You are on page 1of 11



By D. Boocock*
A simplified linear theory of steady-state curve traversing is developed for bogie and two-
axled vehicles. The approach is based on providing guidance by creep forces in conjunc-
tion with wheel conicity, so that flange contact is normally avoided. It is shown that this
approach is realistic for a wide range of vehicle and track parameters. However, steering
by creep forces is limited by the onset of wheel slip. Representative experimental results
for a two-axled vehicle are presented.

INTRODUCTION alignments, so that a vehicle is steered round curves.

A SIGNIFICANT PROPORTION the total length of track on a Flange contact and its associated forces are avoided, since
railway system is composed of curved track. It is therefore steady-state force equilibrium can be attained by balancing
important that the dynamical behaviour of vehicles tra- the yaw restraining couples and unbalanced centrifugal
versing curves be understood, both for assessing the per- forces by longitudinal and lateral creep forces.
formance of existing vehicles and for defining the design Curve traversing under the control of creep forces has
requirements of future vehicles. the attractive advantages of minimizing wear of treads,
A problem which has received the attention of many flanges, and rails; also, the risk of derailment due to flange
authors is that of the steady motion through curves of climbing is diminished. The scope of creep force guidance,
constant curvature. The customary analytical approach- however, is limited by the coefficient of friction between
see, for instance, references (I)+ (2) (3)-is based on the wheel and rail. Excessive suspension stiffnesses or high
view that the outer flange of the leading wheelset bears centrifugal forces demand resultant creep forces greater
against the side of the outer rail, so that the vehicle is than the limiting friction force. I n consequence, the wheels
guided round curves by lateral forces acting on the flange. slip, correct alignment of axles is lost, and the mode of
Theories founded on flange guidance usually assume that guidance degenerates, requiring flange forces to restore
the wheels act as though cylindrical and that axles are equilibrium.
rigidly constrained parallel to each other. These assump- I n the following, a linear analysis is developed to
tions, particularly the second, are frequently justified describe the approximate behaviour of a bogie vehicle on
when applied to many existing vehicles, and the observed curved track; the two-axled vehicle is treated as a reduc-
behaviour on curves often agrees well with the idea of tion of the general case. The analysis is simplified by dis-
guidance by the leading flange. However, an alternative regarding small effects such as wheelset roll, gravitational
approach to curve traversing may be developed; this is stiffness, and spin creepage. The bounds of the linear
based on the concept of avoiding flange contact. theory are defined by the onset of wheel slip. Representa-
The possibility of guidance without flange contact tive experimental results for a two-axled vehicle are
follows from a recognition of the strong guiding forces presented, tests being performed both on a laboratory
acting in the contact area between wheel tread and rail. roller-rig and on the track.
These forces, termed creep forces, are generated as a
result of micro-slip in conjunction with wheel conicity. Notation
It has been shown theoretically in (4) and experimentally a Semi-wheelbase.
in ( 5 ) that, in the absence of excessive constraints, creep ab Semi-distance between bogie centres.
forces cause the wheelsets to take up approximately radial a'h fa,.
e Eccentricity of body mass centre.
The M S . of this paper was received at the Institution on 12th
December 1968 and accepted for publication on.3rdJune 1969. 22 fllYf22 Longitudinal and lateral creep coeffiaents.
* Head of Suspension Section, Advanced Projects Group, British fx (1-%q2V11.
Railways Board, The Railway Technical Centre, London Road,
Derby. fv fm.
t References are given in Appendix 2. g Gravitational acceleration.

Parameters defined in equations (21). bogies each comprise two rigid-axled wheelsets each of
Primary lateral stiffness. mass mywhich are attached to a rigid bogie-frame of mass
Secondary lateral stiffness. mb by primary suspensions having lateral stiffnesses k, and
Primary yaw stiffness. torsional stiffnesses k, in yaw. Secondary lateral and yaw
Secondary yaw stiffness. suspensions having stiffnesses k,,b and &, respectively,
Semi-track of wheelset. connect the bogie-frames to a rigid body of mass m,. Each
Mass of wheelset. suspension is assumed to act in a lateral plane parallel to
Mass of bogie-frame. that of the track. The vehicle moves at a constant speed V
Mass of vehicle body. along the track, which has a constant centre-line radius R,
(1 &e)m,. and uniform angle of cant, or superelevation, 80.
Proportional change in wheel load. The configuration of the vehicle in the lateral plane may
Wheel rolling-radius. be described without reference to roll and vertical dis-
Radius of curvature of track. placements by choosing an appropriate set of generalized
Mean radius of wheel. co-ordinates. These are defined for the leading bogie as
Forces in wheel-rail contact area. follows:
Vehicle speed. ~ * ~ , yLateral
* ~ displacements of leading and trailing
Axle load. wheelsets from pure rolling line,
Lateral displacement from track centre-line. & yaw displacements of leading and trailing wheel-
Lateral displacement of pure rolling line. 'sets from radial lines,
Relative lateral displacement. Y*b mean lateral displacement of bogie-frame from
Longitudinal and lateral creepages. line joining wheelset centres,
Cant angle of track. 4*b yaw displacement of bogie-frame fiom line
Angle of cant deficiency. joining wheelset centres,
Effective conicity. Y*C lateral displacement of body from bogie-frame
Coefficient of friction. centre.
Increment in wheelset angular speed.
Yaw displacement relative to track. A similar set of co-ordinates applies for the trailing bogie.
Misalignment angle of yaw suspension. It will be noted that wheelset displacements are specified
Relative yaw displacement. with respect to the pure rolling line. This line is defined as
the locus at rail level of the centre of a wheelset, when its
two rolling-circles form cross-sections of a cone whose
Leading, trailing wheelset. apex lies at the centre of curvature of the track. The
Bogie-frame or body of two-axled vehicle. difference in rolling-radii is then given approximately by
Body of bogie vehicle. rr-rl = -22roZo/Ro . . (1)
Left-hand side. where r, and r are the rolling-radii of the right- and left-
Right-hand side. hand wheels, ro is the nominal mean radius, and Zo the
semi-track of the wheelset. Ify is the lateral displacement
GOVERNING EQUATIONS of a wheelset from the track centre-line, an effective
Bogie vehicle configuration conicity may be defined, both for coned and hollow-
The system shown in Fig. 1 represents the leading bogie profiled wheels, as
of a bogie vehicle on curved track. The leading and trailing X = +(rr-rl)/y . . . ' (2)

Pure //
rolling k
line e
ceiire -line

rig. 1. Line diagram of bogie on curved track


Hence, the lateral displacement of the pure rolling line The creepages y1 and y 2 are defined by
from the track centre-line may be written as Y1 = (V.x-V.X)/VY Y 2 = (V3,- V J ! V (9)
y o = -rolo/ARo . . . . (3) where V,, V, are the velocity components of the con-
tact area along the rail, and V,, V , are the components
Forces acting on vehicle round the wheel. The creep coefficients fil and fiz are
The major lateral forces and couples acting on the various functions of the elastic properties of the wheel and rail
mass elements of the vehicle are and of the area of contact. Coefficient values have been
(a) centrifugal forces,
calculated by Kalker and tabulated by de Pater (6).
(b) gravitional forces due to track cant, The velocity components for the right- and left-hand
(c) suspension forces, wheels of a wheelset are approximately
v, = V ( I T Z ~ / R ~ )
( d ) longitudinal and lateral creep forces.
It has been deduced in (4) that forces due to gravitational
stiffness, spin creepage, wheelset roll, and gyroscopic
V = 0
V x= V(lfhy/ro)+Qro
V , = V*
. . . (10)
effects are normally small and may be neglected. where is the deviation of the wheelset rotational speed
The extent to which gravitational cant forces fail to from V/ro.If q is the proportional change in wheel load
counterbalance centrifugal forces may be expressed in due to cant deficiency, different creep coefficients apply at
terms of an angle of cant deficiency. Assuming the cant the two wheels since the coefficients vary as (wheel
angle to be small, cant deficiency is defined by Therefore, fll and f i z , when calculated for equal wheel
8, = (V2/gRo)-O0 . . , (4)
loads, must each be corrected by factors approximated by
Hence, the unbalanced centrifugal force acting on a wheel- (1T59).
For a constant wheelset rotational speed, the net couple
set, for example, becomes
applied by the longitudinal creep forces must be zero, i.e.
. . . . (5)
Y = -mgt),
The primary suspension exerts the following lateral
Txrr, T,lrl = 0 . . . (11)
Substitution from equations (8), (9) and ( l o ) ,whilst noting
force and yaw couple on the leading wheelset:
that y = y 0 + y * , where y o is given by equation (3), leads
F, = k,(y*b+U#*b) . . . . . . to the following expression for the increment in rotational
speed :

where 2a is the bogie wldeelbase. The lateral force applied

to the leading bogie-frame by the secondary suspension is The increment is seen to vary directly with the differential
in wheel loads.
F,b = k,by*, . . . . (74
It now follows that the creepages a t the right- and left-
If it is assumed that the wheelset and suspension displace- hand wheels may be written as
ments are very small compared with the distance between
bogie centres, so that the vehicle body lies approximately
tangential to the track at its mid-length, the expression
for the secondary yaw suspension couple becomes
= -(1+5q)/\y*/ro
= (1-+7)Ay*/ro YZI =
y2 -*-7
The corresponding longitudinal and lateral creep forces

where 2a, is the distance between bogie centres. The

T x , = -T,I = (1-6q2)f11~Y*/ro
Ta r =, ( I - - ; 4 ) 3 f 2 2 4 TVI = (1+Sdf224 } (14)
forces and couples developed by the other primary and It is evident that a difference in wheel loads causes an in-
secondary suspensions are similar in form to equations crease in longitudinal creepage at the lighter-loaded
(6) and (7). wheel and a decrease at the heavier-loaded wheel, until
Creep forces are associated with small relative velocities the associated creep forces are equal in magnitude but of
between wheel tread and rail. These velocities can be opposite sign. These forces are normally only slightly
accommodated without slip, owing to elastic deformations lower than those for equal wheel loads. In contrast,
in the contact zone, which permit conditions intermediate lateral creep forces of different magnitudes are generated
between pure adhesion and pure slip. Since creep forces at the two wheels.
can be large, their magnitudes saturating at the limiting The total lateral force and yaw couple exerted on a
friction force, they are able to exert a strong guiding in- wheelset by creep forces may be written as
fluence during curve traversing.
Assuming the contact angle between wheel and rail to be T,,+Tu1 = 2fy# .. . . (15a)
small, the creep force components in the longitudinal and (T.xl- TxrYO = -2fx&Y*/ro . (1%)
lateral directions may be written as where
T, = -f 11YlY T, = -f 22Yz . . (8 ) f x = (1-$q2)f11 and f, = f 2 2

Equations of motion
Fourteen equations are required to describe the force
equilibrium of the vehicle. However, because of the
simplifying assumptions associated with equation (7b), (19)
the equations for the leading and trailing bogies and the
vehicle body may be decoupled. By defining the following
parameter alternatives :
**b =
2fxAloa ) fi- a'b
0 wBdl
Ro + k * b R + k * -

mIc = (1 +e)m,, alb = ab for leading bogie; . . . (20)
m', = (1-e)m,, a',, = -ab for trailing bogie; where
where eab is the longitudinal eccentricity of the body mass (k&+$k@b)
centre from the geometric centre, the motion can be
K O =1+
described in terms of only seven equations, which are
applicable to both leading and trailing bogies. ( k +!fk#b)k&rO
Ki = Kn+ (21)
The relative lateral displacements of the vehicle body 4f x A l o f v a 2
and bogie-frames are given by the simple expressions k@bk,rO
K z = 1+
Y*c = -m'cg8d/2kyb
Y*b = -(mbfqm'c)god/2kg 1
. . (16)
The remaining displacements are yielded by the following
8f x A l o f g a 2
Reduced forms of the above solutions have been derived
by the author (4) (5) and by Newland (8) and applied to
five coupled equations : two-axled vehicles and bogies unrestrained in yaw.
Equations ( 1 8 ) , (19) and (20) are valid only if wheel slip
= 7 and flange contact are avoided. I n general, wheel slip
occurs before flange contact, provided the effective
conicity is not too low (C0.05).Flange contact is not, in
fact, an accurate term when applied to hollow-profiled
wheels, since the contact point follows a continuous path
from tread to flange, causing large increases in effective
conicity and gravitational stiffness. Hence, the bounds of
k* k* the linear theory will be taken to be the slip condition. This
a Y*l + k d l f a y *ZCk**Z
is defined as an equality between the vector sum of the
creep forces and the limiting friction force, i.e.
(Tx2+Ty2)1'2 = pTz . . (22a)
. . . (17) where p is the coefficient of friction between wheel and
where W is the axle load, i.e. rail, and T , is the wheel load. Inserting equations (14), the
w = [m+t(mb+$m'c)lg slip equation becomes
It is seen that a vehicle is subjected essentially to two in-
puts during curve traversing, namely, track curvature and
+ r3~~"(f,*~"1''"
K f X A Y */ro)z (1 w = 3P(1Ff4) (22b)
It is apparent that slid develops at the lighter-loaded wheel.
cant deficiency. Since the creep force-creepage characteristic is non-linear,
Equations (17) have been derived in (7), and their the creep coefficients defined by equations (8) do, in fact,
solutions compared with those for the fourteen coupled vary with creepage. At the slip condition the creep co-
equations obtained using rigorous expressions for the efficients are approximately one third of the values at zero
secondary yaw couples, equation (7b). It is shown that creepage, as indicated by Hobbs (9).
the errors introduced by decoupling the equations for the
leading and trailing bogies are not significant from a
Solution of equations of motion The major features of curve traversing will be explored
Solutions for the lateral and yaw displacements of the initially by considering vehicles with simple suspension
wheelsets and yaw of the bogie-frame are derived, after arrangements. Then an overall picture of how vehicles be-
lengthy manipulation, from equations (17). They are have through curves will be derived by studying the
effects of varying the primary and secondary suspension

Simple bogie without yaw restraint

The solutions for a bogie without secondary yaw restraint,
and also for a two-axled vehicle, are obtained by setting
kr,,h=O in equations (18)-(21). If it is assumed that the

primary yaw stiffness is also zero, the solutions degenerate somewhat lower than the limiting friction angle can be
to attained without slip.
y*l = y * 2 = = #2 = **b = 0
The simple but important result defined by equation (26)
indicates three features which promote good curving per-
in the absence of cant deficiency. It is clear, therefore, that formance, namely, low yaw stiffness, short wheelbase, and
independent of track curvature, unrestrained wheelsets high axle load. It is clear from equation (25) that the change
adopt radial positions in the track and roll along the pure in wheel loads with cant deficiency effectively reduces the
rolling line. coefficient of friction. This effect should preferably be
In the presence of cant deficiency, the solutions become small, i.e. the vehicle mass centre should be low.
Y * ~= y*2 = $*b = 0 and = = WOd/2fg
Rigid bogie
. . . (23)
i.e. the wheelsets yaw inwards through a small angle Equations (18)-(21) yield the following solutions for bogies
sufficient to generate lateral creep forces equal and with rigid primary suspensions but flexible secondary yaw
opposite to the unbalanced centrifugal forces, but they are suspensions :
not displaced laterally from the pure rolling line.
If it is now assumed that the wheelsets are restrained in
yaw, but that the lateral suspension stiffness is negligibly . . . (27a)
small, the following solutions are obtained: a WH,
#I,*- = F-+- . .
k r a Ro 2f,
y * l = -Y * 2 -- -2 .- . (24a)
2f &o Ro $*o = 0 . . . . (27~)
It is apparent that the rigid constraints acting within a
bogie free of secondary yaw restraint cause lateral creep
forces of equal magnitude but of opposite sign to act at
k,ro 1 WQ,
**= 2f,l\l,Ro 2f,
. . (24~) the leading and trailing wheelsets. Both wheelsets, there-
fore, move radially outwards from the pure rolling line by
These equations indicate that the leading wheelset dis- a distance approximated by ( ~ / l , ) (assuming
~y~ f x z fy),
places radially outwards and the trailing wheelset inwards, so that the longitudinal creep forces necessary to sustain
until sufficient longitudinal creep forces are generated to the bogie in yaw equilibrium and overall radial alignment
strain the yaw suspension springs through angles of can be generated. These wheelset displacements are in-
f a / R , and so align the wheelsets almost radially. Again dependent of the absolute values of the creep coefficients;
the deviations from radial alignment are just those neces- they thus have the appearance of kinematic displace-
sary for the unbalanced centrifugal forces to be reacted by ments. However, in contrast with an unrestrained wheel-
lateral creep forces. The bogie-frame takes up a position set, which displaces by y o from the track centre-line to
tangential to the track centre-line, except for a small in- maintain zero creepage, an unrestrained rigid bogie dis-
ward yaw angle in sympathy with that of the wheelsets. +
places by approximately [ 1 (a/lo)2]yo in order to generate
Equations (24) are only valid when wheel slip is avoided. creepage.
Applying equation (22) it is found that the limiting con- Equations (27) show that cant deficiency causes a rigid
dition for slip takes the special form bogie to yaw inwards and produce counterbalancing
lateral creep forces. Although this motion necessitates
inward and outward lateral displacements of a$ at the
leading and trailing wheelsets respectively, equilibrium is
Since this equation applies both to the leading and to the not upset, for the yaw couples generated by longitudinal
trailing wheelsets, they both slip simultaneously. It is creep forces counteract each other. It is evident from
apparent that at zero cant deficiency, slip develops when equation (27a) that secondary yaw stiffness causes both
the yaw couples generated by the limiting friction forces wheelsets of the leading bogie to move radially outwards
are just insufficient to strain the yaw suspensions through and both wheelsets of the trailing bogie to move inwards.
angles of fa/Ro, i.e. when radial alignment cannot be The resulting longitudinal creep forces therefore strain the
sustained. Therefore, slip occurs on all curves of radius secondary yaw suspensions through angles of f a h / R oto
align the bogies radially. A small additional strain is then
required to enable cant deficiency to be reacted. The in-
fluence of the secondary yaw suspension on rigid bogies
If the cant deficiency is not zero, a proportion of the is clearly analogous to the influence of the primary yaw
available friction force is required to react unbalanced suspension on the wheelsets of a laterally flexible bogie-
centrifugal forces. Consequently, the yaw suspension see equations (24).
cannot be strained through such large angles, with the By substituting equations (27) into equation (22) the
result that the wheelsets slip on curves of lower curvature. limiting condition for slip is obtained. The resulting ex-
On very shallow curves, cant deficiencies up to values pression is complex, but if it is assumed that klYb= 6d = 0,

a simple form is given. This indicates that the leading and set may be displaced inwards or outwards, depending on
trailing wheelsets slip when the extent of the interaction between the lateral and yaw
suspensions. If the lateral stiffness alone is increased, both
wheelsets move towards the position adopted by a rigid
bogie. It is interesting to note that when k, = 2fya, the
Since creep coefficients vary as (axle l ~ a d ) ~it' ~follows
, lateral displacement of the leading wheelset always equals
that the curving performance of a rigid bogie at zero cant that of a rigid bogie.
deficiency depends almost entirely on its wheelbase. The longitudinal creep forces resulting from lateral
displacements tend to align the wheelsets radially by
Vehicle with bogies unrestrained in yaw straining the yaw suspensions. The angles of yaw sus-
Some of the simplified suspension arrangements con- pension strain at the leading and trailing wheelsets are
sidered above are unrealistic from the standpoint of either
structural feasibility or dynamic stability. Practical **I = R, +*1 -(Y*I-Y*2)/2a-**b
vehicles, therefore, have suspensions which lie somewhere
between the extremes of very soft and almost rigid sus- a
pensions. T o determine how the choice of suspension **2 = -R, +A-(Y *I -Y*2)/2u-+*b
parameters controls a vehicle's curving performance, the It follows, using equations (6b) and (15b), that yaw
effects of varying these parameters will be studied using
equilibrium of a wheelset is given when
the example bogie vehicle configuration specified in
Appendix 1. Initially the behaviour of bogies without
secondary yaw restraints will be examined, this being
qualitatively descriptive of two-axled vehicles also.
Fig. 2 shows how the leading and trailing wheelsets of It may be deduced from Fig. 2 that the highest yaw
a bogie displace laterally in response to track curvature. It
strains are developed at the leading wheelset when the
is seen that as the lateral and yaw stiffnesses are both in- lateral stiffness is high and the yaw stiffness low. Equation
creased, the character of the responses gradually changes (19) indicates that the wheelsets depart more and more
from the simple 'anti-phase' response, defined by equation from radial alignment as both the yaw and lateral stiff-
(24a) when k, = 0, to the simple 'in-phase' response, de-
nesses are increased. The yaw strains therefore decrease
and tend to zero. The corresponding'maximum yaw mis-
fined by equation (27a), when k, = k, = w. At inter-
mediate suspension stiffnesses, the leading wheelset is alignments are clearly f a / R o , when the bogie is rigid.
always displaced radially outwards, but the trailing wheel- The influence of cant deficiency on the yaw displace-
ments of the wheelsets is shown in Fig. 3. It is apparent
that the responses for the two wheelsets differ, unless the
bogie incorporates either very flexible lateral suspensions
or fully rigid suspensions, for which the responses are the
same and are given by +/Od = W/2f,. It follows, therefore,
4 / / that lateral stiffness causes the unbalanced centrifugal


Li- 0.0 0
g 0.00


Fig. 2. Effect of primary stiffnesses on lateral responses of Fig. 3. Effect of primary stiffnesses on y a w responses of
wheelsets to track curvature: k*,, = q = 0, A = 0.15 wheelsets to cant deficiency: k,, = 'q = 0, h = 0-15

forces to be reacted unequally at the leading and trailing quently, the overall performance of a vehicle is defined by
wheelsets. This arises because of internal lateral forces, the common area enclosed by the curves of all wheelsets.
which are induced by yaw displacements of the bogie- Fig. 4 shows performance curves for various combina-
frame. tions of lateral and yaw stiffnesses. It is seen that there are
Cant deficiency also causes slight lateral displacements two symmetrical curves. One, curve A, applies to the
of the wheelsets. The longitudinal creep forces arising laterally flexible bogie, whose leading and trailing wheel-
from these displacements align the wheelsets correctly by sets slip simultaneously. The other, curve E, applies to the
straining the yaw suspensions, and so enable the necessary rigid bogie, whose leading wheelset slips at negative cant
lateral creep forces to be generated. With soft yaw sus- deficiencies and whose trailing wheelset slips at positive
pensions the lateral displacements are in-phase and out- cant deficiencies. A further symmetrical curve, which is
wards ;with fully rigid suspensions they are anti-phase, in not shown, is that of a bogie with zero paw stiffness. This
accordance with equation (27a). represents the ultimate in performance, giving slip
As stated previously, the theoretical responses can be boundaries which are independent of track curvature and
supported only if the resultant creep forces do not exceed defined simply by 8, = & p ( l F q ) / ( l F i q ) .
the limiting friction force. The bounds of the theoretical It is clear that, in general, performance degenerates as
responses are therefore defined by the slip equation (22). either of the suspension stiffnesses is increased, the worst
If solutions to this equation are plotted in terms of cant overall performance being that of the rigid bogie. With
deficiencies against track curvatures, the resulting curve low suspension stiffnesses, an increase in yaw stiffness
circumscribes an area which is a useful two-dimensional reduces considerably the maximum curvature which can
representation of a vehicles performance. This curve, the be negotiated without slip, but the maximum cant de-
performance curve, defines the range of operating con- ficiency sustainable without slip is only slightly affected.
ditions over which wheel slip is avoided. In general, a In contrast, an increase in yaw stiffness when both sus-
different curve is obtained for each wheelset. Conse- pension stiffnesses are high has little effect on curvature
performance, but a significant effect on cant deficiency
performance. Raising the lateral stiffness generally leads
to a reduction in cant deficiency performance. Normally,
slip due to excessive curvature is initiated at the leading
wheelset, whereas slip due to excessive cant deficiency
begins a t the trailing wheelset.

Vehicle with bogies restrained in yaw

Equations (18) and (19) indicate that secondary yaw
restraints between the bogies and the vehicle body sub-
stantially increase the lateral and yaw displacements of the
wheelsets in response to track curvature. The responses to
cant deficiency are not significantly affected. In aligning
themselves correctly, the wheelsets must now generate
additional longitudinal and lateral creep forces to strain
the secondary yaw suspensions. Both wheelsets of each
bogie therefore displace laterally in the same direction, so
that the yaw couples produced by the longitudinal creep
forces augment each other. Since couples of opposite sign
are required at the two bogies, the leading bogie moves
radially outwards and the trailing bogie inwards, as
shown in Fig. 5. Further yaw couples of appropriate sign
are produced by equal and opposite lateral creep forces,
generated as a result of anti-phase yaw displacements, at
the leading and trailing wheelsets of each bogie.
TRACK CURVATURE, i / R o - k c i The increased lateral and yaw displacements of the
wheelsets caused by secondary yaw stiffness carry the
k,, MN/m k M N m/rad penalty of increased rates of creepage on curves. In
A 0 5 consequence, the wheelsets of both the leading and trailing
B 5 5 bogies slip on track of lower curvature. This effect is
C 5 10
D X 10 clearly shown in Fig. 6 , which presents performance
E 33 x. curves for the leading bogie, at which slip is usually
Fig. 4. Dependence of curving performance on primary initiated. T h e cant deficiency performance is seen to be
stiffnesses: k,, = 0, A = 0.15, p = 0.2 only slightly reduced by secondary yaw restraint.

-10; 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5

Fig. 6. Dependence of curving performance on secondary

SECONDARY YAW STIFFNESS. kj,b -MNm/rad yaw stif/ness: A = 0.15, p = 0.2

Fig. 5 . Efiect of secondary yaw stifiness on lateral responses ally stable at speeds up to 45 mjs. It incorporated soft
of wheelsets to track curvature: q =. 0, A = 0.15 lateral and moderately stiff yaw suspensions. The general
performance of the vehicle is described in. reference (10)
EXPERIMENTS and its stability characteristics are reported in (11).
The validity of the foregoing linear analysis was partially
tested by performing laboratory and track tests on an Roller-rig experiments
experimental two-axled vehicle having a wheelbase of The behaviour of a two-axled vehicle passing round a
6.32 m. This vehicle, HSFV-1, was specially constructed curve at zero cant deficiency can be readily simulated on a
to have linear suspension characteristics and be dynamic- roller-rig having parallel rollers-Fig. 7-by introducing

Fig. 7. Experimental two-axled vehicle HSFV-1 on roller rig


would subsequently have slipped and moved into flange

The slip equation (22) may be expressed alternatively in
terms of the angle of yaw suspension strain by substituting
equation (30). It follows that at zero cant deficiency, the
angle of yaw strain required to cause slip is

From this generalization of equation (26), it was calcu-

lated that the coefficient of friction between wheels and
rollers was 0.17.

Track experiments
Track experiments were performed at constant speeds
ranging from 2 m/s to 40 m/s round curves having radii
ranging from 0.12 km to 8.8 km, HSFV-1 being loose-
coupled in the test train. Cant deficiencies were varied
within the range f4". Measurements of the yaw strain
angles q5*, body displacement y**, and body yaw angle
EQUIVALENT TRACK CURVATURE, q,,,/u-krn-' +** were obtained using linear potentiometers. Owing to
severe practical difficulties the lateral displacements of the
Fig. 8. Variation of wheeZset displacements with symmetric wheelsets were not measured.
misalignment of y a w suspensions: X = 0.27 Typical responses for the vehicle rounding a curve
are shown in Fig. 9. Superimposed on the steady-state
responses produced by curvature and cant deficiency are
symmetric yaw misalignments into the yaw suspensions. considerable dynamic variations. These are caused by
If the suspensions at the leading and trailing wheelsets track irregularities and inputs associated with the curve
are misaligned through angles of -+,, and +,, respectively, transitions. Representative results for the steady-state
the vehicle experiences the effects of traversing a curve of components of the yaw suspension strain angles at the
radius a/+,-except That the pure rolling line and track leading and trailing wheelsets are presented in Fig. 10 for
centre-line are now coincident. the unladen vehicle ( W = 52 kN) and for the laden vehicle
A misalignment test on HSFV-1 in the tare condition ( W = 162 kN). Since the tests were performed with
( W = 52 kN) was carried out at a low roller speed hollow-profiled wheel treads, the effective conicity varied
(4-5 m/s). First, the position of zero misalignment was continually and appreciably with the condition and type of
ascertained by slackening off the longitudinal traction bars track. Hence, an exact comparison of theoretical and
and allowing the creep forces to freely set the wheelsets experimental results is not possible. However, the theory
parallel to the rollers. The yaw suspensions were then indicates that the yaw strain angles are relatively insensitive
misaligned incrementally by adjusting the unstrained to variations in conicity, as they are also to variations in
lengths of the traction bars. The resulting lateral displace- cant deficiency. Therefore, two theoretical curves are
ments of both wheelsets were measured by means of dial plotted which delineate the extremes between which the
gauges. The experimental and theoretical results are com- yaw angles should lie for any combination of experimental
pared in Fig. 8. conditions, i.e. for cant deficiencies in the range f4", and
It is seen that the leading and trailing wheelsets are conicities in the estimated range of 0.1 to 0.3.
displaced laterally in opposite directions, so that the It is seen that at low track curvatures the experimental
vehicle adopts a 'crabwise' attitude. The linear theory points, particularly those for the leading wheelset, are en-
predicts closely the initial behaviour of the wheelsets, but closed quite well between the theoretical curves, allowing
an expected divergence between the theoretical and ex- for estimated measurement inaccuracies of up to f0.03'.
perimental results develops as the slip condition for the At the higher track curvatures, the experimental results
leading wheelset is approached. The displacements of the diverge from the theoretical, so indicating that the leading
leading wheelset do, in fact, follow the saturation charac- wheelset has slipped and lost correct alignment. This
teristic of the creep force-creepage curve. The occurrence occurs when the yaw strain angle corresponds to a
of slip results in a loss of parallel alignment at the leading limiting friction coefficient of about 0.2. At this adhesion
wheelset, followed by flange contact. This condition level the minimum curve radii which can be negotiated
causes a sudden reduction in the angle of yaw suspension without slip at zero cant deficiency are approximately
strain at the trailing wheelset, so that it moves back some 1.6 km for the vehicle unladen and 0.6 km for the vehicle
way towards the centre of the rollers. Had the yaw mis- laden.
alignments been increased further, the trailing wheelset The substantial improvement in performance when

Straight t r a c k - Trcnsttton Constant curvature Transition - Straight


+o 080-
$7 0 q"J?"--A"A A h"/ Leading wheelset yaw t\ n . -,
+o 08Ot
Ji" 0 t
-0 0 8
ody latera displacement

- 0 04'
+: 0 f

+ O 04' I
- Seconds

Fig. 9. Typical response of two-axled vehicle HSFV-I round a simple curve: R , = 1.75 km,0, = -0.5", V = 12.4 m/s

laden follows directly from the increased axle load, as may of Fig. 4, whose shape is typical for vehicles with laterally
be inferred from equation (31). When cant deficiency is soft suspensions.
present, slip is initiated at lower curvatures. But, for the In agreement with the roller-rig experiments, Fig. 10
range of cant deficiencies encountered this decrease is suggests that the yaw strain angle of the trailing wheelset
fairly small, as may be deduced from performance curve A decreases when the leading wheelset slips, and then in-
creases, as curvature is increased, up to a maximum
governed by the coefficientof friction. Once the wheelsets
have slipped the angles of yaw strain should gradually
decrease with increasing curvature as lateral slip absorbs
more and more of the total friction force available. This
characteristic is not displayed in Fig. 10, because, p:e-
s.umably, of increasing coefficients of friction being
generated by mechanical cleaning of the rails due to slip.
However, at a very high track curvature (8.3 km-l), it was
noted that the angle of yaw strain at the leading wheelset
had fallen to almost zero.

The linear analysis of steady-state curving developed in
this paper, and its experimental confirmation, have shown
that the concept of steering under the control of creep
forces is a realistic and desirable alternative to flange
guidance. The dual inputs of track curvature and cant
deficiency can be accommodated without flange contact
by employing the guidance mechanism inherent in coned
wheels. This attains force equilibrium by causing the
wheelsets to displace laterally and in yaw, and thereby
generate longitudinal and lateral creep forces, which (1)
tend to align the wheelsets almost radially by straining the
yaw suspensions, and (2) resist unbalanced centrifugal
Creep force guidance is possible only within a certain
FACTORED TRACK CURVATURE, (&)@) !$),)ladm-k61 range of vehicle and track parameters. Outside this range,
-__-_ Theory. which is governed directly by the coefficient of friction,
zZzn) Experiment.
the wheels slip and flange contact ensues. Features which
improve overall curving performance are (1) low primary
Fig. 10. Variation of y a w suspension strain angles with and secondary yaw stiffnesses, (2) low primary lateral
track curvature: A = 0.I to 0-3, ed = -4" to 4" stiffness, ( 3 ) short wheelbase, (4) short distance between

bogie centres, (5) high axle load, ( 6 ) high conicity, and fll = 9.6 MN
(7) low centre of vehicle mass. for response studies.
fiz = 7-5 MN
Unfortunately, some of these features are just those
which promote dynamic instability. It appears, therefore,
that there is a fundamental contradiction between good
fll = 3.2MN

f22 = 2.5 M N ,
for slip studies.

stability performance and good curving performance. APPENDIX 2

Some aspects of this problem have been discussed by REFERENCES
Wickens (12). A reasonable compromise between the W., HILLER,
(I) DAUNER, E. and REcK,.W. Einftihrung in die
requirements for curving and stability can be achieved for Spurftihrungsmechanik der Schienenfahrzeuge, Arch.
conventional bogie and two-axled vehicles at current EisenbTech. 1953 2, 1.
speeds, so that most main-line curves can be traversed (2) MULLER, C. T h . Dynamics of railway vehicles on curved
without flange contact. However, for future high-speed track, Interaction between vehicle and track, Proc. Inst71
mech. Engrs 1965-66 180 (Pt 3F), 45.
vehicles the conventional suspension forms may be in- (3) KOFFMAN, J. L. Running through curves, Rly Gaz. 1967
adequate on existing tracks. 123 (No. 8), 307.
(4) BOOCOCK, D. The equations of motion of an elastically
restrained wheelset on curved track and preliminary
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS study of steady-state motion, Briti.qh Railways Research
Department Report No. DYN/35, 1966.
The author thanks Mr S. F. Smith, Director of Research, ( 5 ) BOOCOCK, D. The steady-state performance of experi-
British Railways Board, for permission to publish this mental four-wheeled vehicle HSFV-1 on curved track,
paper. He also acknowledges with gratitude the help re- British Railways Research Department Report No. DYN/51,
ceived from his colleagues in the Advanced Projects Group 1967.
( 6 ) DF PATER,A. D. On the reciprocal pressure between two
of British Railways Research Department. elastic bodies, University of Delft, Lab. Tech. Mech. Report
No. 277, 1964.
(7) BOOCOCK, D. A simplified linear analysis of the steady-state
APPENDIX 1 motion of conventional and cross-braced bogie vehicles
and four-wheelers on curved track, British Railwajis
PARAMETERS FOR EXAMPLE VEHICLE Research Department Report No. DYN/89, 1968.
(8) NEWLAND, D. E. Steering characteristics of bogies, R / y
ro = 0.4 m Gaz. 1968 124 (No. 19), 745.
a = 1.25 m (9) HOBBS,A. E. W. A survey of creep, British Railways
Research Department Report No. DYN/52, 1967.
ah = 7.1 m (10) WICKENS, A. H. Practical research into vehicle dynamics,
k,, = 5 MNini Rly G a z . 1967 123 (No. 12), 467.
(XI) HOBBS,A. E. W. Experiments on the lateral stability of
k,, = 1 0 M Nmi ra d experimental vehicle HSFV-l, British Railways Research
A = 0.15 Department Report No. DYN/53, 1967.
(12) WICKENS,A. H. Recent developments in the lateral
q/ Od = 0.035 deg -
dynamics of high speed railway vehicles, Bull. im. Rlv
W =90kN Conqr. Ass. 1967 44 (No. 12), 781.