General Introduction

approximately one foot, the conversion to SI is given as 300 millimeters or 30 centimeters rather than an inappropriately exact conversion to 304.8 millimeters. Where formulae are used in the text, versions in both U.S. traditional units and SI units are provided. The authors have attempted to make the two versions of the formulae as consistent as possible so as to illustrate the process while also deriving answers that are generally consistent. In practice, there will be some divergence due to both the coarseness of the dimensional units in each system and the construction tolerances that are practical. For example, while a constructor might strive to place cross ties to 30-inch [762-mm] spacing, it is probable that as-built dimensions will vary plus or minus a half-inch [13 mm] from that dimension. This in no way invalidates the design because actual in-service loadings will always vary from the theoretical. In addition, it would be irrational for a constructor to attempt to place the cross ties precisely 762 millimeters apart or even 762 mm plus or minus 13 mm. If the project was being designed and constructed in SI units, it is likely that the actual specified cross tie spacing would be a value expressed in a unit that is both consistent with reasonably achievable tolerances and practical for field usesuch as 75 cm plus or minus a centimeter. 1.5 THE ENDMARK A common style feature in publishing is what is known as an endmark. An endmark is a symbol, often with some relationship to the text that precedes it, that is placed at the end of an essay, chapter, or article. As its name implies, it means the reader has reached the end of the discussion. For this second edition of the Track Design Handbook for Light Rail Transit, the authors have selected as their endmark a simplified image of 140ER7B girder guard rail. That rail was a standard of the former American Transit Engineering Association (ATEA) and commonly used on North American streetcar lines up until circa-1960 when it became no longer available. The ATEA itself disbanded in the decade following World War II as very nearly all cities in North America abandoned their trolley lines. Regrettably, streetcar trackwork professionals and their knowledge became widely dispersed. Fortunately, they left behind a notable comprehensive library of information on the design of trackwork for electric street railwaysthe ATEAs Engineering Manual. This endmark is a silent tribute to the now long-deceased authors of that volume, who in many ways knew far more about these topics than we can even hope to learn.

1-9

Chapter 2Light Rail Transit Vehicles

Table of Contents
2.1 INTRODUCTION 2.1.1 State-of-the-Art for Light Rail Vehicles 2.1.2 Vehicle/Trackway Interface 2.2 LIGHT RAIL VEHICLE DESIGN CHARACTERISTICS 2.2.1 Introduction 2.2.2 Vehicle Design 2.2.2.1 Unidirectional/Bi-Directional 2.2.2.2 Non-Articulated/Articulated 2.2.2.3 High-Floor/Low-Floor LRVs 2.2.2.3.1 Introduction 2.2.2.3.2 Low-Floor CarsGeneral 2.2.2.3.3 Low-Floor Car Truck Design 2.2.2.4 Carbody Strength, Crashworthiness, and Mass 2.2.2.4.1 Introduction 2.2.2.4.2 Crash Energy Management 2.2.2.4.3 LRV Bumpers 2.2.2.4.4 Vehicle Mass 2.3 VEHICLE CLEARANCES 2.3.1 Vehicle Clearance Envelopes 2.3.2 Vehicle Static Outline 2.3.2.1 Vehicle Length 2.3.2.2 Distance between Truck Centers 2.3.2.3 Distance between End Truck and Anticlimber or Bumper 2.3.2.4 Carbody Width 2.3.2.5 Carbody End Taper 2.3.2.6 Other Static Clearance Factors 2.3.3 Vehicle Dynamic Envelope/Outline 2.3.3.1 Vehicle Components Related to Vehicle Dynamic Envelope 2.3.3.2 Track Components Related to Vehicle Dynamic Envelope 2.3.3.3 Vehicle Clearance to Wayside Obstructions and Other Tracks 2.3.3.4 Platform Clearances 2.3.3.5 Pantograph Height Positions 2.4 VEHICLE-TRACK GEOMETRY 2.4.1 Horizontal CurvatureMinimum Turning Radius of Vehicle 2.4.2 Vertical CurvatureMinimum Sag and Crest Curves 2.4.3 Combination Conditions of Horizontal and Vertical Curvature 2.4.4 Vertical AlignmentMaximum Grades 2.4.5 Maximum Allowable Track Twist 2.4.6 Light Rail Vehicle Ride Quality 2.4.6.1 Vehicle Natural Frequency as a Factor in Ride Comfort 2.4.6.2 Track Geometrics as a Factor in Ride Comfort 2-1 2-1 2-2 2-3 2-3 2-4 2-4 2-5 2-7 2-7 2-8 2-8 2-9 2-9 2-10 2-11 2-11 2-14 2-14 2-15 2-16 2-16 2-16 2-17 2-17 2-18 2-19 2-22 2-22 2-22 2-23 2-23 2-24 2-25 2-25 2-25 2-26 2-27 2-29 2-29 2-29

2-i

Track Design Handbook for Light Rail Transit, Second Edition 2.5 VEHICLE STRUCTURAL LOADS 2.5.1 Static Vertical Loads 2.5.2 Wheel Loading Tolerance (Car Level) 2.5.3 Wheel Loading at Maximum Stationary Superelevation 2.5.4 Unsprung Mass 2.5.5 Truck Design 2.5.5.1 Motorized Trucks 2.5.5.2 Non-Motorized (Trailer) Trucks 2.5.5.3 Load Leveling 2.5.5.4 Inboard versus Outboard Bearing Trucks 2.5.6 Vehicle DynamicsPropulsion and Braking Forces 2.5.6.1 Tolerances 2.5.6.2 Maximum Train Size 2.5.6.3 Load Weight 2.5.6.4 Sanding 2.5.6.5 Vehicle Procurement Documents 2.5.6.6 Braking Forces 2.5.7 Dynamic Vertical 2.5.7.1 Primary Suspension 2.5.7.1.1 Spring Rate 2.5.7.1.2 Damping 2.5.7.2 Secondary Suspension 2.5.7.2.1 Damping 2.5.7.2.2 Yaw Friction 2.5.7.3 Maximum Operating Speed 2.5.7.4 Car Natural Frequency 2.6 TRACK GAUGE, WHEEL GAUGE, AND WHEEL CONTOURS 2.6.1 Track Gauge 2.6.2 Vehicle Wheel Gauge 2.6.3 Wheel Profiles 2.6.3.1 AAR-1B Wheel Contour 2.6.3.2 Transit Wheel Design and Selection 2.6.3.2.1 Tread Conicity 2.6.3.2.2 Tread Width 2.6.3.2.3 Flange Face Angle 2.6.3.2.4 Flange/Tread Radius 2.6.3.2.5 Flange Back Angle/Radius 2.6.3.2.6 Flange Height 2.6.3.2.7 Flange Thickness 2.6.3.2.8 Flange Tip Shape 2.6.3.2.9 Wheel Diameter 2.6.3.3 Independently Rotating Wheels (IRWs) 2.6.3.4 Miscellaneous Considerations for Wheel Contours 2.6.3.4.1 Historic Streetcars 2.6.3.4.2 Shared Trackage with Freight Railroad 2.6.3.5 Average Worn Wheel Conditions 2-ii 2-30 2-30 2-30 2-30 2-30 2-31 2-31 2-34 2-35 2-36 2-37 2-37 2-37 2-38 2-38 2-38 2-38 2-39 2-39 2-39 2-39 2-39 2-39 2-39 2-40 2-40 2-40 2-41 2-41 2-43 2-43 2-45 2-46 2-46 2-46 2-47 2-47 2-47 2-48 2-48 2-48 2-48 2-49 2-49 2-49 2-50

Light Rail Transit Vehicles 2-51 2-51 2-53 2-53 2-55 2-56 2-57

2.6.4 Maintenance of the Wheel/Rail Interface 2.6.5 Matching Wheel and Rail Profiles 2.6.6 Wheel Tread Widths and Flangeways at Frogs 2.7 RESILIENT WHEELS 2.8 ON-BOARD VEHICLE WHEEL/RAIL LUBRICATION 2.9 VEHICLES AND STATIONSADA REQUIREMENTS 2.10 REFERENCES

List of Figures
Figure 2.3.1 Figure 2.3.2 Figure 2.5.1 Figure 2.5.2 Figure 2.5.3 Figure 2.5.4 Figure 2.5.5 Figure 2.6.1 Figure 2.6.2 Figure 2.6.3 Figure 2.7.1 Three-section 70% low-floor LRV in an 82-foot [25 meter] radius curve Typical LRV dynamic envelope Kinki Sharyo power truck for 70% LRV Siemens power truck for a Combino 100% low-floor narrow gauge LRV Bombardier Flexity Outlook power truck for 100% low-floor LRV Kinki Sharyo trailer truck for 70% low-floor LRV Kinki Sharyo cranked axle for low-floor LRV trailer truck Candidate initial LRV wheel profile Compromise wheel for Karlsruhe tram-train Wheel-rail interface Bo84 wheels used by NJ Transit

2-18 2-21 2-32 2-33 2-33 2-34 2-35 2-45 2-50 2-52 2-55

List of Tables

Table 2.2.1 Relative mass of 100% vs. 70% low-floor LRVs Table 2.2.2 Light rail vehicle characteristics matrix (2010 data)

2-12 2-13

2-iii

CHAPTER 2LIGHT RAIL TRANSIT VEHICLES

2.1 INTRODUCTION The light rail transit vehicle (light rail vehicle or LRV for short) is arguably the most publically prominent feature of any LRT system. Everything about the remainder of the LRT systems infrastructure, facilities, and systemsincluding the trackis designed to make certain the LRVs can fulfill their function of transporting passengers in an efficient and expedient manner. However, LRVs come in a wide variety of designs, and it is essential to understand what the vehicle is before designing the track upon which it will run. 2.1.1 State-of-the-Art for Light Rail Vehicles Major advancements have been made in LRV design since publication of the first edition of the Track Design Handbook for Light Rail Transit. These include but are not limited to the following: The near total adoption of low-floor and partial low-floor LRVs for virtually all new start projects and also for modernization of other existing light rail systems. Because of this, nearly all new vehicles have one or more trucks that have independently rotating wheels (IRWs) instead of conventional solid axles, adding significantly to the challenges in track design. Incorporation of crash energy management (CEM) principles in the design of vehicle carbodies. This has the benefit of not only increasing safety in collisions but also significantly reducing both overall vehicle weight and the loads applied by the wheels to the rails. This also reduces power consumption; a study for New Jersey Transit (NJT) concluded that a weight reduction per car of one metric tonne [about 1.1 short tons] can save approximately 24 million kWh of energy over a 30-year life cycle for a fleet of 100 cars, each operating 40,000 miles per year.[1], [2] Improved propulsion system, reducing weight, increasing performance and reliability, and reducing maintenance costs. Improved AC traction motor/parallel gear units of compact design that are resiliently mounted on the truck frame. New designs of resilient wheels that are both easier to install and reduce the unsprung mass to that of the steel tire, thus reducing high frequency shock and vibration of both truck and track components.[3] Adoption of LRVs with multiple (more than two) carbody sections by many transit agencies. Advantages include - Increased vehicle capacity - Reduced vehicle weight per passenger - Reduced number of main propulsion components Production of light rail vehicles very specifically intended for operation in public streets. These include not only streetcars that are somewhat smaller than the previous generation of LRVs but also incorporation of carbody design principles, such as enclosed front bumpers,

2-1

Track Design Handbook for Light Rail Transit, Second Edition

that make even larger LRVs more suitable for operation in areas with large volumes of pedestrians and motor vehicles. Articulated streetcar vehicles, with the trucks semi-rigidly attached to the carbody rather than swiveling relative to the carbody. Somewhat common overseas since the 1980s, these vehicles have now appeared in North America. Self-propelled Diesel Mechanical Unit (DMU) passenger railcars are now being operated in several North American cities. While these are not light rail vehicles as that term is defined in Chapter 1, they have many similar characteristics. Therefore much of this Handbook is applicable to systems using DMU vehicles.

Other changes in light rail vehicle design are occurring, and the list above could be obsolete in a very short time. For example, as of 2011, at least one manufacturer is actively marketing a streetcar-sized LRV for North American use that has off-wire operating capability. Such vehicles can operate for limited distances without an overhead catenary system by drawing power from an on-board energy storage unit (typically a battery). Off-wire capable vehicles seem very likely to become commonplace as the technology matures. 2.1.2 Vehicle/Trackway Interface As vehicle technology continues to evolve, so does the complexity of the interface between the vehicles and the track. Even more than was the case when the first edition of this Handbook was published, there are few hard and fast rules about the relationships between vehicles and track on light rail transit systems. In spite of this lack of design consistency, there are several key vehicle-to-track and trackway parameters that the track designer must consider during design of light rail systems. These include Vehicle Weight (both empty and with full passenger load) Clearances - Required track-to-platform location tolerances to meet ADA requirements - Required clearance between cars on adjacent tracks considering car dynamics - Required route clearances (wayside, tunnel, bridge) considering car dynamics Wheel Dimensions - Wheel diameter, which can be very small in the case of low-floor vehicles and is virtually always smaller than that used on freight railroad equipment. Smaller wheel diameters produce higher contact stresses than larger wheel diameters, with resulting implications regarding rail corrugation and wear on both wheels and rail - Wheel profile or contour, including the wheel tread width, which must be compatible with the rail section(s) selected, particularly in the case of special trackwork - Wheel gauge, to ensure compatibility with the track gauge, including tolerances - Wheel back-to-back gauge that is compatible with flangeway dimensions and special trackwork check gauges Longitudinal Vehicle Forces on the Track Maximum acceleration and associated tractive forces Maximum/emergency deceleration from a combination of friction brakes, dynamic braking and electromagnetic track brakes, including the automatic application of sand

2-2