Government of India

Ministry of Railways

PROCEEDINGS

SEMINAR OF

CHIEF BRIDGE ENGINEERS

20th & 21st September, 2012

Indian Railways Institute of Civil Engineering

Pune
 PROCEEDINGS OF CHIEF BRIDGE ENGINEERS’ SEMINAR HELD AT IRICEN/PUNE
ON 20TH & 21ST SEPTEMBER, 2012

Officers Present:

Railway Board

1. Shri Alok Ranjan, EDCE/B&S/I

2. Shri S.K. Pathak, EDCE/B&S/II

RDSO

3. Shri Parmeshwar Funkwal, ED/Structures

4. Shri V.B. Sood, Director/B&S/SB-II

Zonal Railways

5. Shri P. Barapatre, CBE/C.Rly.

6. Shri R.P. Vyas, CBE/E.Rly.
7. Shri Kripal Prasad, CBE/EC.Rly.
8. Shri V.P. Srivastava, CBE/E.Co.Rly.
9. Shri M.K. Gupta, CE/RC/HQ/N.Rly
10. Shri Ram Janm, CBE/NE.Rly.
11. Shri M.K. Chouksey, CBE/NF.Rly.
12. Shri K.J.S. Kalra, CBE/NW.Rly
13. Shri Laloo Singh, CBE/S.Rly.
14. Shri Amit Goel, CBE/SC.Rly.
15. Shri L.K. Sachan, CBE/SE.Rly.
16. Shri S.B. Ninawe, CBE/SEC.Rly.
17. Shri Sanjeev Mittal, CBE/SW.Rly.
18. Shri R.N. Sunkar, CBE/WC.Rly.
19. Shri Sachin Verma, Dy.CE/Br./HQ/NC.Rly.
20. Shri Ashish Agrawal, Dy.CE/D, W.Rly.

IRICEN

21. Shri C.P. Tayal, Director

22. Shri N.C. Sharda, Dean
23. Shri Vineet Gupta, Sr.Professor/Bridges-1
24. Shri Naresh Lalwani, Sr. Professor/Bridges-2

1
 CHIEF BRIDGE ENGINEERS’ SEMINAR HELD AT IRICEN/PUNE
ON 20TH & 21ST SEPTEMBER, 2012

1. At the outset, Director/IRICEN welcomed the participants. He emphasized on

incorporating newer developments in the field of Bridge Engineering in Railways’ area of
working. This will lead to lighter structures being designed with faster and easier construction
having an impact on the overall economy of construction. Bridges constitute major part of our
infrastructure and are more technical in nature than other structures for civil engineers. It is,
therefore, paramount to discuss and analyze new developments in the field of bridge
engineering and suitably modify these concepts with a view to embrace these concepts into
our design and execution.

2. Address by ED/B&S/I, Railway Board

(i) Bridges are important infrastructure assets for civil engineers. These have
become even more important in view of ageing of existing bridges and
introduction of heavier axle loads.

(ii) Design department in Zonal Railways have weakened over the years. In-
house design capabilities was the main strength of railway bridge organization.
It is showing trends of severe decline. Urgent and appropriate action needs to
be taken by Zonal Railways to strengthen their in-house design capabilities.

(iii) In the last CBEs’ Seminar, there have been some recommendations where
Zonal Railways were required to send certain details to Railway Board and
RDSO. Even after lapse of more than a year, most of the railways have not
done so. This delay in sending the details defeats the very purpose of
deliberations on such agenda items. Co-operation from Zonal Railways is a
must to make the deliberations in the seminar fruitful as well as to take the
agenda items to a logical conclusion.

(iv) Bridge Management System is being developed as an integral part of Track

Management System. Master data feeding was to be completed by 31.12.2007.
Progress achieved by Zonal Railways is much less than desired. This data
feeding needs to be completed without any further delay.

(v) There are constant complaints and representations from public

representatives about falling of dirty water under RUBs. It has been decided by
Railway Board that Zonal Railways should provide full covering in a time bound
manner so as to prevent falling of dirty water and human excreta from the RUBs.
As per latest statistics coverings are yet to be provided in about 60 RUBs.

(vi) Long life paint systems needs to be developed to prevent corrosion of steel
bridges. RDSO is working on this aspect. Committee’s Report is yet to be
received by Railway Board.

2
 (vii) Performance audit of Civil Engineering Workshops need to be done to
revitalize these workshops and to improve cost effectiveness. These workshops
should be developed as core competency centres.

3. Address by ED/B&S/II, Railway Board

(i) Elimination of unmanned level crossings is a focus area as unmanned level

crossings contribute 60% of deaths taking place on account of accidents on
Indian Railways. CAG has also badly commented on the management of
unmanned level crossings on Indian Railways. Efforts needs to be intensified in
this direction as it is experienced that in last 8-10 years, out of approximately
Rs.3000 crores of funds made available in RSW, percentage utilization is hardly
40-50%. Fund utilization need to be improved considerably.
(ii) Rajdhani Trains have been introduced on ‘D’ routes also. As on 01.04.2010,
there were 860 unmanned level crossings on Rajdhani Routes. However, this
number has increased to 972 as on date. Action Plan and assistance required
from Railway Board for eliminating these unmanned level crossings may be sent
to Railway Board by the concerned Zonal Railways.
(iii) On any unmanned level crossing if 3 consecutive accidents involving
casualties take place, that level crossing must be manned immediately.
Elimination of unmanned level crossings by manning is difficult as more than
44,000 posts are required to cover the existing manned level crossings.
Therefore, elimination by other than manning must be planned.
(iv) On DFC routes where the alignment is parallel to the existing tracks, track
centre planned is 15 to 30 m. Approximately 1000 level crossings are existing
on DFC routes. These have to be eliminated by RUB or ROBs by 2016-17.
Zonal Railways should enter into MOU with DFC for their respective jurisdictions.
(v) There is need for paradigm shift as far as sharing of cost of elimination of
level crossings with more than 100,000 TVU is concerned. Railways may think
of constructing full ROB at their own cost. However, this needs change in policy
guidelines at Railway Board’s level.

4. During the seminar technical presentations were made, details of which are given
hereunder:

(i) “Recent Modifications in Drawings of Temporary Arrangements” by Shri V.B.

Sood, Director/B&S/RDSO.
(ii) “Chugoku Paints” by Shri Shekhar Joshi, AGM, Chugoku Paints.
(iii) “Bank Protection from River Erosion at Maharajpur in Malda Division of ER”
by CBE/ER.
(iv) “Re-girdering of Bridge No.432” by Shri A.K. Sachan, CBE/SER.

3
 Recommendations on the Agenda Items discussed during the Seminar

Item 1(a) Standard design of RCC box on curve track

Issue

RDSO has issued standard designs for RCC boxes for various sizes with varying depth of fill
for DFC and 25t loading. It is not mentioned in the GAD of the above drawings whether
these standard design of RCC boxes are fit for curve track or not. As at many locations,
boxes are required to be provided on curves, RDSO may check the standard drawings for
curved track. If above drawings are found fit for curve track, then RDSO may indicate in the
note of GAD that RCC box is fit for curve track with degree of curvature and accordingly,
RDSO may issue above drawings with alteration.

Discussion:

The item was deliberated in detail. The forum was unanimous that standardization is
required. RDSO agreed to this. However, as this is likely to take considerable time, it was
suggested by RDSO that urgent requirements may be sent to them for checking and
guidelines.

Recommendations

RDSO to check existing standard drawings for suitability for use on curved track. As this is
likely to take considerable time, urgent cases may be referred to RDSO by the Zonal
Railways.

Item 1(b) Railway Board direction regarding no charges for Metro Crossings
Item 4 (g) Uniform Policy for Metro Crossings from Design Point of view

Issue

In para 7 of the Railway Board letter no: 2011/Proj./SCR/9/8 dated: 22.03.2012 (Uniform
Policy for Metro Rail Crossing over existing Running Railway tracks ), Railway board
proposed that no inspection and maintenance charges or plan and development charges be
levied on the Metro Railways by Zonal Railways, whereas Zonal Railways have to associate
at all the stages from approval of GAD to actual construction including traffic blocks

Railway personnel and system have to fully get involved for these works from the planning
stage to execution stage i.e for approval of GADs, structural design checks, approval of
launching schemes, planning/arranging traffic blocks and supervision during construction and
block activities. So, it needs to deploy required infrastructure to look after these works. The
metro railway should execute the work under Railway supervision duly paying the necessary
charges though the responsibility for safety lies with them.

4
There are no guidelines from B&S Directorate which authorize the Zonal Railway to skip the
approval of Design and Drawings of Metro Crossings.

Discussion

The item was discussed and it was agreed that Railway system have to get fully involved
during the Planning and Construction of Metro Crossings over Railway tracks at different
stages such as approval of GADs, structural design check, approval of launching schemes,
planning/arranging traffic blocks, supervision during the construction and block activities.
Hence, Railway will have to deploy required infrastructure to look after these works and
accordingly various charges must be levied for execution of the works of Metro crossings
also.

Recommendations

B&S Directorate, Railway Board may take up the matter with Works (Plg.) Directorate,
Railway Board for issue of necessary clarifications and guidance.

Item 1(c) Adoption of steel superstructure of bridges for all spans of ROBs

Issue

As per Railway Board’s letter No.2005/CE-I/BR-II/8 dt. 28.05.2009 by Adviser (Civil

Engineering), Board (ME) has decided that henceforth on all new bridges works being
planned for spans more than 24.4m, Steel Girders should be used. In the letter, no specific
differentiation is done between Rail/Road Bridges. The matter was further clarified vide
another letter of Railway Board that these instructions are only for railway track bridges.

As the steel girders are having longer life, more reliability and time tested besides having
easy launching scheme, less need for traffic block, same should be used for ROBs in spans
over Railway portion.

Discussion

It was unanimous view in the forum that Composite construction with steel girders and RCC
deck slab are ideally suited for all spans of ROBs in view of ease of launching, lighter
structure, economy and other benefits.

Recommendations

In view of lighter structure, ease of launching, lesser requirement of traffic blocks and lesser
duration of speed restrictions, composite construction with steel girders and RCC deck slab
may be adopted for all spans of ROBs.

5
Item 2(a) Guideline for CI Carrier Pipe for Electrical Crossing

Issue

As per clause 5.8 of RDSO Report BS:105, guidelines for pipe line crossing under railway
track, “For steel pipes (Both carrier and casing) the pipes should be of mild steel fabricated
as per IS:3589 for steel plates conforming to IS:2062. Where screwed or coupled joints are
used, the joints should be welded, to the pipes at both ends along the circumference as a
seal to prevent leak through the threads. The field welds should be tested cent percent
radiographically as per IS:1182.”

As per regulation for Electrical Crossings of Railway Track 1987, clause No.32.1, “Where the
cable is laid under railway tracks it shall be laid through cast iron pipes or spun concrete
pipes of suitable diameter and strength.”

Electrical Department is insisting for C.I. pipes for electrical crossing, during pipe pushing of
casing pipe, where joint welding is to be done and for which specification of CI welding is
required.

Discussion

CBE/SECR mentioned that electrical department is not agreeing for crossing of their cables
by other than CI pipes. In case of use of CI pipes no specifications for welding are available.
ED/Structures, RDSO explained that this issue was referred to RDSO by SECR vide their
letter No.ENGG/BL/CP/2/Pt.-V/20 dated 14.08.2012. RDSO has already clarified on this
issue vide their letter No.CBS/DCP/1 dated 23.08.2012 that provisions for electrical cable
crossing are covered under Para 2.0 of BS-105. As per sub-para 2.2 of BS-105, RCC, PSC
or steel pipes of adequate size and strength can be used to carry telephone wires, cables,
etc. Para 5.8 of BS-105 report deals with Pipeline crossing under railway track conveying
inflammable substances like petroleum, oil and gas etc. SECR should follow provisions of
Para 2.0 of BS-105 for crossing of electrical cables through pipes.

Recommendations

Nil

Item 2(b) Strengthening / Rehabilitation work of all FT, Arches, Rail Opening

Issue

Strengthening / rehabilitation work of all FT, Arches, Rail opening and other bridges of
proposed mid line to be done for 25t loading before commissioning of third line. The
execution of any work in MID line becomes very difficult due to passage of trains in UP & DN
lines.

6
Discussion

The item was discussed in detail. During the discussions it came out that
replacement/strengthening/rehabilitation of many of the bridges mentioned by SECR in the
agenda items should have been done as per the existing policies. If these have not been
replaced so far, an action plan may be made for replacement of bridges falling due as per
different policies in a time-bound manner, irrespective of the work of 3 rd line. Further, SECR /
other railways should identify wherever such type of problem exists and work out scope of the
problem, i.e. how many bridges are required to be strengthened/rehabilitated for 25t loading.
Wherever possible, the work can be done keeping the 3 rd line in view. However, estimates
for the 3rd line needs to be made accordingly.

Recommendations

Nil

Item 2(c) Influence of higher loading on existing minor bridges due to minimum
track center for doubling projects
Issue

Due to minimum track centers for doubling projects dealt by Construction organization and
RVNL, most of the existing minor bridges for BGML/RBG loading standards are getting
influenced by 25t / DFC loading from proposed track. Existing superstructure and
substructure are either over stressed or not fit for higher loading. RDSO may issue
guidelines for retention of existing minor bridges / rebuilding of existing bridge.

Discussion

It was discussed that though difficulties are being faced by Railway in analysing the existing
bridges for doubling projects, it may not be feasible for RDSO to issue guidelines as these
are site specific problems and there are many variables to be considered. Zonal Railways
may deal with such problems on case-to-case basis.

Recommendations

Nil

Item 2(d) Suitabilty of NP4 pipes in pushing case

Issue

R.D.S.O. vide letter no. CBS/DCP dated 25.02.2010 informed the suitability of precast RCC
heavy duty NP-4 pipes for 25t loading standard & DFC loading standard for cushion 0.9-5.0m
and laying conditions as stipulated in B-10 in Appendix-B of IS: 783-1985. R.D.S.O. is
requested to confirm whether NP-4 pipes are suitable for pipe pushing case also for the
extant loading standards.

7
Discussion

It was deliberated that Hume pipe bridges are designed according to their seating / bedding
conditions. It would be difficult to ensure necessary bedding conditions during pushing of
pipes. Though this item need to be checked in detail, RDSO advised that present drawings
are not catering to the loads which might come during pushing operation. It is preferable to
use either cut and cover method or go for a small box which can be pushed. RDSO
requested NCR to send details if pushing operation is being carried out for NP4 pipes by
some other agency.

Recommendations

NCR to send details of pushing operation if being carried out for NP4 pipes by some other
agency to RDSO.

Item 2(e) Designing of water way in tidal reaches

Issue

There are no guidelines for designing the waterway in Tidal/Backwater reaches. RDSO
directed the concerned Railway to approach CWPRS/Pune to conduct model study in Tidal
Reaches to standardize the waterway calculation method. In turn, CWPRS/Pune advised
vide letter No. No.121/1/2011/CERC/280 dated 7.4.2011 that it is not possible to standardize
the waterway calculation for Tidal/Backwater Reaches. They stated that model studies are
required for individual cases. Hence suitable guidelines in this regard are required.

Discussion

It came out during the discussion that no much experience / expertise is available in Railways
for calculation of waterway for bridges in tidal / backwater reaches. CWPRS, Pune have also
not recommended any standard method. Rather, CWPRS have suggested that individual
cases may be dealt with individually. Railways should approach CWPRS, Pune on case-to-
case basis.

Recommendations

Nil

Item 3(a) Vibrations / Lurch in Plate Girder

Issue

CBE/NFR reported that in plate girders (12.2m or 18.3m), noticeable vibration/lurch is seen in
some cases when loaded goods trains are passing over the girders. On investigation it was
found that such phenomenon is more prevalent where rivets of lateral bracings are loose. It

8
is better if lateral bracings are of heavier section. Experience of other railways in this regard
was sought.

Discussion

CBE/NFR explained that it was noticed that rivets in the lateral bracings were found loose in
plate girders of 12.2 and 18.3m span resulting into noticeable vibrations. CBE/SCR also
expressed similar experience. CBE/NFR however advised that the problem of vibration was
overcome when the loose rivets were replaced. It was discussed that this problem could be
solved by strengthening the bracing connection rather than going in for higher sections.
ED/Structures/RDSO suggested that the connection may be strengthened as per the 25t
drawings issued by RDSO.

Recommendations

Nil

Item 3(b) Use of Grade-B steel in open line for maintenance work

Issue

As per IRS B-1 2001, para no.8 Railways should use steel of IS : 2062 Gr-B. In open line
organisation, the works are limited to replacement of angles and plates from the parts of the
bridges. In open market, plates of Gr-B quality are available in abundance, but rolled sections
of angles, channels, joists etc. of Gr-B quality are not easily available. Owing to very small
requirement which is not supplied by the manufacturers, open line is forced to use Grade-A
steel in maintenance works like – replacement, strengthening of corroded, perforated,
damaged members where rolled sections are required. But the use of Gr-A steel in critical
location of a bridge is restricted as per IRS B-1 2001.

Even in a regirdering work the rolled sections like angle, channel, etc. are used of Gr.A only
as Gr.B is not available.

Hence, RDSO needs to look after this aspect in view of the small requirement of the rolled
sections of Gr-B and prescribe a way out.

Discussion

During discussions most of the CBEs expressed that serious problems are being faced by
them in maintenance of steel girders as small quantities of Gr.B steel is not available in the
market. However, it was also discussed that reverting back to use of Gr.A steel will not be
desirable as it would be a retrograde step. CBE/ECR explained that they have overcome this
problem by making rolled section from plates by using SAW in Engineering Workshop,
Mughalsarai. ED(B&S)I, Railway Board advised other Railways to follow the same system.
Other method could be to club the requirements of 3-4 Railways and try to procure through
reputed manufacturers.

9
Recommendations

Nil

Item 3(c) Working of BCM through ballasted bridges

There are no clear instructions about permitting deep screening over ballasted bridges by
Ballast Cleaning Machine. RDSO approved drawing for PSC slabs/girders/Box culvert shows
a barrel length of 4500mm which is not sufficient for BCM cutter bar and its associated parts
to pass through in working condition. The outer to outer dimension of excavating troughs of
BCM while working is 4300mm. There are other invisible obstructions like lifting hooks in
upward projected condition, cables, wearing course, etc. The possibility of maintain a
precision while operating the machine over a bridges in such a way that it will not hit/damage
the super-structure/dirt wall while working is doubtful. This matter needs sharing of
experience and coming to conclusion about permitting BCM machine on ballasted bridge.
Following points have to be taken care:

 All minor bridges barrel length has to be increased to minimum of 4300mm+ space for
movement of the person on either side i.e 600mm on each side.
 All new bridges have to be planned with a minimum width of 5500mm.
 The minimum ballast cushion or cushion including surcharge, if any has to be 350mm
(minimum depth of cutter bar and clearance below sleeper is 300mm).
 Foldable lifting hooks with an arrangement that after placing the slabs in position shall be
folded and kept that no part is projected above the top surface of the slab.
 Definite policy of passing the cables through the bridge, provision of duct beyond
minimum specified width for BCM working.

Detailed instructions may be issued by RDSO.

Discussions

CBE/SCR proposed this item and wanted it to be adopted in long term interest of track
maintenance. The proposal was supported by all CBE’s. ED//B&S/RDSO also appreciated
the point raised.

Recommendations

The issue may be referred to BSC by RDSO.

Item 3(d) Year of construction in case of Strengthening of arch bridges/ Jacketting

of bridges
Issue

There are number of works for strengthening of bridges such as construction of RCC curved
box in the arch bridges and Jacketting of foundations & sub-structure etc. which are in

10
progress on the entire Indian Railways particularly in view of introduction of CC+8+2, DFC
loading etc.. The main idea of these works is to strengthen the existing bridges to make them
fit for higher axle loads. The entire bridge is not being re-built in these cases, but only the
main structural components of the bridge are being strengthened. As a part of entering the
bridge data in BMS/TMS, the year of construction of the bridge also is to be entered.

In cases of interning of arches by RCC curved boxes, the bridge is practically rebuilt relieving
the old structure of any load. Keeping the year of construction as the old one in such cases
may only present unrealistic picture as statistics like no. of bridges of > 100 yrs. or > 80 yrs.
will spoil. Different Railways also may follow different policy in such matters. Certain
guidelines are, therefore, would be required as to what is the year of construction of the
bridge to be entered in such or similar type of cases in the bridge data.

Discussion

Some CBEs expressed views that if a bridge is rebuilt/rehabilitated for 100% loading,
significance of the old bridge remains no more. In this case, the year of construction of the
bridge should be the year of strengthening/rebuilding. However, consensus view was that
the year of construction of the original bridge does have relevance in the data bank.
However, it was suggested that formats in the Bridge module of TMS should be suitably
modified to make provisions for entry of year of rehabilitation/reconstruction and nature of
rehabilitation / strengthening. This will enable us to keep the original date as well as new
date in different fields so that MIS Reports can be generated as per requirements.

Recommendations

BMS Module in TMS may be suitably altered.

Item 3(e) Maintenance of steel girder bridges by SSE/P.Way or SSE/Works

Issue

Para No. 201 of IRBM stipulates that maintenance of all girder bridges of more than 12.20m
clear span to be maintained by the SSE/Bridges, whereas, the maintenance of all girder
bridges of less than 12.20m span rests with SSE/P.Way or SSE/Works.

On SWR, there are some major bridges of 17 spans of 9.14m steel girders over major rivers.
Similar may be the case on many other railways also. As per the above para of IRBM, the
maintenance of all these types of bridges lies with SSE/P.Way.

Actually in the field the SSE/P.Way are not equipped with either staff or know-how to do all
the maintenance activities. As such, the girder bridges of less than 12.20m span are not
being maintained upto the mark in the field.

It was proposed that at least all major and important girder bridges including less than 12.2m
should be kept under SSE/Bridges for better maintenance.

11
Discussion

All the CBEs expressed the view that PWIs are not able to give focussed attention to
maintenance of steel girder bridges under their jurisdiction. In any case, most of the steel
bridges having less than 12.2 m span have been replaced with slabs, thereby suitably
reducing the workload for maintenance of steel girders bridges. There was general
consensus that in order to give focussed attention to girders of less than 12.2 m span, the
work of inspection and maintenance of such bridges may be brought under JE/SE (Bridges).
It was also deliberated that though the number of such bridges having steel girders having
less than 12.2m span are less and constantly reducing, it will tantamount to increasing the
workload of SSE/Bridges. After detailed discussion, consensus was arrived that inspection
and maintenance of all major and important bridges having girders of less than 12.2m span
should be brought under SSE/Bridges.

Recommendations

Inspection and maintenance of all major and important bridges having steel girders of less
than 12.2m span should be brought under SSE/Bridges.

Item 3(f) Separation of welding of end bearing stiffener in bottom flange portion of
welded plate girder Bridges

Issue

It is noticed that the welding of end bearing stiffeners with the bottom flange in fabricated
welded plate girders are cracking. All other stiffeners i.e intermediate stiffeners are having
angles riveted to the web and snug fitted (without gap) to flange without any permanent
jointing, while the end stiffeners at bearing locations are with MS plates which are welded to
both web and flanges (bottom & top).

Such defects are noticed on many bridges and in more than one span in different bridges and
in a shorter service life.

Discussion

Since this item has already been discussed in BSC, the same was dropped.

Recommendations

Nil

12
Item 4(a) Sufficient end Gaps between two plate girder in RDSO ROB drawings

Issue

At present, as per RDSO drawings of ROB girders, it is not possible to enter inside plate
girders for bearing inspection. In RDSO drawings of 12.2 m PSC girders, there is gap of
1200 mm (kept from post tensioning facility) through which entry between girders is feasible
from side and bearing inspection can be done easily. Same type of gap arrangement may be
provided in ROBs to facilitate bearing inspection.

Discussion

CBE/SECR expressed that problem is being faced in inspection of bearings in multi-span

bridges having 12.2m span. This is because there is hardly any space for a person to access
the bearing area. Other CBEs also expressed similar views. ED/Structures, RDSO advised
that this problem may be taken care of by providing suitable gaps in between girders in the
drawings being revised by RDSO.

Recommendations

RDSO may issue revised drawings accordingly with suitable gap between girder ends to
facilitate inspection of bearings.

Item 4(b) Standard design of triple span RCC box

Issue

RDSO has issued standard drawings for single and twin box for 25t and DFC loading. No
standard drawing is issued for triple span RCC box. Construction organization and RVNL are
proposing GAD for triple span box bridges with combination of RDSO’s twin span and single
span RCC box matching with spans of existing bridge. RDSO may issue design of triple
span RCC box instead of above combination.

Discussion

It was brought out that problems are being faced when standard configuration is not being
followed by RVNL and other construction agencies. ED/Structures, RDSO expressed
inability to issue standard drawings for each and every site specific conditions. It was
discussed that CBEs should persuade RVNL and other construction agencies to follow
standard spans for which RDSO Standard Drawings are available.

Recommendations

Nil

13
Item 4(c) Suitabilty of RDSO standard single RCC Box drawing for Double track

Issue

In the R.D.S.O. Drawing no. RDSO/B-10154 of RCC Double Box Culvert for DFC loading
standard, it is mentioned that drawing is suitable for Double track upto 2.0m fill heights in
addition to single track whereas in the earlier drawing nos. RDSO/B-10151 & 10152 of RCC
Single Box Culvert, the drawings are suitable for single track only.

Discussion

Difficulty is being faced in the field during doubling projects as old RDSO standard drawings
for boxes (Drawing No.10151 & 10152) are for single track only. If suitability of these
drawings is checked whether they are suitable for double track with minimum and maximum
track centres specified, the work in the field will be simplified.

Recommendations

RDSO should check Standard Drawing No. 10151 & 10152 for suitability in double track,
specifying minimum and maximum track centre as well as height of fill over the box.

Item 4(d) Use of Higher Grade Steel

Issue

The mechanical properties of structural steel issued by RDSO against GADs of ROB relates
to Fe 410 conforming to IS 2062. Drawing with higher grade such as Fe540 may be
advantageous.

Discussion

There was general consensus among the CBEs that use of high grade steel may result in
lighter superstructure which may be advantageous from fabrication, erection and economic
considerations.

Recommendations

RDSO to examine the issue.

Item 4(e) Non availability of unequal angles

RDSO has issued standard drawings of steel girders (for different spans) considering
unequal angles as components of girders which are being followed during fabrication. But of
late, it is observed that unequal angles section are very sparingly available in the open
market (i.e. in Stack yard of SAIL, TISCO etc.). This has caused immense difficulties during
fabrication of such girders.

14
Discussion

It is very difficult to find unequal angles in market now-a-days as major reputed

manufacturers are rolling only equal angles. Some of the RDSO Standard Drawings have
used unequal angles as components of girders. Serious difficulties are being faced in the
field in fabrication of such angles in view of its non availability in the market. ED/Structures,
RDSO stated that in most of the RDSO standard drawings care is taken to use equal angles.
However, NFR may point out exactly where they are facing problems due to unequal angles
so that necessary action to replace the unequal with equal angles may be taken in the RDSO
drawings.

Recommendations

NFR should advise specific drawing number to RDSO who in turn will examine the same and
issue fresh drawings with equal angles.

Item 4(f) Standard Drawings for 45m and 60m Open Web Girder with slabs
for ROBs

Composite girders of I-section & slabs have been issued by RDSO up to 36 metres for ROBs.

It is suggested that standard drawings for 45m and 60m in open web girder arrangement with
road slabs may be developed and issued by RDSO. In number of locations, longer spans are
needed.

Discussion

During deliberations it came out clearly that there is a need for having standard drawings for
spans longer than 36m for ROBs. However, it was also felt that possibility needs to be
explored for using bowstring girder instead of conventional composite girders for longer
spans considering the advantages it will have in overall cost of construction. ED/Structures,
RDSO stated that the matter is already being taken up by RDSO in BSC.

Recommendations

Nil

Item 4(h) Standard design & drawings for FOBs with single or two columns in
between the track

Issue

In suburban and other areas where space is a constraint or at the end of platforms where
track centers are minimum due to converging tracks, it becomes difficult to construct FOB

15
foundations as minimum 2 to 3 m depth of excavation is required near the running track
which involves imposition of speed restriction for long duration as in such areas excavation
has to be carried out manually since machinery can not be deployed at such locations. This
problem is more aggravated when the design of FOB is consisting of 4 or more no. of main
columns in between the tracks. The drawings issued by RDSO (Drg. No.B/10402/4) is
having 8 No. of columns for only 3m wide FOB with 3 track span.

In view of these difficulties RDSO may develop standard drawings/design with single column
or two columns only for various spans for uniform adoption by all Zonal Railways

Discussion

Construction of foundation for 4 columns becomes extremely difficult in between the track
especially in suburban areas. Considering the need, RDSO suggested that CR should get
one such FOB with 2 columns in between the tracks designed from consultants and then
send the same to RDSO for standardization.

Recommendations

CR should get one such FOB with 2 columns in between the tracks designed from
consultants and then send the same to RDSO for standardization.

Item 4(i) RDSO Drg. No.B/10402/1 for FOB

Issue

RDSO has issued the roofing arrangement with tubular structure in which size of the weld is
proposed to be 3 mm only which is not suitable for coastal areas due to heavy corrosion and
thickness to be of most of the tubular section is 4 mm only. This may be reviewed or suitable
guidelines may be issued in this regard.

Discussion

Discussed & Dropped.

Recommendations

Nil

Item 4(j) Standard Designs of Superstructure of ROBs

Issue

 The carriageway as per RDSO drawings for Composite Girder ROBs (Drawing
numbers B-11756 for 18m span, B-11757 for 24m span, B-11755 for 30m span and
RDSO-B-11758 for 36m span) is 10m. However, in majority of cases the width of

16
 carriageway demanded is either two lanes (7.5 m) or three lanes (12 m) or more. In
neither of the case, 10 m carriageway drawings would be useful without adjusting the
spacing of the girders.
 As per Railway Board’s Letter (No. 2009/CE-1/BRO/194/(Design) dated 03-04-2012),
PSC girders for the spans of more than 24m can be used in the construction of ROBs.
RDSO has issued drawings for Composite girders (Drawing numbers B-11756 for 18m
span, B-11757 for 24m span, B-11755 for 30m span and RDSO-B-11758 for 36m span).
These drawings are available with different skew angles upto 20 degrees. RDSO may
issue drawings for PSC girders with different skew angles.

Likewise similar drawings may be issued for subways also for various skew angles.

Discussion

 With the present configuration of girders given in RDSO drawing for composite girder
ROBs, width of carriageway 7.5m and 12m is not possible to be given without altering the
spacing of girders.
 RDSO standard drawing for PSC girders are available for skew angles up to 20 o. In
many cases, NHAI and road authorities insist for higher skew angles so as to avoid
introduction of ‘S’ curves in approach of ROBs. Thus it becomes impossible to reduce the
skew angles to 20o.

Recommendations

(a) RDSO to redesign and issue standard drawing suitable for 7.5m or 12m
carriageway width.
(b) All CBEs should submit data to Railway Board and RDSO regarding numbers of
bridges with various skew angles and spans to facilitate RDSO to arrive at a
conclusion about predominant skew angle and span. RDSO should accordingly
issue standard drawings. To start with skew angles of up to 40 o may be
considered for standardization. WR & SCR should send their drawings to RDSO
for scrutiny.

Item 4(k) Design of Skew Girders

Issue

Difficulty is being faced in designing plate girders in skew. At present many girders are in
skew and no standard designs/drawings are available. RDSO may be requested to issue the
same for different degree of skewness for different spans or otherwise design guidelines may
be issued.

17
Discussion

RDSO expressed difficulty in issuing standard drawings catering to all possible field
conditions. Instead they suggested that any specific cases can be referred to RDSO for
guidance and design.

Recommendations

Specific cases requiring clarification, design and guidance may be referred to RDSO by
Zonal Railways.

Item 4(l) Structural drawing for skew composite girder (ROB)

Issue

RDSO has issued the guide line for construction of ROB by using composite girders for
different spans. Also these drawings are applicable for skew bridge upto 20. RDSO has to
issue the structural drawing for connection of end diaphragm & intermediate cross frame.

Discussion

It was advised by ED/Structures, RDSO that typical sketches are given in standard drawing
issued by RDSO. Structural drawing and connection of end diaphragm and intermediate
cross frame cannot be given in standard drawing as this will be different for different skew
angles and will depend on actual site measurements. Therefore, actual plotting has to be
done for actual skew angle obtained at site.

Recommendations

Nil

Item 4(m) Standard designs of Arch top RCC boxes for Strengthening of Arch
Bridges

Issue

Lot of Arch Bridges across Indian Railways are requiring strengthening in view of higher axle
loads. Interning of arches with curved top RCC box is one of the methods being used on
many railways. However, there are no standard drawings available with the railways. RDSO
may issue standard drawings for arch top RCC box culverts for various spans, heights, rises
and various depths of cushion.

Discussion

From the deliberations on this item, it came out that various Zonal Railways are using
different techniques. There is no uniformity either in design or in execution for these

18
strengthening works. There is a definite need for guidelines from RDSO to bring about
uniformity across IR.

Lot of such work has been carried out on ER. CBE/ER may send the drawings for these
works to RDSO. ECR, CR, WCR, SWR & SCR may also send designs being followed by
them with calculations to RDSO to facilitate RDSO to frame guidelines for uniform adoption.

Para 5 of IRBM stipulates dowelling in the existing arch while strengthening by interning. A
view was expressed by many CBEs that drilling hole in the existing arch which is in a weak
condition will further weaken the structure and will serve no purpose. It was felt that
provisions of Para 5 of IRBM need to be examined by RDSO.

Recommendations

(a) CBE/ER may send the drawings for these works to RDSO. ECR,
CR, WCR, SWR & SCR may also send designs being followed by them with
calculations to RDSO to facilitate RDSO to frame guidelines for uniform adoption.
(b) Provisions of Para 5 of IRBM may be examined by RDSO.

Item 4(n) LHS Construction, Construction of Limited Height Subways in lieu of

Level Crossings with approach coverings
Item 5(b)
Item 5(g)

Issue

Lots of LHS constructions are being carried out where sufficient height is not available.
Standard drawing for GAD, sump & drainage arrangement may be issued by RDSO

Discussion

As per the latest instructions of Railway Board, Limited Height Subway are to be provided
even at locations where sufficient bank height is not available. This will require provision of
different type of drainage arrangement to keep the LHS serviceable during rainy season.
WCR requested for issue of standard GAD along with sump end drainage arrangements to
be used at such locations. ED/Structures, RDSO explained that providing suitable drainage
arrangement depends on prevailing geological/topographic and climatic conditions and
therefore standard drawing can not be issued. WR informed that they have developed some
drawing up to 4m clear height to be adopted at such locations where bank is not of sufficient
height. WR may send this drawing to RDSO.

Recommendations

WR may send drawings being followed by them to RDSO.

19
Item 4(o) Haunch size in Standard drawing for LHS & RCC Box

Issue

RDSO has issued standard drawing for LHS vide drawing no 10152/1-9 for25t loading.
Haunch size in these drawing is from 200x200 mm to 600 x 600 mm. This haunch size is
obstructing carriage width. Haunch size may be reduced by RDSO.

Discussion

CBE/WCR stated that providing a haunch in a small size box reduces the carriage width to a
certain extent. This creates resentment with the users as effective size of carriageway in a
subway is reduced. ED/Structures, RDSO stated that haunches are provided from shear
criteria. This also prevents a vehicle from hitting the side walls of the box. CBE/ER
suggested that it may be possible to design boxes without haunches by suitably designing for
shear. RDSO may examine this issue.

Recommendations

RDSO to examine the issue.

Item 4(p) Standard drawing for FOB

Issue

RDSO has issued standard drawing for FOB. In these drawings plate girders are used. For a
example depth of plate girder and span is tabulated as below:-

Sr. No. RDSO Drg. No. Span Depth of girder

1 RDSO/B-10401 to 10401/7 25.2m 0.8m
2 RDSO/B 10402 to 10402/7 25.2m 0.75m

Since clearance of bottom of girder to rail level is fixed. Overall height of FOB increases if we
use plate girders, resulting in increased height of stair case and ramp. Also length of ramp
increases proportionally due to increase in height. In place of plate girders drawing with N
type truss may be issued.

Discussion

It was discussed that in ‘N’ type truss, bottom chord and its connections become severe
corrosion prone areas. With a view to overcome this problem, it is advisable to use plate
girders instead of ‘N’ type truss. RDSO was also of the same opinion to continue with plate
girders.

Recommendations
Nil

20
Item 4(q) Provision of Footpath on plate girders and provision of Man refuge and
Item 6(a) Trolley refuge on plate girders

Issue

Drawing for Man Refuge in through type span is available. But drawing for Man Refuge and
Trolley Refuge for deck type plate girder bridges is not available. For riveted type, it is
possible and are generally provided by cutting rivets of the top flange and connecting with the
stiffeners. But in welded girders, drilling holes are restricted.

Discussion

Need for providing man and trolley refuges and footpath for plate girder type deck bridges
was felt necessary. However, it was advised by ED/Structures, RDSO that it is not desirable
to drill holes in welded plate girder type bridges and instead such facilities may be provided at
pier locations by extending the pier cap if required or through some suitable arrangements
fixed on the piers. One such arrangement of footpath has been done on Western Railway.
Details may be obtained by other railways from WR.

Recommendations

Nil

Item 4(r) Design of ballast less PSC slabs for replacing the small span shallow type
girders

Issue

In Railways there are number of small bridges i.e 4.00m to 9.15m spans provided at RUBs
with shallow type duplicated girders. At these locations, RCC/PSC slabs with required ballast
cushion cannot be provided due to restricted construction depth. Possibility of designing
ballast less PSC slabs at these locations is required to be explored.

Discussion

It was discussed and opined that this is a matter which should be raised in TSC.

Recommendations

Nil.

21
Item 5(a) Construction of ROBs in lieu of Unmanned Level Crossings at the cost of
Railway
Issue

As per the policy decision taken by the Railway Board, Railways have to eliminate all the
unmanned level crossings by diverting traffic by constructing diversion and ROBs/RUBs.

There are some unmanned level crossings where State Government is not agreeing for
subways and they are asking for 2-lane ROB or full height subway/twin subways etc at 100%
railway cost.

Discussion

As per the recent Railway Board’s instructions, ROBs having less than 5m carriageway will
be constructed at Railways’ cost subject to certain conditions mentioned in the letter. Zonal
Railways should take action as per Board’s instructions.

Recommendations

Nil

Item 5(c) Increase in width of carriageway for the ROBs in National Highways

Issue

As per Railway Board letter no. 2001/CE1/Misc/NH/4 Pt.III dt:18/3/2009, if the LC falls on NH,
Rly shall bear the cost of bridge portion and road authority shall bear the cost of approaches
irrespective of land boundaries. Railway will bear the cost of bridge proper (across tracks)
inclusive of future tracks. But, as per the Rly Bd’s letter no. 2002/CE-1/BRO/64(Policy)
dt:19/2/08, the cost sharing of the width of ROB is limited to 12.0m between the outer faces
of the railing kerbs inclusive of the crash barrier. But, as per the MOSRT&H letter no.
RW/NH/3304/2/88-S&R(B) dt:24/3/2009, the carriage way width in the bridge portion is
12.90m (without footpath) and 14.80m with footpath and highways are submitting the
proposals. Clarification is required as to whether Railway will restrict the bearing of cost in
bridge portion is for 12.0m carriage way width or increase in width as specified by MOSRT&H
in their recent circular.

Discussion

The issue was discussed in detail and it was opined that Para 1816 of Engineering Code
needs to be reviewed accordingly.

Recommendations

Railway Board may consider reviewing of Para 1816 of Engineering Code in view of the
Ministry of Surface Transport & Highways letter of March 2009 in this regard.

22
Item 5(d) Sharing cost of four-laning/widening of ROB/RUB

Issue

As per Railway Board’s letter No.98/CE-I/BRO/171 dt. 22.01.03, it has been decided that
based on specific requests received from the respective road authorities, Railways may
henceforth consider sharing cost of constructing new four lane ROBs in lieu of level
crossings, as also sharing cost of widening of existing two-lane ROBs to four lanes, subject to
the guidelines.

As the four-laning/widening of ROB/RUB is purely a concern of Road authorities, it is

recommended that complete cost of the same be borne by them as per Engineering Code.

Discussion

It was discussed that since the requirement is from the road authorities, they should prepare
the proposal justifying the need for sharing based on laid down guidelines.

Recommendations

Nil

Item 5(e) Review of maintenance charges of ROB/RUB

Issue
Earlier in case of construction of grade separators sanctioned on Deposit terms the
maintenance charges @ 3% per annum capitalized to 30% of cost of bridge structure, as
stipulated in 1942-E, Board’s letter of 98/CE-I/Misc.(14)/BRO dated 28.02.2002 were being
levied.
Now in letter No. 98/CE-I/Misc.(14)/BRO dt 10.07.2012 of Railway Board it is stated that
Railways should follow the instructions contained in Para 1851-E for ROB/RUB sanctioned
on deposit terms. Further, capitalized maintenance charge should be calculated on the cost
of Bridge proper (excluding Road ways) required to be maintained by Railways in future. It
should not be calculated on the full cost of ROB.

These instructions are creating confusion and it is advisable that a general fixed charge
should be levied for easy calculations and uniformity in all over Railway.

Discussion

The item was discussed and dropped.

Recommendations

Nil

23
Item 5(f) Guidelines for Box Pushing Technology

Issue

Many Limited Height Subways and RUBs are being constructed through box pushing
technique, but no standard guidelines regarding designing or execution are available.

Also design guidelines for designing of cutting edge where cutter shield is fixed maybe issued
for box pushing works.

Discussion

Many box pushing works have been taken up by different railways in connection with Limited
Height Subway and RUBs. A need is felt in the field for uniform guidelines for box pushing
technology from RDSO. ED/Structures, RDSO clarified that RDSO Standard Drawings for
Box culvert do not cater for pushing methods. However methods for pushing are site specific
and therefore standardization cannot be done. Moreover almost in all box pushing cases,
consultant’s design is used which includes pushing aspect also.

Recommendations

Nil

Item 5(h) Use of viaduct on approaches of ROB in Railway portion

As per Railway Board’s letter no: 97/CE-1/BRO/158/Policy dated 27.11.97, Railway should
plan the work of ROB/RUB in such a way that the transfer of Railway land is not involved in
construction of approaches.

As per Railway Board letter no: No. 97/LML/24/3 dated: 27.11.2001, and para 8, any
proposal for passage/roads for width more than 3 m. should be treated under licensing as per
extant circulars on the subject of licensing. It implies that, the portion of land over Railway
tracks comes under way leave facility and remaining portion comes under land licensing.

As such, in the interest of protecting Railway land for future tracks and utilities, it is suggested
that viaduct arrangement be made in entire Railway land insisting abutments beyond the
railway boundary. Sometimes, the agencies are objecting to this citing various reasons like
such provision is not available in concessionaire’s agreement etc.

Discussion

CBE/SCR raised the issue that now-a-days road authorities are insisting on via-duct type of
approaches in the ROBs instead of solid approach bank. At locations where Railway land is
wide enough that requires more spans than those required for present and future tracks,
question of licensing of Railway land comes into picture as per Railway Board’s letter No.

24
97/LML/24/3 dated 27.11.2001. Other CBEs were also of the view that it is better to go for
via-duct arrangement within the Railway boundary. In order to streamline the procedure,
suitable guidelines from Railway Board are required.

Recommendations

SCR should send a formal reference to Railway Board highlighting the issues involved.

Item 5(i) Diversion of existing road for construction of ROB

Issue

There have been a few cases of ROBs from NHAI where they are diverting the alignment
from the existing road crossing railway track at some distance ranging from about 250m to
about a kilometer. There is a little confusion in dealing with such cases as to whether these
are to be dealt as an ROB in lieu of LC where LC is required to be closed after
commissioning of the ROB. NHAI does not agree for the same and demand for a new ROB
(without closure of LC) though it is on the same road crossing the tracks. For both these
cases, the charges to be collected from NHAI are different as per Railway Board’s guidelines
and there is hardly a difference of about 3% of the cost in railway’s portion which may be only
to the tune of Rs. 10-15 lakhs, while railway may have to spend about a crore in closing this
LC by providing subway etc.

Discussion

The issue was discussed and dropped.

Recommendations

Nil

Item 7(a) Bridge cadre to be brought under Safety Category

Issue

At present only SE/JE/Bridges are under safety category whereas the various technical staff
under SE/Bridges are not under safety category. During work study, Benchmarking etc., the
retirement vacancies are surrendered and fresh recruitment is not being carried out because
they are not under safety category.

Most of the bridge staff are working in similar to that of Trackman, S & T staff etc., under
Traffic condition. Hence they are to be brought under safety category.

25
Discussion

It was generally agreed by all participants that in view of the nature of work, all technical staff
belonging to the bridge cadre should be brought under ‘Safety’ Category.

Recommendations

Proposals with due approval GM may be sent to Railway Board by Zonal Railways.

Item 7(b) Imparting NDT training for BRIs through RDSO / Lucknow

Issue

To equip the BRIs and their staff in operation of NDT equipments, proper training is stressed
for maintenance of NDT equipments. Hence, NDT training should be conducted by RDSO to
SSE/Br for better maintenance and utilization of NDDT equipments.

Discussion

Few such courses have already been conducted by RDSO/Lucknow. Some more course can
be organized by RDSO considering demand from field.

Recommendations

Nil

Item 7(c) Newly recruited SSE/Brs and JE/Brs Leaving Railways after joining or not
reporting
Issue

It has been experienced that newly recruited SSE/Brs and JE/Brs are leaving Railways after
joining within a few months.

This is a very alarming status for Railways where people are leaving service after joining.
Thus, recruitment of SSE/Brs and JE/Brs are not maturing and process of recruitment is
getting defeated.

Therefore, it is high time to look into this aspect so that candidates join and remain in
Railways to avoid a void in Bridge units.

Discussion

The issue was deliberated in detail. It was opined that the issue is of serious proportions.
Efforts can be made to tackle this problem by requesting RRCs to have extended waiting list
or by increasing the indent suitably in proportion to the number of JE/Br. either not joining or

26
leaving just after joining. ED(B&S)I/Railway Board suggested the a suitable proposal along
with justification and due approval of GM may be sent to Railway Board for consideration.

Recommendations

All Zonal Railways should send data for last 4-5 years with justification and GM’s approval.

Item 7(d) Incentive for Design Assistants

Issue

Design Assistant or SSE/Design post shall be made more attractive as the post of Design
Assistant or SSE/Design are lying vacant for want of suitable / competent candidates.

In this regard, it was suggested that some kind of allowances similar to the one given in
Vigilance Organization after 6 th Pay Commission can be given to Design Asst. as in Vth Pay
Commission, there was provision for giving one grade higher to those who opt for working in
Design Cell, but in the 6th Pay Commission there is no such provision.

Discussion

The issue was discussed in detail. ED(B&S)I/Railway Board suggested that Zonal Railways
may send proposals with proper justification and approval of GM to Railway Board for
consideration.

Recommendations

Zonal Railways may send proposals with proper justification and approval of GM to Railway
Board for consideration.

Item 7(e) Removal of anomaly in initial training period for directly recruited JE
(Bridges)

Issue

Indian Railway Bridge Manual Para No.1302(4) indicate that training for Apprentice Bridge
Inspectors will be of one year training consisting of two months initial course at the Zonal
Training School and balance period of ten months in field. South Central Railway has been
following the one year training period for JE (Bridges) since 2001.

Serial Circular No.199/2008 issued by Railway Board vide letter no.

P(PC)/487/VI/CPC/Stipend dt:22.12.2008 stipulate a period of two years for Junior Engineer-
Grade-II (Bridges) and one year for Section Engineer (Bridges) degree holder. The personnel
branch is insisting for two years training period citing the basis of Railway Board’s circular
mentioned above.

27
There is anomaly between the Indian Railway Bridge Manual and the Circular being cited by
personnel branch. Matter may be looked into and necessary clarification is issued. The same
was communicated to Railway board for clarifications vide this office letter
No.W.349/Br/6/Vol.IV dated 29.09.2011. The same is awaited.

Discussion

SCR advised that proposal has already been sent to Railway Board. ED(B&S)I/Railway
Board requested SCR to send the proposal again for taking appropriate action.

Recommendations

SCR to send the proposal again to Railway Board.

Item 7(f) Yard stick for the Bridge Organization

Issue

In coming days the bridges are to be strengthened and rebuilt as per 25T axle load. Also in
the last few years the number of PSC Girders on track bridges and ROBs/RUBs have
increased considerably and are increasing continuously, which requires additional attention,
inspection and maintenance due to increase in PSC girder bridges which are supposed to be
maintained by SSE/JE (Bridges). The present strength of the Bridge Organization falls short
on this term. The same is required to be strengthened, based upon definite predefined
norms. Hence, Yard stick for maintenance of PSC girder bridges are required to be prepared.

Discussion

This item is already being discussed in BSC. Hence dropped.

Recommendations

Nil

Item 8(a) Bridge Statistics

Issue
Presently there are no uniform standard guidelines for numbering of bridges due to which
bridge statistics may vary from not only Railway to Railway but also within the Zonal Railway.
Discussion
Discussed & dropped.

Recommendations

Nil

28