GCRC5510 Iss 1-Recommendations For The Design of Bridges PDF

Withdrawn Document
Uncontrolled When Printed

Railway Group Approved Code of Practice
GC/RC5510
Issue One
Date August 1998
Recommendations
for the Design of
Bridges
Synopsis
This Railway Group Approved Code of
Practice gives recommendations for
the design and loading for bridges. It
supports Railway Group Standards
GC/RT5112 and GC/RT5110.
This document is the property of

Signatures removed from electronic version Railtrack PLC. It shall not be
reproduced in whole or in part without
the written permission of the Controller,
Railway Group Standards,
Submitted by Railtrack PLC.
Patricia Dingwall
Standards Project Manager Published by
Safety & Standards Directorate,
Railtrack House,
Authorised by Floor DP01 Railtrack House,
Euston Square,
Richard Spoors London NW1 2EE
Controller, Railway Group Standards © Copyright 1998 Railtrack PLC

Withdrawn Document
This page has been left blank intentionally

Withdrawn Document
GC/RC5510
Issue One
Recommendations for the Design Date August 1998
of Bridges Page 1 of 63
Contents -
Section Description Page
Part A
Issue Record 3
Application 3
Health and Safety Responsibilities 3
Supply 3
Part B
1 Purpose 4
2 Scope 4
3 Definitions 4
4 Principle 4
5 Duties and Competency 4
Recommendations
Relating to GC/RT5100
6 Intended Use and Life 6
7 Structural Adequacy 9
8 Materials and Workmanship 13
9 Adequacy of Structural Gauging, Clearances and Dimensions 14
10 Execution / Decommissioning 18
11 Future Maintenance 19
12 Compatibility with other Infrastructure 20
13 Operational Safety 21
14 Design Control Procedures 22
15 Limitations on Use 23
16 Identification of Structures 23
17 Structures Adjacent to Railtrack Land 23
18 Records 23
Recommendations
Relating to GC/RT5112
19 Railway Traffic Loads and Load Effects 24
20 Walkway Loads 28
21 Road Traffic Loads 28
22 Pedestrian and / or Cycle Traffic Loads 29
23 Other Traffic Loads 29
24 Aerodynamic Effects of Rail Traffic 29
25 Non-Traffic Loads and Load Effects 30
26 Bridges not Owned by Railtrack 30
27 Records 31
28 Lists of Loads and Load Effects 31
RAILTRACK 1
Withdrawn Document
GC/RC5510
Issue One
Date August 1998
Recommendations for the Design of
Page 2 of 63 Bridges
Appendices
A Loads and Load Effects Required by GC/RT5112 to be 32
Considered in the Loading Specification for Bridges
B Modifications to BS 5400 Parts 3, 4 and 5 33
C Existing Substructures Affected by New Construction 35
D Provision for Future Traffic Developments and Selection of Traffic Mix 37
E Modifications to and Clarifications of UIC Leaflet 776-3R (1989) 38
F Recommendations for Infill to Open Handrailing for Underline Bridges 39
G Profiles for the Tops of Parapets to Overline Highway Bridges 40
H Collision Loads from Railway Traffic 41
I Further Recommendations on Loading for Underline Bridges 43
J Collision of Road Vehicles with Bridge Superstructures 47
K List of Vehicle Types for which the Recommendations Given in 48
Section 9.1.1 of this Approved Code of Practice are Valid
L Design Information that should be supplied by Railtrack 49
Figures
A Precast Concrete Beam & Parapet Types 51
B Precast Concrete Beam & Parapet Types 52
C Integral Concrete Deck & Parapet Types 53
D Integral Concrete Deck & Parapet Types 54
E Cantilevered Parapet Types 55
F Cantilevered Parapet Types 56
G Half Through Steel Girder Types 1 57
H Half Through Steel Girder Types 1 58
I Half Through Steel Girder Types 2 59
J Half Through Steel Girder Types 2 60
K Measurement of Lateral Clearance to Underline Bridge 61
Girders for Canted Track
L End and Centre Throw 61
References 62
2 RAILTRACK
Withdrawn Document
GC/RC5510
Issue One
Part A
Issue Record
This Approved Code of Practice will be updated when necessary by distribution of
a complete replacement.
Amended or additional parts of revised pages will be marked by a vertical black

line in the adjacent margin.
Issue Date Comments

1 August 1998 Original Document which supports Railway
Group Standards GC/RT5110 “Design
Requirements for Structures” and
GC/RT5112 “Loading Requirements for the
Design of Bridges”
Application
This Approved Code of Practice is not mandatory, but it gives recommendations
on how the requirements of GC/RT5110 and GC/RT5112 can be met.
Health and Safety

Responsibilities
In issuing this Approved Code of Practice, Railtrack PLC makes no warranties,
express or implied, that compliance with all or any part of this document is
sufficient on its own to ensure safe systems of work or operation. Each user is
reminded of its own responsibilities to ensure health and safety at work and its
individual duties under health and safety legislation.
Supply
Controlled and uncontrolled copies of this Approved Code of Practice may be
obtained from The Catalogue Secretary, Safety and Standards Directorate,
Railtrack PLC, Railtrack House, DP01, Euston Square, London, NW1 2EE.
RAILTRACK 3
Withdrawn Document
GC/RC5510
Issue One
Date August 1998
Part B
1 Purpose
This Approved Code of Practice gives recommendations for the design of Bridges
and supports Railway Group Standards GC/RT5110 and GC/RT5112.
2 Scope
This Approved Code of Practice applies to Bridges on, over or under Railtrack
Controlled Infrastructure.
It covers linespeeds of rail vehicles up to and including 200km / h (125mph).
Whilst primarily applicable to Bridges on, over or under Railtrack Controlled

Infrastructure, the recommendations of this Approved Code of Practice may be
applied also to Railtrack-owned Bridges remote from the line, such as side
Bridges, on Railtrack owned (but not controlled) infrastructure.
Unless explicitly given otherwise, the recommendations of this Approved Code of

Practice apply to new Bridges and as far as is reasonably practicable to:
• complete superstructure reconstructions of existing Bridges;

• significant alterations, strengthening and extensions to existing Bridges.
3 Definitions
Bridge (definition as given in GC/RT5112)
A structure of one or more spans whose prime purpose is to afford passage over
an obstruction or gap. Structures where all parts are buried below the surface at
a distance greater than their diameter or span are excluded.
For the purpose of this Approved Code of Practice, a Bridge is deemed to include
associated elements such as wing walls, handrailing and fencing.
Design
Information in the form of drawings, diagrams, mathematical expressions,
numerical quantities and / or words (including performance, materials and
workmanship specifications) which together describe in detail what is to be
constructed and, where appropriate, how it is to be constructed; the design
process includes all the activities leading to the production of this information
(including structural design as appropriate).
4 Principle
The principle of this Approved Code of Practice is to quote, verbatim and boxed,
each part of Sections 5 to 18 of GC/RT5110 and sections 6 to 8 and the Appendix
of GC/RT5112, and to give recommendations which will generally enable the
requirements of these Railway Group Standards to be met with respect to
Bridges.
5 Duties and
Competency
5.1 Responsibilities and duties
The appropriate Director within Railtrack shall ensure that the responsibilities and
duties of all persons responsible for the design of Structures are clearly defined in
writing and understood by these persons.
The responsibilities and duties of external design organisations should be made

clear in the relevant design brief, scope of works, tender documentation and / or
other relevant documents. Railtrack should take reasonable steps to verify that
organisations undertaking Bridge Design have adequate management
procedures to ensure that individual designers understand their responsibilities
and duties.
4 RAILTRACK
Withdrawn Document
GC/RC5510
Issue One
Preparation of design briefs (including performance requirements and design

constraints) is part of the design process; Railtrack should therefore ensure that
those preparing design briefs (whether Railtrack employees or not) understand
the extent and nature of their responsibilities and duties as regards Design.
5.2 Assessment of competence

The skill, expertise, training and experience of those employed must be
appropriate to the nature and complexity of the Structures being designed. This
competency must be assessed by the person making the appointment.
Railtrack should take reasonable steps to verify that individual designers within
design organisations are suitably competent. Assessment of competence should
normally involve inspection of the designer’s CV as a minimum, but this may not
be necessary if the assessor has direct knowledge of the designer’s capabilities.
Such direct knowledge may indeed be a preferable indicator of competence.
Although it may be regarded as a strong pointer, professional qualification should

not be taken to be as a necessary criterion of competence, nor in itself a sufficient
criterion.
RAILTRACK 5
Withdrawn Document
GC/RC5510
Issue One
Date August 1998
Recommendations relating to GC/RT5100

6 Intended Use and Life
6.1 Intended use
Railtrack shall ensure that the traffic, persons and / or equipment that the
Structure is required to support and / or the level of protection to be provided is
specified.
The traffic, persons and or equipment that the Bridge is required to support
should generally be specified as the design live (variable traffic) and / or
superimposed loading on the Bridge. As far as traffic is concerned, the type,
size, weight, frequency and speed will generally need to be considered.
The loading for Bridges is specified in GC/RT5112. Further recommendations

are given in Section 19 to 28 of this Approved Code of Practice. Guidance on the
speed of rail traffic and selection of traffic mix to be considered in the design is
given in Appendix D of this Approved Code of Practice.
The level of protection mainly relates to protection against accidental loads and
should normally be expressed as the design loading due to collision of vehicles
(or waterborne vessels) passing over or under the Bridge with elements of the
Bridge together with any preventative and protective measures (fenders, kerbs,
level of redundancy). The design loading is normally expressed in terms of static
equivalent design forces but a more complex dynamic analysis may be
appropriate in certain cases.
In all cases, the design loading should be stated explicitly in the Approval in
Principle (AIP) submission. See Section 14 of this Approved Code of Practice.
The level of protection should also be taken to relate to such matters as provision
of barriers and handrailing, electrical bonding etc. Recommendations are given
in Sections 9.1.2 and 13.2 respectively of this Approved Code of Practice.
The traffic passing over the Bridge and the traffic passing beneath the Bridge
should be considered.
In establishing the intended use, due consideration should be given in the Design
of the Bridge to the likely or foreseeable future rail traffic including:
• maximum size of vehicles (and their loads);

• maximum linespeed;
• maximum axle weight and axle spacing;
• future overhead electrification;
• associated considerations for persons working on or near the track.
6.2 Intended life

Railtrack shall ensure that the intended life of the structure is specified (where
appropriate).
6.2.1 General
The intended life of the Bridge should be stated explicitly in design documentation
and recorded in the AIP submission. It is particularly important to state this when
the intended life is short.
The intended life should be specified as the design life, as follows:
• generally for new Bridges and new Bridge superstructures: 120 years (as
given in BS 5400); in exceptional circumstances a shorter life may be
specified but this should be justified in the AIP submission;
• for all other situations (e.g. partial superstructure reconstructions, repairs,
strengthening, remedial works etc.) Railtrack should specify both the intended
life of the new elements of the bridge and the further intended life of the
existing elements to be retained.
6 RAILTRACK
Withdrawn Document
GC/RC5510
Issue One
6.2.2 Extended Life

Where the cost of replacing a Bridge is likely to be particularly high, consideration
should be given to specifying an intended life longer than 120 years. This could
apply to large Bridges or where the indirect costs of erection, disruption to either
road or rail traffic etc. are likely to be disproportionate to the direct costs of the
structure. It should also apply where future maintenance will be restricted (e.g.
Bridges constructed by thrusting or jacking).
Where the intended life is longer than 120 years, the effects of fatigue should be
treated quantitatively. Consideration should also be given to the following, as
appropriate:
• greater than normal allowance for future increase in amount, weight and / or
speed of traffic;
• increased return period values for wind, temperature range, flood levels etc.;
• increased sacrificial thickness of steel;
• increased partial factors for materials;
• enhanced resistance to corrosion of concrete reinforcement (e.g. increased
cover, less permeable concrete, stainless steel or epoxy-coated bars);
• requirement by Railtrack on the designer to submit a statement of how the
design provides for long life and appropriate maintenance.
6.2.3 Temporary Bridges

The intended life for temporary Bridges should be considered on a case by case
basis but procedures should be in place to ensure that the use does not exceed
the specified intended life unless the consequential risks are properly assessed
and controlled.
6.3 Actual Life

6.3.1 General
The main design influences on the actual life are on fatigue endurance and
durability. The actual life can also be affected greatly by the buildability, the
maintainability and the standard of worksmanship. In all these the quality of
detailing plays an important part. All these aspects should therefore be
considered in developing the Design.
CIRIA Report 155 gives further recommendations on the buildability of Bridges.
6.3.2 Joints and Bearings

Joints and bearings often have an adverse effect on the durability of structures.
As far as is reasonably practicable, Bridges should be designed to reduce or
eliminate the occurrence of joints, including movement joints, joints between
elements and construction joints in concrete. Where circumstances permit, new
Bridges should preferably be designed as monolithic structures (i.e. without
articulating bearings).
6.3.3 Corrosion protection

Steel Bridges and Bridge elements should have a corrosion protection system in
accordance with railway industry standards and appropriate to the likely
conditions of application and service, except in the following cases:
RAILTRACK 7
Withdrawn Document
GC/RC5510
Issue One
Date August 1998
• Bridges or Bridge elements with a limited intended life;

• Bridges or Bridge elements made of steel with improved atmospheric
corrosion resistance, in which case sacrificial steel thickness should be
provided in accordance with Highways Agency standards and guidance.
6.3.4 Waterproofing
In order to achieve satisfactory durability, Bridge decks should generally be
waterproofed except in the following cases:
• Bridges with a limited intended life;

• Bridge types for which the application of a waterproofing membrane may not
be practicable, for example most Bridges installed by thrusting or jacking
through soil.
In such cases alternative means of ensuring satisfactory durability should be

considered.
For underline Bridges crossing watercourses, accommodation openings, rural

footpaths and the like where the deck consists of a number of separate structural
elements (e.g. reinforced concrete slabs), consideration may be given to leaving
the gaps between the elements unwaterproofed provided that each element is
waterproofed on the upper surface and sides.
For all overline Bridges where overhead electrification is present, effective means
of waterproofing should be provided to prevent water running or dripping through
the deck onto the electrical equipment or forming icicles above it. (See Section
13.1 of this Approved Code of Practice.)
Effective waterproofing is particularly important for steel, reinforced concrete and

prestressed concrete Bridge decks carrying public highways where de-icing salts
may be used. The waterproofing systems for such decks should be in
accordance with Highways Agency standards.
Waterproofing systems for underline Bridge decks should be in accordance with

railway industry standards and appropriate to the likely conditions of application
and service.
6.3.5 Disposal of water

For new Bridges and Bridge superstructure reconstructions, adequate provision
should be made for the disposal of water from the superstructure.
6.3.6 Ballast depth

For underline Bridges carrying ballasted track, the ballast depth should generally
be at least 200mm below the underside of the sleepers at the low rail position,
regardless of sleeper type. This applies in addition to any requirements given by
track standards and is in order to:
• avoid damage to the Bridge deck waterproofing caused by track tampers etc.;
• ensure satisfactory longitudinal distribution of wheel loads.
If in exceptional cases a lesser ballast depth is unavoidable:
• provision should be made to protect the Bridge deck waterproofing;

the wheel load
distribution proportions
given in Appendix I.3 of
this Approved Code of
Practice should not be
used without further
justification.
8 RAILTRACK
Withdrawn Document
GC/RC5510
Issue One
7 Structural Adequacy
Railtrack shall ensure that the Structure is designed with reasonable professional
care to provide adequate resistance to the intended applied loads (including its
self weight) and the likely effects of external influences during its intended life
assuming appropriate standards of execution and maintenance.
7.1 General
In order to meet the requirement for Bridges to be designed with reasonable
professional care, Railtrack should ensure that:
• preparation of design briefs (including performance requirements and design

constraints) is undertaken by competent people;
• organisations undertaking Bridge Design have suitable experience and
expertise and adequate management to ensure proper quality;
• individuals undertaking Bridge Design are competent engineers and have
suitable experience and expertise;
• in certain cases (e.g. large or complex Bridges or those of novel type of
construction or complex partial reconstructions) consideration is given to
requiring the design to be effectively controlled by named individuals;
• Designs are adequately checked by competent engineers;
• designers are made aware (by means of this Approved Code of Practice or by
other means) that, although the recommendations of this Approved Code of
Practice are appropriate and sufficient in the great majority of cases, there
may be certain exceptional circumstances where this is not so and that
designers (including those preparing design briefs) are responsible for taking
reasonable steps to identify such circumstances and making appropriate
provision.
CIRIA Report 63 gives further guidance on the duties expected of designers and
on their liabilities in law. (See particularly 5.4.4 and Appendix 4 of Report 63.)
7.2 Intended applied loads

Recommendations for the intended applied loads are given in Sections 19 to 28
of this Approved Code of Practice.
7.3 Accidental events and vandalism

The Structure shall also be designed and executed in such a way that it will not
be damaged by accidental events or vandalism, to an extent disproportionate to
the original cause.
7.3.1 Protection of overline Bridges from derailed trains

Recommendations for dealing with accidental actions for overline Bridges and
end impact walls beyond buffer stops are given in Appendix H of this Approved
Code of Practice.
Priority should be given to reducing the likelihood of occurrence of such events by

the provision of protective and / or preventative measures (rather than measures
to deal with such events after they have occurred) because of the uncertain
nature of any outcome.
Where a Bridge is supported by individual columns closer than 4.5m to the

running edge of the nearest rail, a degree of continuity should be built into the
structure as given in Appendix H of this Approved Code of Practice.
Further advice and recommendations are given in UIC Leaflet 777-2R (but should
be ignored where they conflict with the recommendations of this Approved Code
of Practice).
7.3.2 Protection of underline Bridges from road vehicle strikes

7.3.2.1 New Bridges
For new Bridges over public roads, the headroom provided should be at least
5.7m where this can be achieved with reasonable economy and otherwise
RAILTRACK 9
Withdrawn Document
GC/RC5510
Issue One
Date August 1998
should be as given in HMRI Railway Safety Principles and Guidance Part 2,

Section A, Chapter 4.
For new Bridges, if in exceptional circumstances it is not reasonably practicable

to achieve the headroom as given in the HMRI Railway Safety Principles and
Guidance, any lesser headroom should be identified in the AIP submission and
justified in terms of the risk to train operations from road vehicles striking the
Bridge. The following should be taken into account:
• the volume, speed and nature of likely highway traffic;

• the presence of nearby low-headroom Bridges or other structures which
effectively protect the Bridge from being struck;
• the robustness of the type of Bridge construction;
• the commercial consequences of train delays due to Bridge strikes.
Where the headroom is less than 5.7m, protection should be provided to the
superstructure against the effects of strikes by road vehicles as given in Appendix
J of this Approved Code of Practice.
Where there is a particularly high risk of Bridge strikes, consideration should be

given to the provision of impact protection beams. Protection beams should be:
• as robust as can be achieved with reasonable economy;

• mounted clear of the main structure of the Bridge as far as can be achieved
with reasonable economy;
• mounted on supports integral with the main Bridge supports (as required by
Highways Agency standards);
• where convenient, designed to perform a secondary function associated with
the Bridge, e.g. carrying a walkway (but not cables or pipes, because of the
risk of damage due to impact).
Highways Agency documents may be used as guidance to the Design of

protection beams.
For Bridges over water, suitable protection should be provided to the

superstructure and substructure against the effects of hydraulic action, scour and,
where relevant, possible impact from flooding debris or waterborne vessels.
7.3.2.2 Bridge reconstructions

For Bridge reconstructions over public roads, existing conditions are often such
that 5.7m headroom cannot reasonably be provided. In such cases the
headroom should be the maximum that can be achieved with reasonable
economy (taking into account the risk from Bridge strikes at the site), generally as
follows in order of preference:
1. at least 5.7m;
2. at least 5.3m, with Appendix J provisions;
3. at least 5.1m, with Appendix J provisions;
4. an improvement on the existing, with Appendix J provisions and protection
beams unless the risk from strikes is small;
5. an improvement on the existing, with Appendix J provisions;
6. not less than the existing, with Appendix J provisions and protection beams
unless the risk from strikes is small;
7. not less than the existing, with Appendix J provisions and robust construction;
8. not less than the existing, with Appendix J provisions;
9. not less than the existing.
Any headroom less than 5.7m should be identified and justified in the AIP
submission, taking into account the factors given in Section 7.3.2.1 of this
Approved Code of Practice. In addition, the previous history of Bridge strike
incidents at the site should be considered.
10 RAILTRACK
Withdrawn Document
GC/RC5510
Issue One
7.3.3 Protection of underline Bridges from derailed trains

For underline Bridges, robust kerbs should be provided to contain the wheels of
derailed vehicles, as given in HMRI Railway Safety Principles and Guidance Part
2, Section A, Chapter 4. The height of such kerbs should be at least 300mm
above the top of the adjacent rail (preferably 350mm higher to allow for future
track lifting). Kerbs should preferably be set at least 1500mm from the adjacent
rail running edge (so that the back of the “offside” wheel of a derailed train will be
restrained by the cess rail before the “nearside” wheel strikes the kerb.)
However, it is accepted that in many cases it will not be practicable to achieve
this with reasonable economy.
Kerbs may be considered as robust if they are designed to resist the horizontal
loading given in Section 19.1 of this Approved Code of Practice. For half-through
Bridges, the main girders may be deemed to act as robust kerbs provided that
their height is as given above.
Recommendations for the vertical loading to take account of the possible effects
of derailed trains on underline Bridge superstructures are given in Section 19.1 of
this Approved Code of Practice. Such loading need not be applied to secondary
structural elements such as cantilevered walkways. For certain superstructure
types (e.g. trusses or bowstring arches) the possibility of a derailed train striking
an above-rail structural element such as a vertical or diagonal member should be
considered. A reasonable degree of robustness and / or redundancy should be
provided for such members.
7.3.4 Protection from vandalism

Where Bridges are situated in areas known to be subject to vandalism,
consideration should be given to measures which minimise the risk of damage to
the Bridge through vandalism and damage to other parts of the infrastructure or to
trains through vandalism by users of the Bridge. (See Section 9.3.2.2 of this
Approved Code of Practice.)
7.4 Bridges where loading is the responsibility of another authority

Where the traffic loading is the responsibility of another authority, the loading
together with any requirements for controlling the loading shall be agreed with
that authority.
This will generally only apply to the specification of traffic loads for road Bridges.
Occasionally, however, other organisations may need to be involved (e.g. London
Underground Ltd, British Waterways Board, Train Operating Companies). The
requirements should be determined in consultation with the relevant authority at
an early stage and any decisions recorded.
7.5 Application standards

Railtrack shall ensure that the loading and resistance requirements are based on
suitable standards (e.g. European or British Standards and Codes of Practice),
current best practice or appropriate risk assessment.
Either European or British Standards and Codes of Practice should be used.
Whichever is chosen, a complete set of consistent documents should be used,

covering loading, design, execution (construction) and material / workmanship
specifications.
Where European Standards are used, ENV versions should be used only in
conjunction with the UK National Application Document.
Other industry standards and advice (e.g. those of the Highways Agency) may
generally be used for guidance provided they do not conflict with the
recommendations given in this Approved Code of Practice.
7.5.1 Steel, concrete and composite Bridges

Steel, concrete and steel / concrete composite Bridges (and parts of Bridges)
should be designed in accordance with the relevant Parts of BS 5400 with the
RAILTRACK 11
Withdrawn Document
GC/RC5510
Issue One
Date August 1998
modifications given in Appendix B of this Approved Code of Practice. (These

modifications should be identified in the AIP submission but do not need to be
further justified.)
7.5.2 Timber, aluminium and brickwork / masonry Bridges

Timber, aluminium, and brickwork / masonry Bridges (and parts of Bridges)
should be designed in accordance with the relevant Parts of BS 5268, BS 8118
and BS 5628 respectively, in each case making due provision for:
• the application of loading expressed in limit state terms to permissible stress

design methods;
• the effects of repeated application of live loading;
• the weather exposure conditions to which the Bridge will be subjected.
These provisions should be described in the AIP submission.
7.5.3 Bridges of other materials

Bridges (and parts of Bridges) constructed of materials other than as given above
should be designed in accordance with recognised national, industry or other
standards or, where no such standards exist, in accordance with justifiable
methods.
These standards and methods should be described in the AIP submission.
7.5.4 Foundations and earth-retaining elements

New foundations for Bridges should be designed generally in accordance with BS
8004.
New earth-retaining elements of Bridges should be designed generally in

accordance with BS 8002.
7.5.5 Reinforced soil elements

Reinforced soil abutments, wingwalls and other elements of Bridges should be
designed in accordance with BS 8006 and in accordance with the manufacturer’s
recommendations for proprietary systems. For elements subject to railway
loading, the following should apply in addition:
• to avoid the possibility of loss of pull-out resistance due to soil vibrations, the
top layer of reinforcement should not be less than about 1.0m below the
underside of the track ballast (this does not apply if the reinforcement is more
than 2m horizontally from the nearest rail);
• for construction in the vicinity of DC-electrified lines, the possible effects of
stray-current corrosion should be limited by suitable measures such as fill
material with high resistivity, additional sacrificial thickness of steel
reinforcement, or use of non-metallic reinforcement. These measures should
be identified in the AIP submission.
7.5.6 Bearings
New Bridges should preferably be designed as integral structures (without
bearings) where circumstances permit this without undue penalty in first cost.
For Bridge superstructure reconstructions, provision should be made for deck-
end rotation in order to prevent this rotation from being transmitted to the existing
abutment tops. Bridge bearings should be designed in accordance with the
relevant Part of BS 5400, except as given below:
• For Bridges up to 15m thermal expansion length, bearings may be designed

as fixed at both ends unless in particular cases there are reasons why it is
inappropriate to do so.
• For Bridges up to 20m thermal expansion length, bearing sliding surfaces may
be plain steel-on-steel unless in particular cases there are reasons why these
would be inappropriate (e.g. slender piers).
• Bearings at halving joints warrant particular consideration. Such joints should
be used only in exceptional circumstances and only where adequate access
for inspection and maintenance is provided.
12 RAILTRACK
Withdrawn Document
GC/RC5510
Issue One
• The use of bearings to resist uplift forces should be identified in the AIP
submission. The design of such bearings should take into account the effects
of repeated load cycles.
For superstructure reconstructions, where the ability of existing abutments to

withstand horizontal pressures cannot reasonably be demonstrated, restraint (e.g.
bearing keepstrips) should be provided to allow sufficient movement of the
superstructure due to temperature change but so that, should movement of the
abutment tops occur in the future, such movement is limited. In such cases the
superstructure should be designed to resist any anticipated propping forces.
(See also Appendix C of this Approved Code of Practice.)
See also Section 11.2 of this Approved Code of Practice regarding replacement
of components.
7.5.7 Existing substructures affected by new construction

Where only the superstructure of an existing Bridge is reconstructed, or in other
cases where new construction is associated with the total or partial retention of
existing substructures, the following should apply:
• the remaining part of an existing substructure need not be deemed

unacceptable for continuing service solely because it does not comply with
the criteria applicable to new structures;
• the soil supporting an existing substructure need not be deemed unacceptably
loaded solely because the assessed loading will be higher than the loading
considered acceptable for the same soil supporting a new structure.
Further guidance on the treatment of existing substructures affected by new

construction is given in Appendix C of this Approved Code of Practice.
8 Materials and
Workmanship
Railtrack shall ensure that suitable materials and standards of workmanship are
specified for the Structure, including any processes required for the approval of
new materials. Both structural and health and safety aspects shall be considered.
The life of a Bridge can be significantly affected by the choice of materials and
standard of workmanship. Of particular importance is the choice of steel grade
and quality of welding.
The specification for materials and standards of workmanship should be based

on current European, national or rail industry standards where appropriate.
In specifying materials and standards of workmanship, the methods of work

necessarily or likely resulting from the Design should be taken into account (e.g.
the type and quality of welding achievable, the specification for the protective
coating, the forms of construction associated with confined spaces such as box
girders, the degree of shop / site fabrication).
9 Adequacy of Structural
Gauging, Clearances and
Dimensions
9.1 General Requirements
Railtrack shall ensure that the location and dimensions of the Structure (including
any intended equipment which it is designed to support) provide, where
appropriate for the safe movement of vehicles, persons (including those who are
disabled) or equipment.
9.1.1 Clearances to the railway

The clearance requirements for the safe passage of rail vehicles are given in
GC/RT5204. (This will be superseded in due course by GC/RT5102.)
RAILTRACK 13
Withdrawn Document
GC/RC5510
Issue One
Date August 1998
The clearance requirements for personal safety and access are given in
GC/RT5203.
The clearances provided should also take into account operational safety
including electrical clearances. (See Section 13 of this Approved Code of
Practice.)
Underline Bridges should be designed to minimise the encroachment of girders

into the “platform gauge” (the cross-hatched area indicated as available for
girders in Appendix D of GC/RT5204). Such encroachment (particularly by
girders in the “six-foot”) inhibits future operational flexibility, but often it cannot
reasonably be avoided where construction depth needs to be minimised.
In such cases, the tolerance on the required minimum clearances should be the
maximum that can be achieved with reasonable economy, generally as follows in
order of preference for lateral dimensions. (These are based on an envelope
using a 200m radius curve, with 150mm cant, 125mm cant deficiency with a
vehicle speed of 125mph or the maximum speed of the vehicle if less and the
vehicles listed in Appendix K of this Approved Code of Practice. They provide for
a 50mm clearance between vehicle and Bridge.):
1. ≥ 825mm at a height of 915mm above rail level (a.r.l.) + T + 75mm tolerance;

or
≥ 775mm at a height of 870mm a.r.l. + T + 75mm tolerance;
2. ≥ 825mm at a height of 915mm a.r.l. + T + 50mm tolerance; or
≥ 775mm at a height of 870mm a.r.l. + T + 50mm tolerance;
3. ≥ 825mm at a height of 915mm a.r.l. (for nominally straight track only); or
≥ 775mm at a height of 900mm a.r.l.
4. ≥ 50mm clear of the swept envelope of all vehicles likely to use the Bridge;
5. < 50mm in exceptional circumstances, but in all cases such clearances
should be justified and appropriate control measures provided for maintaining
the clearance.
Notes:
(a) The above clearances are with respect to the running edge of the nearest
rail.
(b) To allow for the effects of track cant, clearances should be calculated with
respect to axes perpendicular and parallel to the plane of the rails. (This is
illustrated in Figure K of this Approved Code of Practice.)
(c) T is an allowance for end and centre throw of vehicles on circular curves,
deemed sufficient to cover all vehicle types listed in Appendix K of this
Approved Code of Practice. (Railtrack should specify clearances where they
are required to cover vehicle types additional to those listed.)
T = 45000 / R mm on the inside of the curve
T = 35000 / R mm on the outside of the curve
where R is the radius of the curve in metres. (Example: for a curve of
radius 500m, T = 90mm inside, 70mm outside.) (End and centre throw are
illustrated in Figure L of this Approved Code of Practice.)
(d) For non-circular curves (e.g. transitions, turnouts), T should be calculated
on the basis of the smallest radius within a distance of 20m from the location
at which the clearance is being considered. Alternatively, in place of T,
exact values for throw may be used, based on the actual track geometry
and all vehicles likely to use the Bridge.
(e) Where R is less than 200m, in place of T, exact values for throw should be
used, based on the actual track geometry and all vehicles likely to use the
Bridge.
(f) Clearances corresponding to 3, 4 and 5 above should be regarded as
substandard and identified as such in the AIP submission.
(g) Clearances corresponding to 5 above should additionally be agreed by
HMRI.
(h) The above recommended clearances may not be applicable on routes
where tilting trains are proposed. Clearances should be considered further
in such cases.
14 RAILTRACK
Withdrawn Document
GC/RC5510
Issue One
9.1.2 Walkways and handrailing to underline Bridges

Underline Bridges should be provided on both sides with walkways and
continuous handrailing or equivalent pedestrian barriers.
Walkways may be formed at cess ballast level or they may be raised or otherwise
separate. GC/RT5203 sets out the requirements for such walkways.
Raised or separate walkways should be at least 700mm wide, with a non-slip

surface free of tripping hazards. Brush-finished or exposed-aggregate concrete
may be deemed to be non-slip. Girder flanges may form part or all of the
walkway width unless the presence of doubler plates, bolt heads or other
projections form a tripping hazard.
Raised walkways should be provided with ramps or steps down to cess level at
each end. Step rises and goings should comply with the recommendations of
BS 5395 Part 1 for semi-public stairways. The width of the stairway may be
reduced to 500mm provided the width of the walkway at waist height is not
reduced below 700mm.
Where a walkway is raised more than 500mm above the level of the ballast
adjacent to the walkway, cess or sleeper, GC/RT5203 requires immediate access
to be provided where reasonably practicable.
Where steps are provided on both sides of the track they should generally be
staggered to provide intervals not exceeding 20m.
Where the linespeed is greater than 100mph, the interval between steps should
be considered on a site specific basis, taking into account the sighting distances,
the speed of trains and the number of tracks.
Where use of steps would entail a vertical or near-vertical climb (e.g. to the top
flange of a girder) suitable grab handles should be provided.
Clearances of steps and grab handles should be checked.
Handrailing should be as follows:
Height: at least 1250mm above the adjacent walkway or cess level.

Loading: as given in Section 20 of this Approved Code of Practice.
Form: either solid or of open construction. If the latter, there should be:
• a continuous top rail;

• a continuous kerb or kicker plate at least 150mm high;
• at least one intermediate rail or other infill as given in Appendix F
Where an underline Bridge has two or more separate superstructures carrying

adjacent tracks with longitudinal gaps between them, the gaps should either be
edged with handrailing as above or they should be covered with plates or gratings
to protect trackside workers and to prevent ballast from falling through the gaps.
Choice of cover type should take into account any requirements for allowing
daylight to penetrate to below the superstructure.
Where a walkway intended for use by the public or by persons other than those
authorised to go on or about the line is attached to an underline Bridge, the
walkway should be separated from the railway by a suitable barrier and should be
provided with a suitable parapet on the side remote from the railway.
9.1.3 Lateral clearances to highways

Lateral clearances to public highways should be determined in consultation with
the relevant Highway Authority taking into account Railtrack’s legal obligations.
RAILTRACK 15
Withdrawn Document
GC/RC5510
Issue One
Date August 1998
Lateral clearances to private roads should be determined in consultation with the

owner or user of the road taking into account Railtrack’s legal obligations.
9.1.4 Vertical clearances to highways

Recommendations for vertical clearances to public highways are given in Section
7.2 of this Approved Code of Practice.
Vertical clearances to private roads should be as large as can be achieved with

reasonable economy, determined in consultation with the owner and / or user(s)
of the road and taking into account Railtrack’s legal obligations.
9.2
appropriate adequate protection and / or deterrence from unauthorised access.
9.2.1 Layout of fencing etc.

The layout of fencing in the vicinity of Bridges should be such that the fences,
together with the structure of the Bridge where appropriate, form a continuous
barrier against trespass onto the railway. Where a fence abuts the end of a
wingwall to form part of such continuous barrier, the end of the wingwall should
be at least as high as the adjacent fence and should be formed such as to deter
climbing.
Where appropriate (e.g. on pipe Bridges and certain footbridges) chevaux-de-

frise or other barriers should be provided to deter people from making
unauthorised passage along the top or outside of the structure.
Where the layout of fencing is such that members of the public have access to
the top of wingwalls or abutments, suitable fences or barriers not less than
1100mm high should be set on the wingwalls / abutments to give reasonable
protection against falling.
GC/RT5201 sets out the minimum requirements for lineside security.
Reasonable provision should be made to protect those who may be walking along
the cess or working on embankment slopes against falling from wingwalls or
abutments.
9.3
appropriate adequate protection to vehicles or persons using or affected by the
Structure.
9.3.1 Parapets to overline road Bridges

The containment level of parapets to overline Bridges carrying road traffic
(including accommodation and occupation Bridges) should be in accordance with
Department of Transport Standard BD 52/93 (which supersedes the former
Standard BE 5). Parapets may be of metallic, reinforced concrete or reinforced
brickwork / masonry (sandwich) construction.
The criteria given in BD 52/93 for the provision of P6 high containment parapets
need not generally be applied retrospectively to existing Bridges.
Where existing Bridge parapets are repaired or rebuilt, an improvement to the

level of containment should be made if this can be achieved with reasonable
economy, but P6 containment level need not generally be provided.
Parapets to all overline Bridges should be as given in HMRI Railway Safety

Principles and Guidance Part 2, Section A, Chapter 4. Where the width of the top
of the parapet is more than 100mm, a steeple coping should be provided.
Guidance on suitable profiles is given in Appendix G of this Approved Code of
Practice.
16 RAILTRACK
Withdrawn Document
GC/RC5510
Issue One
Where separate copings are used, they should be firmly fixed to prevent
dislodgement by vandals or accidental impact.
In respect of equestrian use, generally parapets 1800mm high need be provided

only in the following cases:
• where equestrian use is exceptionally heavy;

• where equestrian use is moderate but the Bridge is narrow and there is no
verge or footway (e.g. a designated bridleway Bridge).
Where reasonably practicable, parapets should be constructed 50mm higher than

the minimum recommended to allow for future road or footway resurfacing.
9.3.2 Layout etc. for footbridges

9.3.2.1 Prevention of injury
All accessible parts of footbridges should be free of sharp edges or projections
which could be reasonably foreseen to cause injury.
9.3.2.2 Protection of the railway from vandalism

At locations where vandalism is known to be a problem, consideration should be
given to the provision of parapets at least 1800mm high or enclosing screens to
footbridges to prevent objects from being thrown onto the railway. Mesh screens
should be such that a 50mm diameter sphere cannot be passed through without
distorting the mesh.
9.3.2.3 Width and internal headroom

For footbridges at stations or giving access to stations, the width should be
suitable for the current and anticipated pedestrian flows and should additionally
be agreed with the relevant station operator. Where appropriate, requirements
for emergency evacuation should be taken into account and agreed with the
relevant authorities including the Fire Authority.
For footbridges carrying public footpaths, the width should be in accordance with
the reasonable requirements of the relevant Highway Authority (but need not
generally be as wide as given in Highways Agency standards: a clear width of
1400mm between handrails is considered sufficient unless heavy pedestrian
flows are likely).
In all cases the clear width between handrails should be at least 1200mm as
given in HMRI Railway Safety Principles and Guidance Part 2, Section B,
Chapter 5.
For covered footbridges, internal headroom should be as given in BS 5395. At

stations, internal headroom should additionally be as given in HMRI Railway
Safety Principles and Guidance.
9.3.2.4 Stairways, steps and ramps

Except as given below, stairways, steps and ramps forming part of the structure
of footbridges should be as given in HMRI Railway Safety Principles and
Guidance Part 2, Section B, Chapter 5.
Where it is not reasonably practicable to comply with the above (e.g. where a
change in direction between stair flights cannot be accommodated) this should be
stated and justified in the AIP submission.
9.3.2.5 Footbridges not owned by Railtrack

For footbridges which are not owned by Railtrack and which are not at stations
nor give access to stations, the above recommendations in respect of width and
in respect of stairways, steps and ramps and internal headroom need not apply.
RAILTRACK 17
Withdrawn Document
GC/RC5510
Issue One
Date August 1998
9.3.2.6 Provisions for safe movement of persons (including those who are
disabled) at footbridges
Reference should be made to the document “Meeting the needs of disabled
passengers” July 1994 published by the Office of the Rail Regulator. (This
document is currently being updated.)
9. 4 Structures Over Electrified Railways

The following requirements apply to parapets of Structures which are over
railways electrified on the overhead or conductor rail system and where
pedestrians, animals, pedal cycles and vehicles drawn by animals are not
excluded by Order.
Parapets shall not be less than 1500mm high (1800mm where the bridge is
frequently used by equestrian traffic), shall have an inner face which is smooth
and imperforate over its full height without hand or footholds and shall be
provided with steeple copings or equivalent. In addition, parapets shall extend at
least 3000mm beyond any uninsulated overhead equipment.
The 3000mm dimension given above should be measured horizontally.
Where parts of Bridges (e.g. road approach ramps or footbridge stair flights) run
essentially parallel to and adjacent to railways electrified on the overhead system,
screening or other protection should be provided as necessary to prevent people
(and anything they might reasonably be carrying) from coming closer than 2.75m
to uninsulated electrical equipment.
10 Execution /
Decommissioning
Railtrack shall ensure that the Structure is designed so that there is at least one
safe and feasible method for its Execution and for its subsequent
decommissioning.
10.1 Execution (construction, erection)

The safe and feasible method for the execution of the structure should take into
account the following:
• the likely disruption to traffic and the economic consequences of such

disruption;
• the effect of the execution on existing infrastructure;
• the time available for the erection;
• the equipment (including back-up equipment) required for the erection
(including in the case of cranes any particular requirements to protect road /
rail / pedestrian traffic or infrastructure such as OLE);
• the adequacy of any temporary works (including temporary use of permanent
works in a completed or uncompleted condition);
• the need for any temporary bracing or support to structural elements during
the erection process;
• the nuisance which may be caused to nearby residents.
Where Bridges are to be erected during closure of road or rail traffic,

consideration should be given to a trial erection of Bridge prior to the actual
erection.
The method of execution envisaged by the designer should be stated in the AIP
submission. In appropriate cases a detailed description, drawings etc. should be
included.
10.2 Decommissioning
Any hazards associated with demolition or decommissioning which would not be
apparent from inspection of the Bridge or from inspection of its likely design /
construction records should be stated in the AIP submission.
Particular attention should be paid to the following Bridges:

18 RAILTRACK
Withdrawn Document
GC/RC5510
Issue One
• those which require temporary bracing during erection;

• those whose stability is affected by adjacent structures (e.g. multispan arch
Bridges);
• those which include the use of toxic materials;
• those where the abutments rely on propping from the superstructure for their
stability.
11 Future Maintenance
Railtrack shall ensure that future foreseeable maintenance requirements can be
carried out safely including, where appropriate:
• examination of the structure;

• replacement of components, materials (e.g. paint) or equipment with a
planned life less than that of the structure.
11.1 Future examination

The requirements for future foreseeable examination and maintenance of a
Bridge should take into account the following:
• the method of access (particularly where there are confined spaces);

• the disruption to traffic (this should include the traffic using the Bridge and the
traffic passing beneath the Bridge).
11.2 Future replacement of components

Consideration should be given to the requirements for the reapplication of any
protective treatments or other components with an intended or likely life less than
that of the rest of the structure.
Consideration should also be given to the replacement of the bearings. The

method of attaching the bearings to the structure should be carefully considered
so that the bearings can be removed without undue difficulty. For metallic
bearings, there should preferably be bolted connections top and bottom to enable
removal of the bearing with only minimal jacking-up of the superstructure and
without the need for breaking out into the substructure. (Provision of a
supplementary plate under the bearing bottom plate, with the latter screwed into
the former, may be helpful in this respect.)
It is likely that the Bridge will need to be jacked up to permit the removal and
insertion of replacement bearings; provision may therefore have to be made for
additional stiffening to take the high local forces from the jacks. If such provision
is made, the location and safe capacity of jacking points should be recorded and
should preferably also be shown physically on the structure.
Where there is no provision for jacks on the abutments or piers, the likely effects
of the temporary support structures on restricting traffic and on services adjacent
to or beneath the temporary supports should be taken into account.
12 Compatibility with
Other Infrastructure
Railtrack shall ensure that:
• the structure and any equipment it supports does not affect the safe
functioning of any adjacent, proposed or existing structure or equipment;
• adjacent proposed or existing structures or equipment will not affect the safe
functioning of the structure or the equipment it supports.
12.1 Track / Bridge interaction

The Design of underline Bridges should take into account the effects of the
Bridge on the track and vice versa. These effects are known as track / Bridge
interaction and are principally due to thermal expansion / contraction, traction /
braking of rail traffic and deformation of the Bridge under traffic loads.
RAILTRACK 19
Withdrawn Document
GC/RC5510
Issue One
Date August 1998
Track / Bridge interaction is likely to be most significant for Bridges with long
expansion length carrying CWR track. Currently, GC/RT5010 requires
adjustment switches to be provided in CWR track “as close as possible but not
less than 4.5m clear of each end of the deck of a new steel or concrete underline
Bridge where the superstructure is designed to move relative to the abutments
and the moveable length exceeds 30m”.
In the following cases track / Bridge interaction effects may be deemed covered
by the design loading given in this Approved Code of Practice:
• Bridges carrying ballasted or non-ballasted CWR track with adjustment

switches as above;
• single-span simply-supported Bridges up to 30m expansion length, carrying
ballasted CWR track without adjustment switches;
• two-span simply-supported or continuous Bridges with each span up to 30m
expansion length, carrying ballasted CWR track without adjustment switches,
provided that the fixed point for expansion is at the intermediate support;
• single-span Bridges up to 15m expansion length, carrying non-ballasted CWR
track without expansion switches;
• two-span simply-supported or continuous Bridges with each span up to 15m
expansion length, carrying non-ballasted CWR track without adjustment
switches, provided that the fixed point for expansion is at the intermediate
support;
• all Bridges carrying jointed track. (However, rail joints should be kept clear of
Bridges as given in given in GC/RT5020.)
In other cases track / Bridge interaction effects should be considered and justified
for each Bridge. Eurocode ENV 1991-3 (and its UK National Application
Document when published) and UIC Leaflet 774-3R may be used for guidance.
12.2 Retention of Ballast

Suitable provision should be made to retain the ballast on the Bridge, at either
end of the Bridge, and at the transition between the Bridge and the adjacent track
formation.
Where run on / run off slabs are provided at the ends of Bridges, particular care
should be taken to provide for maintaining the depth and integrity of the ballast
supported by such slabs.
12.3 Compatibility of Bridge with other adjacent, proposed or existing

structures and equipment
The Bridge and any equipment it supports should be compatible structurally and
in all other respects with other adjacent fixed assets or features of the
infrastructure.
In particular, the following should be considered where appropriate:
• track and track components;

• provision and maintenance of services;
• the effect of forces or pressures (including those due to thermal expansion)
transferred to other adjacent features of the infrastructure;
• the presence of services adjacent to or carried by the Bridge (including the
ability to add new services to overline Bridges without damaging the
waterproofing);
• power supply and electrification equipment;
• train control (signalling) equipment;
• telecommunications equipment;
• plant;
• any other identified feature.
For track and track components, Railtrack should specify:
• horizontal and vertical alignment;

20 RAILTRACK
Withdrawn Document
GC/RC5510
Issue One
• cant and cant deficiency;

• ballast depth (see Section 6.3, Appendix E and Appendix I.5 of this Approved
Code of Practice).
13 Operational Safety
Railtrack shall ensure that other influences or requirements which may affect the
safety of railway operations or the safety or persons whose duties take them on
or near the line have been considered and taken into account, including:
• ground water (particularly in tunnels);

• potential arcing of electric power equipment;
• sighting for train drivers;
• sighting for track staff.
13.1 Potential arcing of electrical power equipment

The clearance between a Bridge and electrical equipment at a different potential
should be maximised as far as can be achieved with reasonable economy.
Although the arcing distance between such elements in dry conditions for the
25kv overhead electrification system is less than 80mm, the presence of damp
conditions and the presence of foreign bodies (e.g. birds) increases the risk of
arcing at considerably greater distances.
The clearances to electrical equipment should provide adequate tolerances for

future maintenance. Normal and minimum clearances are given in GM/TT0101.
(This will be superseded in due course by GC/RT5102.)
Clearances should also be as given in HMRI Railway Safety Principles and

Guidance Part 2, Section C, Chapter 3.
At certain locations, overhead electrification equipment needs to be higher than

normal or needs increased clearance to Bridges. (Examples include locations
close to public road level crossings and some locations where track switches and
crossings are present.) In such cases Railtrack should specify the clearance
required.
All Bridges crossing over overhead electrified railways should be waterproofed to

avoid potential damage through flash over.
13.2 Electrical bonding

Bridges and service ducts crossing over or under overhead electrified railways
should be effectively electrically bonded, as follows:
• metal underline and overline Bridges should be bonded to the traction return
rail or earth wire;
• the components of metal Bridges should be connected by welding or by
substantial, clean metal-to-metal bolted or riveted joints;
• exposed metal parts of underline and overline Bridges (e.g. handrails and
bearings of concrete Bridges) should be connected together and bonded as
above;
• concrete reinforcement (including prestressing anchorages) should be bonded
as above if it is accessible or if it is electrically connected to accessible
metalwork;
• concrete, timber and masonry overline Bridges should have a bonded metal
plate attached to the underside in certain cases;
• embedded service ducts in Bridges should be non-metallic.
Reference should be made to railway industry standards for detailed

requirements. Railtrack should specify the relevant standards.
Where dual overhead and third-rail electrification is present, there is a likelihood

of high current flow through the earth. At such locations, Railtrack should
RAILTRACK 21
Withdrawn Document
GC/RC5510
Issue One
Date August 1998
consider specifying precautions against stray-current corrosion (e.g. electrical

bonding or electrical isolation of substructure reinforcement cages).
13.3 Sighting for train drivers

Bridges, including their supports, should be designed so that they do not interfere
with the sighting for train drivers of train control equipment, lineside signs and
trackside workers. It is particularly important that the sighting of signals for train
drivers is not obstructed.
13.4 Sighting for track staff

Where reasonably practicable the supports of Bridges should not reduce existing
sighting distances of trains and signals for trackside workers.
14 Design Control
Procedures
Railtrack shall ensure that the design control procedures for the Structure are
carried out in accordance with GC/RT5101, Technical Approval Requirements for
Changes to the Infrastructure.
GC/RT5101 gives requirements for approval procedures at each of the following

four phases of a scheme:
• remit;
• approval in principle (AIP);
• design and checking;
• execution (construction, erection) and commissioning.
Bridges should be designed to be appropriately economical on a whole life basis.
Other than in very straightforward cases, the AIP submission should include
evidence that alternatives to the type of structure proposed have been considered
and approximately costed.
15 Limitations on Use
Railtrack shall ensure that any limits on the use of the Structure are stated,
recorded and observed.
Methods for ensuring that any limits on the use of the Bridge are observed could
involve restricting the type and speed of traffic or, in the case of Bridges carrying
pedestrian or road traffic, preventing the use of a the Bridge by heavier traffic by
means of suitable barriers or raised kerbs or weight restriction plates.
16 Identification of
Structures
Railtrack shall ensure that all bridges and other fixed Structures included within
the scope of this Railway Group Standard are uniquely identified. The
identification must be conspicuous from both road and rail where appropriate.
Bridges should preferably be identified by means of number plates.

Consideration should be given to colour-coding such number plates to indicate
ownership and maintenance responsibilities.
The unique identification and the location should also be recorded.
17 Structures Adjacent
to Railtrack Land
Where the intended Structure is on land not owned or controlled by Railtrack,
but crosses or takes support from Railtrack land, Railtrack shall use its best
endeavours to ensure that the requirements of this Railway Group Standard are
complied with.
22 RAILTRACK
Withdrawn Document
GC/RC5510
Issue One
Legal documentation authorising other organisations to construct Bridges over,

under or taking support from Railtrack land should include the requirements of
GC/RT5110 and GC/RT5112 and as far as is relevant the recommendations of
this Approved Code of Practice.
18 Records
Railtrack shall ensure that records of the drawings, calculations, risk
assessments, limits on use and other relevant information which relate to the
fitness for purpose of the Structure are prepared and retained for the life of the
Structure and made available to the person or organisation responsible for
maintaining the Structure when it is in use.
Such records could be included in the Health and Safety File as defined in the
CDM Regulations.
GC/RT5142 gives requirements in respect of the management of records.
RAILTRACK 23
Withdrawn Document
GC/RC5510
Issue One
Date August 1998
Recommendations relating to GC/RT5112
19 Railway Traffic Loads

and Load Effects
19.1 Normal railway traffic loading
Bridges carrying railway traffic of standard gauge shall generally be designed for
full RU type loading as specified in BD 37/88 “Loads for Highway Bridges”.
Note: BD 37/88 covers Railway Loading and supersedes BS 5400 Part 2.
Except as otherwise given in this Approved Code of Practice, all relevant clauses
of
BD 37/88 should be applied, including Table 1 with the modifications given in
Appendix I.5 of this Approved Code of Practice.
The RU load model should be deemed to include the following associated loads
and load effects, all as specified in BD 37/88 except as otherwise given in this
Approved Code of Practice:
(a) dynamic effects (with the modifications to Tables 16 and 17 of BD 37/88

given in Appendix I.2 of this Approved Code of Practice);
(b) dispersal of concentrated loads (with the modifications given in Appendix I.3
of this Approved Code of Practice);
(c) concentrated load on deck plates and local elements;
(d) application of loading to multi-track Bridges;
(e) lurching (deemed in BD 37/88 to be taken into account by the specified

dynamic factors);
(f) nosing (but see Appendix I of this Approved Code of Practice for
longitudinal distribution);
(g) centrifugal load (but see Appendix D of this Approved Code of Practice for
applicable speed);
(h) longitudinal loads (traction / braking);
(i) load combinations and partial factors;
(j) derailment loads;
(k) loading for fatigue investigations (based on the intended life of the Bridge
as given in the AIP submission, not necessarily 120 years as is specified
in BD 37/88).
Additionally, a single nominal horizontal point load of 100kN should be applied at

any point to a robust kerb (see Section 7.3.3 of this Approved Code of Practice)
to allow for the effects of a derailed train.
Appendix I of this Approved Code of Practice gives further recommendations on

the application of railway traffic loads.
The following should generally be specified by Railtrack:
• the maximum design speed of rail traffic (for centrifugal force effects and for
clearances);
• the total annual design tonnage per track (for fatigue effects);
24 RAILTRACK
Withdrawn Document
GC/RC5510
Issue One
• the design traffic mix: heavy, medium or light, as given in BS 5400, Part 10
(for fatigue effects);
taking into account foreseeable future traffic developments (e.g. changes in the
density, speed or type of traffic).
Guidance on provision for future traffic developments and selection of traffic mix
is given in Appendix D of this Approved Code of Practice.
19.2 Reduced and enhanced loading

In exceptional cases, where safety and the safety of interworking are not
adversely affected, a lighter loading may be permitted which shall be defined by
multiplying the RU type loading by a factor. The provision also exists for adopting
a heavier loading on restricted sections where this is appropriate.
The factor to be applied to the full RU type loading shall not be less than 0.75.
Written approval to the use of a loading other than full RU type loading shall be
obtained from Railtrack at the Approval in Principle stage of the project under the
procedures identified in Railway Group Standard GC/RT5101 “Technical Approval
Requirements for Changes to the Infrastructure”.
For new Bridges and complete superstructure reconstructions, Railtrack should

generally specify any cases where the design traffic loading is to be other than
full RU.
Reduced loading should be considered only where both the following apply:
• it will result in significant economic benefit;

• control measures are or will be in place to ensure that the type of traffic
(including its speed) using the Bridge will not exceed the reduced design
loading.
Where factored RU loading is used, items (c), (g), (h) and (j) listed in Section 19.1
of this Approved Code of Practice should all be calculated using the same factor.
The dynamic effects specified in BD 37/88 comprise an envelope of the effects of

different representative types of traffic, taking account of light trains running at
high speed and heavier trains running at slower speeds. Hence they are not
directly applicable to reduced loading based on actual train types and speeds.
In cases of reduced loading, therefore, dynamic effects should be taken into
account as follows:
(a) the dynamic effects specified in BD 37/88 (as modified by Appendix I of this
Approved Code of Practice) should be applied to the factored RU loading;
(b) the static load effects of the actual train types should be multiplied by the
appropriate dynamic factor (1 + ϕ) obtained from UIC Leaflet 776-1R ((1979
Edition with 1987 amendments) - Commentary on Dynamic factors;
(c) if the dynamic loading derived from factored RU loading (DLRUfac) is less
than the dynamic loading derived from actual train types (DLactual), the RU
factor should be increased sufficiently so that DLRUfac ≥ DLactual.
In all such cases an appropriate traffic mix for fatigue shall be established taking
account of the design life of the structure and the proposed rail traffic and any
reasonably foreseeable changes to the rail traffic using the structure.
The standard load spectra specified in BS 5400 Part 10 for use with RU loading
are not applicable to reduced loading; hence Table 4 of BS 5400 Part 10 is not
applicable. The fatigue effects in such cases should be based on the actual
foreseeable traffic. The traffic mix may be based on the appropriate train types
given in Figure 19 of BS 5400 Part 10.
RAILTRACK 25
Withdrawn Document
GC/RC5510
Issue One
Date August 1998
19.3 Additional loading for continuous Bridges

The RU type loading was developed for simply supported Bridges and covers the
special vehicle Type 6 shown in Appendix 101 of UIC Leaflet 776-1R “Loads to be
considered in the design of railway Bridges”. In continuous Bridge construction
the effects due to vehicle Type 6 may not be covered by the RU Load Model. The
effects due to the SW/0 Load Model shown in Figure 1 of this Railway Group
Standard shall therefore be considered unless otherwise specified by Railtrack.
This Load Model corresponds to vehicle Type 6.
On multi-track Bridges, only one track shall be loaded with the SW/0 Load Model.
The SW/0 Load Model does not have to be considered in any fatigue check.
Whereas RU type loading shall be curtailed as necessary in order to produce the
most unfavourable load effect, Load Model SW/0 shall not be curtailed and need
not be repeated.
Load Model SW/0 covers certain abnormally heavy vehicles. It consists of two
lengths of 133kN/m UDL each 15.0m long, separated by an unloaded length of
5.3m (as shown in Figure 1 of GC/RT5112).
19.4 Loading for alterations / partial reconstructions

For altered Bridges, where it is proposed to alter the structure of the Bridge, the
loading specified shall meet the requirements of the Principles of this Railway
Group Standard, and shall be such that the lesser of the following applies:
• the loading capacity of the Bridge is not reduced;

• the requirements of clauses 6.1.1 and 6.1.2 of this Railway Group Standard
are met.
The Principles referred to above are general requirements which it may be

assumed are satisfied by following the recommendations of this Approved Code
of Practice.
Clauses 6.1.1 and 6.1.2 referred to above are quoted verbatim in Sections 19.1
and 19.2 of this Approved Code of Practice.
For alterations to existing Bridges (including partial reconstructions such as

redecking on existing main girders) the design loading should be specified by
Railtrack in accordance with the requirements given in the boxed text above from
GC/RT5112. In such cases suitable allowance should be made for the
associated loads and load effects listed in Section 19.1 of this Approved Code of
Practice.
19.5 Loading for temporary Bridges

Temporary Bridges designed to carry rail traffic shall in general be designed in
accordance with 6.1.1 and 6.1.2 of this Railway Group Standard. In exceptional
cases, where safety and the safety of interworking are not adversely affected, a
lesser loading may be permitted. In all such cases, the loading shall take into
account the rail traffic that will be permitted to use the temporary Bridge, the
intended life of the temporary Bridge, any site specific hazards and any control
measures required to prevent overloading of the temporary Bridge.
19.6 Railway traffic surcharge loading for Bridge substructures

For abutments and similar soil-retaining substructure elements, railway traffic
surcharge loading for each track may be taken as a uniformly distributed linear
load of 150kN/m, uniformly spread over a width of 2.5m and acting at the level of
the underside of the sleepers. This may be deemed to take into account dynamic
effects.
19.7 Dynamic effects for substructures

For piers, columns and similar substructure elements (but excluding crossheads
and the like), dynamic effects of railway traffic loading need not be considered
26 RAILTRACK
Withdrawn Document
GC/RC5510
Issue One
unless the slenderness ratio L/r of the element exceeds 30 (where L is the
element’s effective length and r its radius of gyration).
19.8 Deformations
Deformations for Bridges carrying rail traffic shall be in accordance with UIC
Leaflet 776-3R “Deformation of Bridges”. In section 8 of Leaflet 776-3R, the
values in Table 5 shall apply.
Lesser deformations may need to be specified for appropriate levels of passenger

comfort.
19.8.1 General
All Bridges should be designed so that the deflections under load do not
encroach on any required clearances.
19.8.2 Vertical deformations

The recommendations of UIC Leaflet 776-3R should be followed, with the
modifications and clarifications given in Appendix E of this Approved Code of
Practice.
It is important that the twist (cant gradient) of the track is considered on skew
Bridges. Twist effects are likely to be particularly severe at the intermediate
support positions of multi-span simply-supported skew Bridges.
Where the Bridge carries more than one track, identification of the most severe
load case should be considered carefully.
Where the track on the Bridge is curved, the calculated twist should include the
twist due to the loading on the Bridge and the twist due to any designed track
geometry (e.g. in transition curves).
In cases of Bridge superstructure reconstructions where it is not reasonably

practicable to comply with the twist criteria given in Section 5 of UIC Leaflet
776-3R, this should be identified and justified in the AIP submission.
In all cases the twist (cant gradient) of the track due to the loading on the Bridge
and to any designed track geometry should not exceed 1 in 400 under the actual
existing and foreseeable rail vehicles using the Bridge.
For vertical deflections, in place of the values given in section 8 Table 5 of UIC
Leaflet 776-3R, Railtrack should consider specifying more onerous criteria as
follows:
• on main lines: Table 3 values;

• on principal passenger routes and otherwise where high standards of
passenger comfort are important: Table 4 values.
In addition, the natural frequency of the Bridge should be limited to the values
given in UIC Leaflet 776-3R. These limits are intended to ensure that the
dynamic effects are covered by the dynamic factors given in BD 37/88.
In assessing the natural frequency of the Bridge, the method identified in UIC
Leaflet 776-3R may be used. For half through Bridges, the effect of the deck may
be included if appropriate (with due allowance for shear lag effects) so that the
Bridge is considered as a large channel section.
19.8.3 Lateral deformations

Lateral deformations may be neglected for Bridges with decks having high in-
plane shear stiffness (e.g. concrete slabs, shear-connected beams, continuous
steel deck plates). For Bridges with open or non-continuous decks, lateral
deformation effects should be taken into account as follows:
RAILTRACK 27
Withdrawn Document
GC/RC5510
Issue One
Date August 1998
• horizontal deflections should not exceed the maximum values given in

section 7 of UIC Leaflet 776-3R;
3
• lateral flexibility ( = L /EIlateral for a simply-supported Bridge span L) should
not exceed 3mm/kN;
• lateral frequency under permanent loads should not be less than 1.2Hz.
19.8.4 Camber
Bridges with span greater than 12m should preferably be cambered to improve
their appearance. Camber should generally be equal to the dead load deflection
plus half the serviceability live load deflection.
For multi-span Bridges and skew Bridges with constant-depth main girders, the
levels of the bearings should generally be such that all parts of the main girder
soffits lie in a continuous circular curve when viewed in elevation square to the
girders.
19.9 Deck acceleration and resonance

The passage of certain types of trains over Bridges at high speed can cause deck
accelerations which tend to destabilise the ballast and can set up deck resonance
(resulting in excessive dynamic factors). Such effects may generally be ignored
where the line speed does not exceed 200km/h (125mph).
20 Walkway Loads
Walkways to underline Bridges should be designed for nominal loading as
follows:
2
• a uniformly distributed load of 4kN/m ;
• for local elements, a patch load of 2kN applied to a circle 100mm diameter or
a point load of 1kN, whichever has the more severe effect;
• where the walkway supports a cable route, an allowance of 1kN/m or the
actual weight of the cables, whichever is greater;
• horizontal handrail loading of 0.74kN/m or a horizontal force of 0.5kN applied
at any point to the top rail, whichever has the more severe effect.
21 Road Traffic Loads

Bridges carrying road traffic shall generally be designed for standard highway
loading as specified in BD 37/88.
For all public highway Bridges, the number of units of HB loading and any
requirements for abnormal indivisible loads shall be determined in conjunction
with the Highway Authority.
For reconstructions of existing Bridges carrying public highways, Railtrack’s legal

obligations (as given in The Railway Bridges(Load-Bearing Standards) (England
and Wales) Order 1972) should be taken into account in determining the loading.
Such loading should generally be determined and specified by Railtrack.
For occupation and accommodation Bridges, a lesser load than that specified in
BD 37/88 for accommodation Bridges may be permitted as long as the safety and
the safety of interworking are not adversely affected and all other legal obligations
are met. Any lesser loading shall be suitably justified.
For reconstructions of existing occupation and accommodation Bridges,

Railtrack’s legal obligations may be taken into account in determining the loading.
However, designing for historic load-bearing obligations may not be sufficient.
Reconstructed Bridges should be designed to carry the heaviest traffic that may
reasonably be expected to use them, or else positive means should be provided
to prohibit traffic of excess weight.
For Bridges designed to carry other types of road or vehicular traffic the loading
shall be specified by Railtrack.
28 RAILTRACK
Withdrawn Document
GC/RC5510
Issue One
22 Pedestrian and / or
Cycle Traffic Loads
For Bridges supporting footways and / or cycle tracks open to the public, the
loading shall generally be designed in accordance with the requirements of
BD 37/88.
Further to BD 37/88, for foot / cycle track Bridges:

2
• the uniformly distributed load should be taken as 5kN/m regardless of the
loaded length or width;
• for local elements, a nominal patch load of 2kN should be applied to a circle
100mm diameter or a point load of 1kN, whichever has the more severe effect.
For other Bridges, the loading to be considered for pedestrian traffic shall
generally be in accordance with the requirements for service walkways given in
UIC Leaflet 776-1R.
Further to UIC Leaflet 776-1R (1979 Edition with 1987 amendments), the loading
for Bridges intended to be used only by pedestrian railway staff should be as
given for walkways in Section 20 of this Approved Code of Practice.
Where Bridges are designed to carry pedestrian or cycle traffic only, suitable
provision shall be made to prevent use of the Bridge by vehicular traffic which
could affect safety of train operations.
Physical means should be provided to prevent unsuitable vehicular traffic from

using pedestrian / cycle Bridges (e.g. bollards, chicanes, doors, steps). Reliance
should not be placed upon warning notices alone.
23 Other Traffic Loads

The loading shall be determined in conjunction with the relevant authority and
shall meet the requirements of the Principles contained in this Railway Group
Standard.
The Principles referred to above are general requirements which it may be

assumed are satisfied by following the recommendations of this Approved Code
of Practice.
24 Aerodynamic Effects
of Rail Traffic
For most underline Bridges and overline Bridges carrying roads, the aerodynamic
effects due to passing rail traffic may be deemed negligible. However, such
effects should be considered in the following cases:
• footbridges;
• Bridges supporting station canopies or similar structures;
• cladding panels attached to Bridges.
Eurocode ENV 1991-3 (and its UK National Application Document when

published) may be used for guidance.
The slipstream effects of passing Rail Traffic should be considered where

appropriate.
25 Non-traffic Loads and

Load Effects
25.1 General
Except as otherwise given in this Approved Code of Practice, loads and effects
other than traffic loads and their effects should be taken into account for all
Bridges as given in BD 37/88.
RAILTRACK 29
Withdrawn Document
GC/RC5510
Issue One
Date August 1998
Appendix I of this Approved Code of Practice gives further recommendations on

the application of permanent and superimposed dead loads for underline Bridges.
25.2 Loads due to flowing / tidal / navigable water.

Where Bridges cross flowing / tidal / navigable water, the substructures /
foundations should preferably be kept clear of such water where this can be
achieved with reasonable economy.
Where substructures / foundations are in such water, all likely resulting loads
should be allowed for, taking into account the following:
• hydraulic loads on substructures;

• impact from waterborne vessels on substructures;
• impact from waterborne debris on substructures:
• hydraulic / impact loads on superstructure (see below);
• loss of support due to scour / softening of subsoil;
• unbalanced soil loading due to scour.
Whether or not substructures / foundations are in such water, all likely resulting
loads on the superstructure should be allowed for, taking into account the
following:
• hydraulic loads (including uplift effects), where water levels could be higher
than the underside of the superstructure;
• impact from waterborne vessels;
• impact form waterborne debris.
In all cases the design water levels and flows should be taken as the greatest
reasonably foreseeable during the intended life of the Bridge, unless reliable
procedures are put in place to ensure that the Bridge is closed to traffic when
hydraulic conditions reach a predetermined level.
26 Bridges not Owned

by Railtrack
Where the Bridge is not owned by Railtrack, Railtrack shall use its best
endeavours to ensure that the loadings to which the Bridge is designed comply
with the requirements of this Railway Group Standard.
Legal documentation authorising other organisations to construct Bridges over,

under or taking support from Railtrack land should include the requirements of
GC/RT5112 and as far as is relevant the recommendations of this Approved
Code of Practice.
Where this is not the case, the details shall be recorded and the relevant authority
notified.
Where the safety of train operations or the safety of interworking is likely to be

affected the matter shall be brought to the attention of the HMRI.
27 Records
Railtrack shall ensure that:
• the loading, together with any risk/reliability analyses used to specify the
loading of Bridges, is fully documented and retained in accordance with
GC/RT5142 “Management of Infrastructure Records”;
• such information shall be made available to the person or organisation
responsible for maintaining the Bridge.
30 RAILTRACK
Withdrawn Document
GC/RC5510
Issue One
28 List of Loads and

Load Effects
Appendix A of this Approved Code of Practice reproduces the list given in the
Appendix of GC/RT5112 of loads and load effects that are to be considered in the
loading specification for Bridges and indicates how these loads and load effects
are addressed by this Approved Code of Practice.
RAILTRACK 31
Withdrawn Document
GC/RC5510
Issue One
Date August 1998
APPENDIX A
LOADS AND LOAD EFFECTS REQUIRED BY GC/RT5112 TO BE

CONSIDERED IN THE LOADING SPECIFICATION FOR BRIDGES
The list below reproduces the list given in the Appendix of GC/RT5112. The references in
brackets show where each item is addressed in this Approved Code of Practice.
• traffic loads and their effects (e.g. road traffic, rail traffic,
pedestrian traffic) including:
- dynamic effects; (Sections 19.1, 19.2)
- effects of repeated loading (fatigue); (Section 19.1)
- traction and braking forces; (Section 19.1)
- nosing forces (rail traffic only); (Section 19.1)
- centrifugal forces; (Sections 19.1, 21)
- skidding forces (road traffic only); (Section 21)
- deformations (including track twist); (Section 19.8)
- aerodynamic effects; (Section 24)
- effects of track / Bridge interaction; (Section 12.1)
- deck acceleration and resonance effects. (Section 19.9)
• permanent loads relating to the Bridge:
- self weight of the Bridge; (Section 25, Appendix I.5)
- non-structural loads carried by the Bridge ⎡Section 6.3.6, Section 25⎤
(including an adequate allowance for the variability ⎣ Appendix E, Appendix I.5⎦
of ballast depth where appropriate);
- internal forces (e.g. prestressing, creep). (Section 7.5.1)
• other site specific loads and load effects, including those
due to the following:
- soil pressure; (Section 7.5.4, Appendix C)
- settlement (including effects of mining (Section 7.5.4) *
subsidence);
- water pressures (including those from exceptional (Section 25.2)
flows, storms and flooding);
- scour; (Section 25.2)
- erection, construction or maintenance activity; (Section 10.1)
- environmental influences (e.g. wind, temperature). (Section 25.1)
• accidental loads due to the following:
impact from train derailments, both on and (Sections 7.3.1, 7.3.3)
beneath a Bridge;
impact from errant road vehicles, both on and (Sections 9.3.1, 7.3.2)
beneath a Bridge;
impact from vessels beneath a Bridge over a (Section 25.2)
navigable waterway;
other accidental loads and load effects, such as
those due to soil subsidence, may need to be
considered at particular sites.
* specialist advice should be sought regarding
effects of mining subsidence
32 RAILTRACK
Withdrawn Document
GC/RC5510
Issue One
APPENDIX B
MODIFICATIONS TO AND CLARIFICATIONS OF BS 5400 PARTS 3, 4 AND 5
PART 3
The draft modifications to BS 5400 Part 3 dated May 1997 (or later) may be used.
However, either a single dated set of such modifications should be used complete
or they should not be used at all.
Until such time as the new revision of BS 5400 Part 3 is published officially, the
intention to use draft modifications should be indicated in the AIP submission.
PART 4
Clause 4.1.1.1 (b)
Prestressed concrete beams should be designed as Class 2 members but with no

tensile stresses under permanent loads (serviceability limit state).
Clause 4.2.2
In sub-paragraph (a), all live loading should be ignored.
Clause 4.7
The last paragraph should be deleted and replaced by the following:
“For unwelded reinforcing bars the limiting stress ranges for fatigue should be as
follows:
(i) for Bridges carrying railways, in accordance with Part 10, where in Table 8:
m = 9, K2 = 0.75 x 10 , σ0 = 160 N/mm2 for bars < 16mm dia;

27
•
m = 9, K2 = 0.07 x 10 , σ0 = 125 N/mm2 for bars > 16mm dia;
27
•
(the simplified procedure given in Part 10 Clause 9.2 may be used where the
loading is the standard railway Bridge loading);
(ii) for Bridges carrying highways, in accordance with current practice of the
Highways Agency.”
RAILTRACK 33
Withdrawn Document
GC/RC5510
Issue One
Date August 1998
PART 5
BS 5400 Part 5 should be replaced in its entirety by the Department of Transport

document dated December 1987 entitled “Design of composite Bridges. Use of
BS 5400 Part 5: 1979 for Department of Transport structures” (commonly known
as the “yellow document”), with the following modifications to that document:
Yellow document Clause 5.3.2.5
For Bridges subject to railway loading, the value of γm should be taken as 2.05,
not 1.85 as stated.
Change the ending of the first paragraph to “. . . whichever is the least, except
that” and add immediately afterwards the text of sub-clause (b) of BS 5400 Part 5
Clause 5.3.3.1 (“connectors may be placed in groups . . .”).
Delete this Clause and replace it with Clause 5.3.3.6 of BS 5400 Part 5.
Yellow document Clause 6.3.4
For Bridges subject to railway loading, the value of γm should be taken as 1.5, not
1.4 as stated.
Yellow document Clause 7.5.1
Add after the 3rd paragraph the text of the 3rd paragraph of BS 5400 Part 5
Clause 7.5.1 (“Alternatively, connectors may be placed in groups . . .”).
34 RAILTRACK
Withdrawn Document
GC/RC5510
Issue One
APPENDIX C
EXISTING SUBSTRUCTURES AFFECTED BY NEW CONSTRUCTION
Where the superstructure of an existing Bridge is to be reconstructed on existing

abutments, or in other cases where new construction is associated with total or
partial retention of existing substructures, the nature and extent of the existing
substructures to remain should be identified in the AIP submission and should be
subject to the approval of Railtrack. (Signature of the AIP submission may be
deemed to be approval.)
The following guidelines may be applied:
(1) IF all the following conditions are satisfied:
(i) an existing substructure is in satisfactory condition and shows no

significant signs of distress or undue settlement;
(ii) the effects of dead loading on the existing substructures or subsoil
will not be significantly increased as a result of the new construction
(having regard to masonry stresses and to maximum and average soil
pressures);
(iii) the effects of live loading on the existing substructures or subsoil will
not be significantly increased following the new construction (having
regard to masonry stresses and to maximum and average soil
pressures);
(iv) the stability of the existing substructures against overturning and
sliding will not be significantly reduced as a result of or following the
new construction;
(v) there are no particular geotechnical considerations which give cause
for concern;
THEN the existing substructures may normally be considered adequate for

retention without modification and without the need for structural or
geotechnical analysis.
(2) IF conditions (i) and (v) above are satisfied, but effects of dead and / or live
loading on the existing substructures or their tendency to sliding /
overturning will be significantly greater than existing,
THEN the following should apply:
• appropriate structural and / or geotechnical analysis should be carried

out;
• account should be taken of any more or less favourable distribution of
loading as a result of the new construction. (For example: (a) a freely-
supported span may be replaced by a portal structure which, although
heavier, effectively struts the abutment tops, preventing rotation about
their bases; (b) a superstructure which bears near the front face of an
abutment may be replaced by a new superstructure which bears further
back, thus improving the abutment’s stability and reducing the
maximum soil pressures beneath it; (c) beam type construction will
generally distribute loads more evenly throughout the abutment than a
half through type structure; (d) the effects of a half through type
structure can be improved by providing cill beams with substantial
strength and depth;
• When considering the acceptability of additional soil loading, due
distinction should be made between soil types which may fail
completely and those whose response is likely to be no more severe
than increased settlement. Increased settlement may be acceptable.
However, in such cases, the new substructure should be designed to
accommodate the effects of any likely increased total or differential
settlement.
RAILTRACK 35
Withdrawn Document
GC/RC5510
Issue One
Date August 1998
• Underpinning and / or strengthening should be considered as

appropriate.
• Such underpinning does not necessarily have to carry all the foundation
loading. It may be sufficient to design underpinning to carry the
incremental loading only, or in some other way to share the load
between new and old work. (However, such load sharing should not be
relied upon unless it can be verified that the underpinning structure /
soil system will settle under increased loading in an essentially ductile
manner and will be able to withstand any tension which may result from
the application and removal of live loading. (Useful information may be
found in Burland and Kalra’s paper “Queen Elizabeth II Conference
Centre: geotechnical aspects”, Proc. Instn Civ. Engrs, Part 1, 1986, 80,
Dec., 1479-1503.)
(3) IF conditions (ii), (iii), (iv) and (v) above are satisfied but the existing
substructures are showing significant signs of distress,
THEN the following should apply:

• The cause of distress should be determined (e.g. earlier existence of
rail joints, high local forces especially at abutment corners,
malfunctioning or no bearings, failure of waterproofing / drainage,
vegetation, increase in ballast depth, settlement, effects of mining,
reduction in passive pressure due to road lowering, trenching or scour).
• Appropriate structural and / or geotechnical analysis should be carried
out.
• Distinction should be made between movement / damage which has
occurred in the past but has since stabilised and movement / damage
which is ongoing. In the case of the former, remedial work may not be
required.
• Remedial work should generally be considered as a first choice rather
than complete replacement of the existing substructures, allowing
where appropriate for sharing of load between new and old work.
(4) An existing Bridge superstructure may act as a prop to the abutments

(whether designed to or not). Consideration should therefore be given to
the stability of existing abutments when the superstructure is removed.
Where necessary, temporary props should be provided and / or limitations
placed on soil surcharge loading behind the abutment (e.g. by restricting the
use of construction plant or by reducing the height of fill behind abutments
during reconstruction).
36 RAILTRACK
Withdrawn Document
GC/RC5510
Issue One
APPENDIX D
PROVISION FOR FUTURE TRAFFIC DEVELOPMENTS AND SELECTION OF
TRAFFIC MIX
As a guide, the following provisions are recommended as reasonable unless

particular circumstances dictate otherwise:
Speed
Where there are known proposals to increase the speed, the design speed for
loading purposes (e.g. centrifugal force effects) should be taken as the proposed
maximum speed x 1.1.
In other cases, the design speed for loading purposes may be taken as the
existing maximum speed at the location in question x 1.2.
The design speeds thus derived may be deemed to be equal to (vt + 10) km/h as
given in BD 37/88 Clause 8.2.9.
Tonnage
In the absence of known proposals regarding traffic developments, annual
tonnage for design purposes should be taken as the existing annual tonnage
x 1.3.
Where the existing annual tonnage is not known, it may be assumed by

determining the Track Category and linespeed at the location in question and
reading off the maximum “equivalent tonnage” from the diagram in GC/RT5023
“Track Standards Manual - Section 1: Basic Track Category Matrix”. Because
equivalent tonnage is greater than actual tonnage, the former may be deemed to
allow for future growth.
Traffic mix
The traffic mixes (traffic types) for fatigue design purposes are described in BS
5400 Part 10. They may alternatively be approximated as follows:
Light: Essentially multiple-unit traffic, but allows for about 5% by number loco-
hauled passenger or parcels trains. No significant freight (other than
engineering trains).
Medium: Mainly passenger or parcels traffic (multiple-unit or loco-hauled), but

allows for about 25% by number 25-tonne-axle freight trains.
Heavy: Mainly freight traffic.
RAILTRACK 37
Withdrawn Document
GC/RC5510
Issue One
Date August 1998
APPENDIX E
MODIFICATIONS TO AND CLARIFICATIONS OF UIC LEAFLET 776-3R (1989)
The following modifications of and clarifications to UIC Leaflet 776-3R (1989)

should apply:
Section 1
Delete the first paragraph and replace with: “All deformations due to permanent
loading should be calculated under all permanent loads; those due to live loads
should be calculated under the specified design loading, including dynamic
effects, with a partial factor for loads of 1.0.”
Section 3
The fixed load should include an allowance for future increase in ballast depth.
This allowance should normally not be less than 100mm; in particular local
circumstances a greater allowance may be appropriate.
Section 4 (Comments)
For camber, see Clause 19.8.4 of this Approved Code of Practice.
Section 7
The applicable speed range (1, 2 or 3) should be appropriate to the design speed
for loading as given in the AIP submission.
Fig. 1
The notes should be amended as given in Appendix I.2 of this Approved Code of
Practice.
38 RAILTRACK
Withdrawn Document
GC/RC5510
Issue One
APPENDIX F
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR INFILL TO OPEN HANDRAILING FOR
UNDERLINE BRIDGES
Open handrailing should have, in addition to a continuous top rail and a raised
kerb or kicker plate, one of the following:
(a) at least one intermediate rail or wire parallel to the top rail such that the
clear distance between any two rails/wires or between a rail / wire and the
kerb / kicker plate does not exceed 550mm;
(b) vertical or near-vertical infill bars or wires such that the clear distance
between bars / wires does not exceed 150mm;
(c) other arrangements (including ornamental arrangements) of rails or bars or

wires or similar elements such that a 600mm x 200mm rectangle with its
long sides vertical will not pass through;
(d) mesh infill.
Intermediate or infill elements should be able to withstand without permanent

deformation a horizontal loading of 1.0kN/m2 or a horizontal force of 0.5kN
applied at any point, whichever has the more severe effect.
RAILTRACK 39
Withdrawn Document
GC/RC5510
Issue One
Date August 1998
APPENDIX G
PROFILES FOR THE TOPS OF PARAPETS TO OVERLINE HIGHWAY
BRIDGES
Parapet profiles are subject to the approval of HM Railway Inspectorate. The

following profiles are recommended as likely to be approved:
(a) where the width of the parapet top is greater than 100mm but does not
exceed about 250mm (e.g. reinforced concrete construction):
One of the profiles given in BS 6779 Part 2;
(b) where the width of the parapet top significantly exceeds 250mm (e.g. brick
sandwich construction):
• a shallow slope on the highway side, 35 ± 1° to the horizontal; if there is

a separate coping, no overhang on this side;
• a steep slope on the railway side, 60 ± 1° to the horizontal, with an
overhang if appropriate;
• hence an apex angle 85 ± 2°; there may be an apex chamfer up to
30mm wide;
(c) an equilateral triangle; there may be an apex chamfer up to 30mm wide.
Profile (c) should preferably be used for brick sandwich type parapets up to about
350mm thick but for greater thickness this profile results in very large copings.
40 RAILTRACK
Withdrawn Document
GC/RC5510
Issue One
APPENDIX H
Collision Loads from Railway Traffic
H.1 General
With reference to paragraph 8.6 of BD 37/88 this section gives recommendations
for accidental loading on Bridge supports near railway lines.
These recommendations apply to the supporting structures for new vehicular

Bridges and similar structures and to structures carrying hazardous materials
(e.g. gas) constructed over or alongside railway tracks. They do not apply to
lineside railway infrastructure such as overhead line masts or signal gantries.
They should be applied to new and reconstructed footbridges where reasonably
practicable taking into account the nature of the rail traffic and the track layout
adjacent to the Bridge. The recommendations take account of the following:
• the definition of a hazard zone where the risk of impact is greatest;

• the need for columns and piers to withstand the effect of light impacts that
might occur from derailed coaches or freight wagons without sustaining
irreparable damage;
• the prevention of a progressive collapse of the superstructure in the event of a
major accident which results in the loss of a support.
Wherever reasonably practicable, supports carrying Bridges over or alongside

railway tracks should be placed outside the hazard zone.
H.2 Structures within the hazard zone

Where there is no reasonably practicable alternative to placing supports inside
the hazard zone they should preferably be monolithic piers rather than individual
columns.
The hazard zone should be assumed to extend for a width of 4.5m from the
nearest rail. All supports located between railway tracks should be considered to
be inside the hazard zone. Where individual columns are used within the hazard
zone, the design of the Bridge above them should incorporate a degree of
continuity such that the removal of any one column will not lead to the collapse of
the remainder of the structure under the permanent loads and primary and
secondary live loads in accordance with combination 1 of Table 1 of BD 37/88;
the ultimate limit state partial factors should be as specified in Table 1 but limited
to 1.0 on live loads.
To provide robustness against the effect of light impacts, all piers or columns
within the hazard zone should be designed to withstand without collapse a single
horizontal design force of 2000kN acting at a height of 1.2m above the adjacent
ground level and a single horizontal design force of 500kN acting at a height of
3m. The two forces may act in any direction but need not be considered to act
simultaneously. These forces should be combined with the permanent loads and
the appropriate primary and secondary live loads as given above.
The connections between columns and their bases should be such that they can
resist a horizontal design force of 2000kN at the ultimate limit state without being
dislocated. Pin jointed connections should be avoided.
H.3 Buffer stops and impact walls

Supports to Bridges which could be endangered by vehicles running past buffer
stops should be avoided wherever reasonably practicable. Where this is not
reasonably practicable, additional end impact walls should be provided which,
together with the buffer stops, protect the supported Bridge.
Buffer stops should have as large a braking capacity (energy absorbing capacity)
as is reasonably practicable to provide.
RAILTRACK 41
Withdrawn Document
GC/RC5510
Issue One
Date August 1998
When designing such an end impact wall, suitable allowance may be made for
the restraint provided by the track where this is securely connected to the wall
(e.g. by means of a concrete slab to which the rails are fastened directly).
For tracks serving passenger traffic, the end impact walls should be designed for
a horizontal design force of 5000kN at a height of 1.0m above the top of the rail
where a buffer stop with a minimum braking capacity of 2500kNm is provided.
In shunting and marshalling areas where a buffer stop with a minimum braking
capacity of 2500kNm is provided, the end impact walls should be dimensioned for
a horizontal design force of 10000kN at a height of 1.00m above the top of the
rail.
H.4 Plinths and platforms

Where individual columns are used, a solid plinth should be provided to a height
of 915mm +0-25mm above rail level or 1200mm minimum above ground level
where lateral clearance permits. The height of the plinth should be constant and
the ends of the plinth should be suitably shaped in plan to deflect derailed
vehicles away from the column. A solid platform construction should be used to
provide similar protection from derailed vehicles for individual columns within
station areas.
The column base should be structurally separated form the protecting plinth or
platform by means of an air gap or compressible material surround the column
base.
H.5 Structures in embankments

Columns and piers located within embankments, or at the bottom of
embankments, may require special consideration even if outside the hazard zone
because of the possibility of derailed vehicles rolling down the embankment. If it
is not reasonably practicable to arrange the design to avoid the situation,
appropriate measures should be taken to safeguard such columns and piers.
Consideration should be given to the following:
• the use of guard rails;

• a retaining structure to widen the top of the embankment;
• the use of massive piers.
42 RAILTRACK
Withdrawn Document
GC/RC5510
Issue One
APPENDIX I
FURTHER RECOMMENDATIONS ON LOADING FOR UNDERLINE BRIDGES
BD 37/88 should be modified as follows:
I.1. Simply supported main girder and rail bearers (BD 37/88 Figure 21)
In Figure 21 of BD 37/88 the reference to shear force at point X should be
corrected as follows:
• The shear force at point X is the end shear for span ‘a’ multiplied by a
L
I.2. Dynamic effects (BD 37/88 Tables 16 and 17)
The dynamic effect created in the structure by the movement of vehicles at speed
is covered by multiplying the static RU load model by dynamic factors.
The values given in Table 16 of BD 37/88 should be corrected as follows:
For values of (L) from 3.6 to 67m:
dynamic factor for evaluating bending moment
= 2.16 + 0.73;
0.5
(L) - 0.2
dynamic factor for evaluating shear
= 1.44 + 0.82.
0.5
(L) - 0.2
These dynamic factors are applicable to full RU type loading where the deflection
of the Bridge is within the limits given in UIC leaflet 776-3R (in Fig1 of which the
expression for δu for spans between 20 - 100 metres should be corrected to read
δu = 0.56L 1.184). Where these conditions are not met, allowance for dynamic
effects should be based on the recommendations given in Appendix H of ENV
1991-3.
In Table 17 of BD 37/88 the following definitions for dimension (L) should be

added:
Structural Element Dimension L (m)

Battle deck type floor with closely
spaced cross girders or ribs and
without longitudinal ribs:
• cross girders or ribs twice the cross girder spacing plus 3m
• deck plate cross girder spacing plus 3m
• Concrete slab decks the lesser of the span of the main

girders or twice the main girder
spacing
RAILTRACK 43
Withdrawn Document
GC/RC5510
Issue One
Date August 1998
I.3 Distribution of axle and wheel loads

When designing members for which the local effects of wheel loads is critical, a
allowance should be made for eccentricity of loading inside vehicles by
distributing axle loads to the wheels in the proportions
5 : 4
9 9
For the purpose of determining the patch loading under a sleeper, for ballasted
track the wheel load may be distributed over three adjacent sleepers in the
proportions
1 : 1 : 1
4 2 4
provided that the ballast depth is at least 200mm below the underside of the
sleepers at the low rail.
Alternatively, for ballasted or unballasted track the longitudinal distribution of

vertical wheel loads along the rail into the Bridge deck may be determined by
grillage analysis, beam on elastic foundation analysis or other suitable method.
The patch loading at the underside of the sleeper should be taken as follows:
• two separate patches, centred one under each rail;

• patch length (parallel to rail) = sleeper width;
• patch width (transverse to rail) = 600mm.
Below the underside of the sleeper, each patch load should be taken as
distributed through the ballast at an angle of 1 horizontal to 4 vertical.
I.4. Application of loading

The application of loading to typical forms of underline Bridge superstructures is
illustrated in Figures A to J where:
V1 = Nominal RU static load x Dynamic factor (BD 37/88 8.2.1 & 8.2.3.1)
V2 = Nominal walkway live load
(including allowance for services)
V3a = Design derailment load : SLS (BD 37/88 8.5(a))
V3b = Design derailment load : ULS (BD 37/88 8.5(b))
V3c = Design derailment load: Overturning (BD 37/88 8.5(c))
H1 = Nominal nosing load (BD 37/88 8.2.8)
H2 = Nominal centrifugal load (BD 37/88 8.2.9)
H3 = Nominal load on walkway handrailing
H4 = Nominal horizontal derailment load of 100 kN
F = Nominal road vehicle collision load
Notes:
1. The derailment loads V3a, V3b and V3c, are design loads and no further partial
load factors need be applied.
2. The derailment load V3c should be applied only when considering the overall
stability of the structure.
3. On multitrack Bridges, derailment loading should be considered on one track

in combination with RU loading on the other tracks as appropriate.
4. The nominal nosing load H1, may be distributed over three adjacent
sleepers in the proportions 1 : 1 : 1 .
4 2 4
Walkways and similar secondary structural elements which are outside the robust
kerb (see Section 9.1.2 of this Approved Code of Practice) need not be designed
44 RAILTRACK
Withdrawn Document
GC/RC5510
Issue One
to carry derailment loading. If, however, such an element is designed to carry

derailment loading, the design of the Bridge as a whole should be such that it will
not overturn when derailment load V3c is applied along the outer edge of the
element.
Where Bridges carry curved track, centrifugal effects should be taken into
account in determining the proportion of vertical load carried by each rail.
Several factors are involved:
• the amount of track cant;

• the different speeds of heavy and light trains;
• possible future changes in cant and speeds.
Reasonably conservative assumptions should be made in determining the worst

likely effects. Such effects may be significant for types of construction in which
individual elements are loaded essentially by one rail (e.g. railbearers, narrow
unconnected longitudinal beams or girders).
I.5 Permanent loading for underline Bridges

Design dead load (BD 37/88 5.1.2.1)
γfL values for dead loads at ULS of 1.1 for steel and 1.2 for concrete should be
used in place of the values given in BD 37/88 Table 1.
Nominal superimposed dead load (BD 37/88 5.2.1)

For calculating the nominal superimposed dead load, the depth of ballast from the
underside of sleepers at the lowest rail to the top of the Bridge deck should be
taken as 300mm unless the Bridge carries a greater depth of ballast.
In the latter case, the actual depth of ballast should be used.

3
Ballast density should be taken as 21kN/m . (This allows for dirty waterlogged
ballast.)
Design superimposed dead load (BD 37/88 5.2.2)

For superimposed dead load, γfL should be taken as 1.75 at ULS and 1.2 at SLS
for track ballast for a depth measured from top of sleeper to 300mm below the
underside of the sleeper; the same values should be taken for slab track.
For additional ballast depth or fill γfL should be taken as 1.20 at ULS and 1.00 at
SLS.
For track, γfL should be taken as 1.20 at ULS and 1.00 at SLS based on the
heaviest likely future track type. This should generally be assumed to be UIC 60
rail with full-depth concrete sleepers at 600mm spacing unless the construction of
the Bridge is such that track of this weight could not reasonably be laid.
Removal of superimposed dead load (BD 37/88 4.5.2)

Due regard should be taken of the case where either reballasting or resurfacing
work is being undertaken and for the temporary case during erection.
Each Bridge should be considered individually and a realistic assessment made;

particular care is needed when continuous elements are being considered.
For guidance it may be assumed that:
• where live load is present, the superimposed dead load (ballast) can be
reduced by up to half over the full length of the Bridge;
RAILTRACK 45
Withdrawn Document
GC/RC5510
Issue One
Date August 1998
• where live load is not present, the superimposed dead load (ballast and track)
can be removed partially or completely over the full length or part length of the
Bridge;
• whether or not live load is present, for a multi-track Bridge the superimposed
dead load (ballast and track) can be removed partially or completely over the
full length or part length of the Bridge for one or more tracks.
46 RAILTRACK
Withdrawn Document
GC/RC5510
Issue One
APPENDIX J
COLLISION OF ROAD VEHICLES WITH BRIDGE SUPERSTRUCTURES
Section 7.3.2 of this Approved Code of Practice recommends that provision be

made in certain cases to enable Bridge superstructures to withstand (to some
extent) the effects of possible strikes by road vehicles.
These provisions should be as given in BD 60/94 for Highways Agency Bridges,

except that references to the “Overseeing Organisation” should be taken as
referring to Railtrack.
RAILTRACK 47
Withdrawn Document
GC/RC5510
Issue One
Date August 1998
APPENDIX K
LIST OF VEHICLE TYPES FOR WHICH THE RECOMMENDATIONS GIVEN IN
SECTION 9.1.1 OF THIS APPROVED CODE OF PRACTICE ARE VALID
Passenger Stock - Vehicle Class:
142, 150/0, 150/1, 150/2, 153, 155, 156, 158, 159, 165, 166, 205, 207, 210, 302,
303, 304, 305, 306, 307, 308, 309, 310, 311, 312, 313, 314, 315, 316, 317, 318,
319, 320, 321, 322, 323, 325, 332, 365/5, 373, 411, 412, 415, 416, 421, 422, 438,
442, 455, 456, 465, 466, 504, 507, 508, MKI MKII, MKIII.
Locomotive Class
43, 58, 73, 86/0, 86/2, 86/3, 87, 89, 90, 91, 92.
Freight Stock - Vehicle Class
Channel Tunnel Intermodal (Box’s A and B)

Transfessa Intermodal
Piggyback Wagon
FFA & FGA 8’ 6” x 2500mm
FFA & FGA 8’ 9” x 2500mm
FFA & FGA 9’ 6” x 2500mm
FLA 8’ 6” x 2500mm
FLA 9’ 6” x 2500mm
FSA & FTA 8’ 6” x 2500mm
FSA & FTA 8’ 6” x 2550mm
FSA & FTA 8’ 9” x 2550mm
FSA & FTA 9’ 6” x 2500mm
KFA 8’ 6” x 2550mm
KFA 8’ 9” x 2550mm
IFA & FIA 8’ 6” x 2500mm
IJA 8’ 9” x 2500mm
48 RAILTRACK
Withdrawn Document
GC/RC5510
Issue One
APPENDIX L
DESIGN INFORMATION THAT SHOULD BE SUPPLIED BY RAILTRACK
(This Appendix sets out the information that should be supplied by

Railtrack as a minimum when preparing a remit for Bridge Design.
Particular Bridges may require additional items to be specified)
L.1 New and reconstructed Bridges
1.1 Loading for underline Bridges:
• maximum speed of rail traffic intended to use Bridge;

• annual tonnage per line;
• rail traffic mix;
• design load when other than full RU loading.
1.2 Loading for overline Bridges:
• number of HB units;
• special types of road or vehicular traffic (only where not otherwise
covered in BD 37/88).
1.3 Deflections:
• permitted vertical and horizontal deflections (see tables in UIC Leaflet

776-3R).
1.4 Accidental actions:
• containment level of parapets for overline Bridges;

• whether impact protection beams are to be provided for underline
Bridges;
• minimum headroom for underline Bridges.
1.5 Intended life of new Bridge or new Bridge superstructure if other than 120
years.
1.6 Standards for Design additional to those referred to in this Approved Code
of Practice.
1.7 Track requirements:
• horizontal and vertical alignment;
• cant and cant deficiency;
• ballast depth.
1.8 Structural gauging clearances and dimensions including an allowance for

future or changed overhead electrification equipment and particular vehicles
intended to use the Bridge not included in the list contained in Appendix K
1.9 Requirements for compatibility with adjacent Infrastructure including any

proposed changes including the following where appropriate:
• track components;
• signalling equipment;
• overhead electrification equipment (including requirements for
bonding);
RAILTRACK 49
Withdrawn Document
GC/RC5510
Issue One
Date August 1998
• lineside access;
• telecommunication equipment;
• plant.
1.10 Any site specific hazards (e.g. mineral workings, disused mine shafts,
services).
L.2 Altered Bridges
2.1 Generally as identified in Section L.1 of Appendix L of this Approved Code

of Practice and
• load capacity of remaining (unaltered) parts of the Bridge;

• required load capacity for new / strengthened elements of the Bridge;
• intended further life of remaining (unaltered) elements of the Bridge;
• intended life of new elements of the Bridge.
50 RAILTRACK
Withdrawn Document
GC/RC5510
Issue One
APPLICATION OF LOADING
H2
Note: where wheel load is critical, p may

take any value between 4/9 and 5/9.
H3 Otherwise p = 1/2.
pxV1 (1-p)xV1
V2
H1
Fig A
Normal Loads
Height of walkway should be at least 300mm above rail level (preferably 350mm
higher to allow for future track maintenance) to act as a robust kerb. Walkway
upstand should be at least 150mm high.Top of ballast should be sufficiently
below beam upstand to allow for future track maintenance.
Precast Concrete Beam & Parapet Types
RAILTRACK 51
Withdrawn Document
GC/RC5510
Issue One
Date August 1998
V3(a) or V3(b)
Anywhere in this area
H4
Fig B
Derailment and Collision Loads
Precast Concrete Beam & Parapet Types
52 RAILTRACK
Withdrawn Document
GC/RC5510
Issue One
Note: where wheel load is critical, p
may take any value between 4/9
and 5/9. Otherwise p=1/2.
H2
H3
pxV1 (1-p)xV1
H1
Fig C
Normal Loads
Height of upstand should be at least 300mm above rail level (preferably at
least 350mm higher for future track maintenance) and at least 150mm
above top of ballast adjacent to upstand.
Integral Concrete Deck and Parapet Types
RAILTRACK 53
Withdrawn Document
GC/RC5510
Issue One
Date August 1998
V3(a) or V3(b)
H4
Fig D
Integral Concrete Deck and Parapet Types
54 RAILTRACK
Withdrawn Document
GC/RC5510
Issue One
Height of upstand should be at least 300mm above rail level (preferably at least 350mm
higher, to allow for future track maintenance) and at least 150mm above top of ballast adjacent
to upstand).
Note: where wheel load is critical, may take any value between 4/9 and 5/9. Otherwise
p = 1/2.
H2 (height above rail level
should be higher than H3)
H3
pxV1 (1-p)xV1
H1
Fig E
Normal Loads
Cantilevered Parapet Types
RAILTRACK 55
Withdrawn Document
GC/RC5510
Issue One
Date August 1998
For overturning of bridge as a whole
V3(c)
V3(a) or V3(b)
H4
Fig F
Derailment
and Collision Loads
Cantilevered Parapet Types

F
56 RAILTRACK
Withdrawn Document
GC/RC5510
Issue One
H2
Note: where wheel load is critical, p may take

any value between 4/9 and 5/9. Otherwise p
= 1/2.
pxV1 (1-p)xV1
H1
Fig G
Normal Loads
Main girder clearance should provide for walkway at ballast level.
Half Through Steel Girder Types 1
RAILTRACK 57
Withdrawn Document
GC/RC5510
Issue One
Date August 1998
V3(a) or V3(b)
Fig H
Half Through Girder Types 1
58 RAILTRACK
Withdrawn Document
GC/RC5510
Issue One
H2
H3
Note: where wheel load is critical, p may take any

V2 value between 4/9 and 5/9. Otherwise p = 1/2.
pxV1 (1-p)xV1
H1
Fig I
Normal Loads
Main girders within platform gauge.
Walkway cantilevered off main girder.
Top of girder should be at least 300mm above rail level (preferably at
least 350mm higher to allow for future track maintenance).
Kicker plate to walkway should be at least 150mm high.
RAILTRACK 59
Withdrawn Document
GC/RC5510
Issue One
Date August 1998
V3(a) or V3(b)
Fig J
Main girders within platform gauge.
60 RAILTRACK
Withdrawn Document
GC/RC5510
Issue One
outline
critical lateral clearance of girder
dimension
Fig K
Measurement of lateral clearance to underline bridge
girders for canted track
end throw centrethrow
outline of vehicle body

(ignoring end taper)
track centre line
vehicle bogie centres
Fig L End and centre throw

This figure is for illustration only and should not be used for calculating end and centre throw for actual
vehicles.
RAILTRACK 61
Withdrawn Document
GC/RC5510
Issue One
Date August 1998
References
Railway Group Standards
GC/RT5201 Requirements for Structural, Electrical and Passing Clearances
GC/RT5010 Track Standards Manual: Section 7 - Track Systems
GC/RT5020 Track Standards Manual: Section 3 - Rail Joints
GC/RT5142 Management of Infrastructure and Property Records
GC/RT5023 Track Standards Manual: Section 1 - Basic Track Category
Matrix
GM/TT0101 Clearance Requirements for Electrified Lines and T and RS
GC/RT5110 Design Requirements for Structures
GC/RT5112 Loading Requirements for the Design of Bridges
GC/RT5102 Requirements for Structural, Electrical and Passing Clearances
GC/RT5203 Infrastructure Requirements for Personal Safety in Respect of
Clearances and Access
GC/RT5204 Structure Gauging and Clearances
GC/RT5101 Technical Approval Requirements for Changes to the
Infrastructure
British Standards
BS 6779 Highway Parapets for Bridges and Other Structures
BS 5400 Steel Concrete and Composite Bridges (inc. BD 37/88)
BS 5268 Structural use of Timber
BS 8118 Structural use of Aluminium
BS 5628 Approved Code of Practice for use of Masonry
BS 8006 Approved Code of Practice for Strengthened / Reinforced Soils
and their Fills
BS 8002 Approved Code of Practice for Earth Retaining Structures
BS 8004 Approved Code of Practice for Foundations
BS 5395 Stairs, Ladders and Walkways
UIC Leaflets
776-1R Loads to be Considered in Railway Bridge Design (1979 Edition
with 1987 amendments)
774-3R General Principles for Calculating Longitudinal Forces in a
Bridge, its Bearings and its Sub-structure.
Recommendations for a simple case
776-3R Deformation of Bridges (1989 Edition)
777-2R Structures Built over Railway Lines (Construction Requirements
in the Track Zone)
Office of Rail Regulator

Meeting the Needs of Disabled Passengers (July 1994)
Department of Transport
Documents
Design of Composite Bridges. Use of BS 5400: Part 5: 1979 for Department of
Transport Structures (December 1987)
BD 37 / 88 Loads for Highway Bridges

BD 52 / 93 The Design of Highway Bridge Parapets (Supersedes BE5)
BD 60 / 94 The Design of Highway Bridges for Vehicle Collision Loads
CIRIA
Bridges - Design for Improved Buildability (Report 155)
Rationalisation of Safety and Serviceability Factors in Structural Codes
(Report 63)
HSE
(HM Railway Inspectorate)
Railway Safety Principles and Guidance
62 RAILTRACK
Withdrawn Document
GC/RC5510
Issue One
EUROCODE
ENV 1991-3 Traffic Loads on Bridges (including UK National application
document when published)
Her Majesty’s
Stationery Office
The Railway Bridges (Load Bearing Standards) (England and Wales) Order 1972
Institution of Civil
Engineers
Burland and Kalra “Queen Elizabeth etc.........” (copy from reference on p36)
RAILTRACK 63

GCRC5510 Iss 1-Recommendations For The Design of Bridges PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

GCRC5510 Iss 1-Recommendations For The Design of Bridges PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Withdrawn Document

Uncontrolled When Printed

This document is the property of

Controller, Railway Group Standards © Copyright 1998 Railtrack PLC

This page has been left blank intentionally

Section Description Page

Amended or additional parts of revised pages will be marked by a vertical black

Issue Date Comments

Health and Safety

It covers linespeeds of rail vehicles up to and including 200km / h (125mph).

Whilst primarily applicable to Bridges on, over or under Railtrack Controlled

Unless explicitly given otherwise, the recommendations of this Approved Code of

• complete superstructure reconstructions of existing Bridges;

The responsibilities and duties of external design organisations should be made

Preparation of design briefs (including performance requirements and design

5.2 Assessment of competence

Although it may be regarded as a strong pointer, professional qualification should

Recommendations relating to GC/RT5100

The loading for Bridges is specified in GC/RT5112. Further recommendations

• maximum size of vehicles (and their loads);

6.2 Intended life

The intended life should be specified as the design life, as follows:

6.2.2 Extended Life

6.2.3 Temporary Bridges

6.3 Actual Life

CIRIA Report 155 gives further recommendations on the buildability of Bridges.

6.3.2 Joints and Bearings

6.3.3 Corrosion protection

• Bridges or Bridge elements with a limited intended life;

• Bridges with a limited intended life;

In such cases alternative means of ensuring satisfactory durability should be

For underline Bridges crossing watercourses, accommodation openings, rural

Effective waterproofing is particularly important for steel, reinforced concrete and

Waterproofing systems for underline Bridge decks should be in accordance with

6.3.5 Disposal of water

6.3.6 Ballast depth

If in exceptional cases a lesser ballast depth is unavoidable:

• provision should be made to protect the Bridge deck waterproofing;

• preparation of design briefs (including performance requirements and design

7.2 Intended applied loads

7.3 Accidental events and vandalism

7.3.1 Protection of overline Bridges from derailed trains

Priority should be given to reducing the likelihood of occurrence of such events by

Where a Bridge is supported by individual columns closer than 4.5m to the

7.3.2 Protection of underline Bridges from road vehicle strikes

should be as given in HMRI Railway Safety Principles and Guidance Part 2,

For new Bridges, if in exceptional circumstances it is not reasonably practicable

• the volume, speed and nature of likely highway traffic;

Where there is a particularly high risk of Bridge strikes, consideration should be

• as robust as can be achieved with reasonable economy;

Highways Agency documents may be used as guidance to the Design of

For Bridges over water, suitable protection should be provided to the

7.3.2.2 Bridge reconstructions

7.3.3 Protection of underline Bridges from derailed trains

7.3.4 Protection from vandalism

7.4 Bridges where loading is the responsibility of another authority

7.5 Application standards

Either European or British Standards and Codes of Practice should be used.

Whichever is chosen, a complete set of consistent documents should be used,

7.5.1 Steel, concrete and composite Bridges

modifications given in Appendix B of this Approved Code of Practice. (These

7.5.2 Timber, aluminium and brickwork / masonry Bridges

• the application of loading expressed in limit state terms to permissible stress