivation of load cases, from load cases used satisfactorily in past applications

or from test data, shall include, as a minimum, assessment of the following factors:

a) Suspension configuration.

b) Variability of suspension components due to manufacture, wear, localised failure or degradation.

c) Vehicle load due to passengers or payload.

d) Vehicle speeds.

e) Magnitudes and frequencies of traction and braking loads.

f) Infrastructure on which the vehicle is to be operated.

g) Variability of infrastructure due to maintenance and renewal cycles.

h) Anticipated frequency of operation throughout the vehicle’s life.

A.4 Application and limitations of derived load cases A.4.1 Where fatigue load cases are determined from test data any potential limitations

to the operation of the vehicle in terms of design life shall be clearly identified.

A.4.2 For fatigue load cases derived from test data, it shall be determined if there are any particular combinations of load that act in phase. Where it can be demonstrated that particular loads do not act in phase, these can be treated as if acting separately and the damage from the individual cases summed.





GN127 Any limitations regarding operation should form part of the route compatibility acceptance process as set out in GE/RT8270.

GN128 The principal requirements for determining load cases experimentally are given. The extent of testing and the degree of analysis will be dependent on the particular component or components and the application. Where simulation is used to determine design loads the models should be validated by comparison with available test or service data. An additional safety factor commensurate with the extent of the validation that can be achieved should be applied to the results.





Definitions Anti-climber device A device fitted at vehicle ends that is engaged, or will engage, with a device on an impacting, or adjacent, vehicle during a collision when structural collapse occurs and which resists the overriding of one vehicle by another.

Barrier vehicle A vehicle intended to separate or segregate other vehicles within a train.

Freight vehicles Vehicles designed and used for carrying payloads which do not include people.

Lifeguard A structural element positioned in front of a wheel with the objective of preventing small obstacles from entering the 'nip' between the wheel and the rail and thereby causing the wheel to lift with a consequent risk of derailment.

Obstacle deflector A structural device placed at the leading end of a rail vehicle with the objective of shielding the leading wheelset and removing any large obstacles from the path of the train.

Passenger vehicles Vehicles designed and used for carrying passengers who are fare-paying customers.

Rail vehicle A vehicle designed for operation on a railway, excluding those used within a possession only.

Rigidly coupled rake If adjacent vehicles in a rake are effectively rigidly coupled together in the longitudinal sense, all the vehicles may be considered to act as one when subjected to longitudinal shock loads due to rough shunting or collisions. In practical terms the requirement for rigid coupling may be met by the kind of very stiff element that is used in the articulation joints of Class 373 vehicles. It is not met on vehicles equipped with automatic couplers or bar couplers where the drawgear permits large and easily visible relative movements between vehicles. In such cases the vehicles should be considered as acting separately when subjected to longitudinal shock loads. Survival space The minimum space occupied by a person necessary for that person to survive.

Traincrew Staff and personnel such as drivers, guards and conductors employed on board a train who have responsibilities for its safe operation.

Translator vehicle A barrier vehicle equipped with different type of coupler or inter-vehicle connections at each end to allow trains to be formed of otherwise incompatible vehicles.





References The Catalogue of Railway Group Standards and the Railway Group Standards CD-ROM give the current issue number and status of documents published by RSSB. This information is also available from www.rgsonline.co.uk.

Documents referenced in the text RGSC 01 The Railway Group Standards Code Railway Group Standards GE/RT8270 Assessment of Compatibility of Rolling Stock and Infrastructure GM/RT2100 Requirements for Rail Vehicle Structures GM/RT2101 Requirements for the Design, Construction, Test & Use of the Tanks

of Rail Tank Wagons (withdrawn) RSSB documents GM/GN2687 Guidance on Rail Vehicle Interior Structure and Secondary Structural

Elements RSSB research report T088

Vibration environment for rail vehicle mounted equipment RSSB research report T124

Review of tank wagon end protection RSSB research report T189

Optimal design and deployment of obstacle deflectors & lifeguards Other references 96/49/EC Council Directive 96/49/EC on the approximation of the laws of the

Member States with regard to the transport of dangerous goods by rail 2008/68/EC Directive 2008/68/EC of the European Parliament and of The Council

of 24 September 2008 on the inland transport of dangerous goods BS 7608:1993 Code of practice for Fatigue design and assessment of steel

structures BS 8118-1:1991 Structural use of aluminium Part 1: Code of practice for design BS EN 1999-1-3:2007

Eurocode 9: Design of aluminium structures – Part 1-3: Strucutres susceptible to fatigue

BS EN 1993-1-9:2005 Eurocode 3: Design of steel structures Part 1-9: Fatigue

BS EN 12663-1:2010 Railway applications - Structural requirements of railway vehicle bodies Part 1: Locomotives and passenger rolling stock (and alaternative method for freight wagons)

BS EN 12663-2:2010 Railway applications - Structural requirements of railway vehicle bodies Part 2: Freight wagons

BS EN 13749:2005 Railway applications - Wheelsets and bogies - Method of specifying the structural requirements of bogie frames

BS EN 15227:2008 Railway applications — Crashworthiness requirements for railway vehicle bodies

BS EN 15663:2009 Railway applications – Definition of vehicle reference masses BS EN 50125-1:1999

Railway applications - Environmental conditions for equipment – Part 1: Equipment on board rolling stock

CR WAG TSI Conventional Rail Freight Wagons TSI, Decision 2006/861/EC (OJ L 344, 8.12.2006, p. 1)





DD ENV 1999-2:2000 Eurocode 9: Design of aluminium structures – Part 2: Structures susceptible to fatigue

NA to BS EN 1999-1-3 UK National Annex to Eurocode 9: Design of aluminium structures –

Part 1-3: Strucures susceptible to fatigue PD 6702-1:2009 Structural use of aluminium Part 1: Recommendations for the design

of aluminium structures to BS EN 1999 RID Convention concerning International Carriage by Rail (COTIF),

Appendix C Regulations concerning the International Carriage of Dangerous Goods by Rail

RSSB research report T088 ERTMS Vibration Environment for UK Traction and Rolling Stock

RSSB research report T189 Improved Lifeguard Performance - Lifeguard Design

Other relevant documents RSSB documents RSSB research report T190

Optimising driving cab design for driver protection in a collision RSSB research report T305

Modelling collisions of rail vehicles with deformable objects RSSB research report T520

Benchmarking weld performance in aluminium joints (ALJOIN Plus) Other references EN 15085-1:2007 Railway applications — Welding of railway vehicles and components -

Part 1: General EN 15085-3:2007 Railway applications — Welding of railway vehicles and components -

Part 3: Design requirements



Uncontrolled When Printed GN - RSSB Iss 1.pdf · 2686 Guidance on Rail Vehi cle Bodyshell, Bogie...

Documents

Transcript of Uncontrolled When Printed GN - RSSB Iss 1.pdf · 2686 Guidance on Rail Vehi cle Bodyshell, Bogie...