Why IR need High Strength Rails

-Vipul Kumar,

Chief Project Director/Bridge Works, Northern Railway

Synopsis: This paper attempts to examine why IR needs high strength rails on her tracks. The paper brings
the current rate of rail withdrawal despite increased Through Rail Renewal (TRR) in the recent years and
examining reasons for ever increasing failures including basic rail stress analysis and other contributory
causes e.g. loading discipline on IR, vehicle maintenance, track maintenance, health of track structure
affecting the track modulus which in turn leads to higher dynamic augment, etc. The paper attempts to
shortlist possible rail grades for IR needs which are well accepted internationally in order to get out of the
malady of rail withdrawals despite renewals year after year. The paper is based on experience and
information gained by the author while working as ED/Track in RDSO as well as in Railway Board.
Interaction with author on the subject can be done at trackvipul@gmail.com

1. Introduction
Indian Railways (IR) operate in mixed traffic regime of passenger and goods transportation. The
maximum speed of passenger operations are now being envisaged to be enhanced to 160-200
kmph from existing 100-130 kmph. Simultaneously, the thrust is being given on freight operation
with increased axle loads from existing 20.32/22.32/22.9t to 25t along with the increase in speed
upto 100 kmph. Both of these operations are to be on the same track. Given the existing
maintenance practices and operating environment, a large number of issues need to be
appreciated and addressed before the dream of operating 25 t at 100 kmph becomes a reality
even with reasonable safety standards. Based on the experience of operation of CC+8+2
obtained so far, some of the challenges related to requisite track structure, particularly related to
type of rail; rolling stock design and clearance protocol; maintenance standards; etc are discussed
in the ensuing sections.

2. Increasing Rail Withdrawals

IR undertakes exhaustive exercise of renewing her tracks every year based on age as well as
condition. Special efforts have been made in recent past to go for increased allocations to
undertake more track and rail renewal so that safety of travelling public is taken care of. The
following table shows the rail renewal and expenditure on track renewal carried out in last 5 years:

Year Through Rail Renewal (Tkms) Track Renewal Exp (Rs

Cr)
2014-15 2408 5371
2015-16 2729 5586
2016-17 2597 6398
2017-18 4405 8804
2018-19 4265 9651
2019-20 (upto Sept., ’19) 2238 6225
Table-1

1|Page
Despite sustained efforts made with increased money spent as indicated in table-1, it is a matter
of grave concern that the rail withdrawals for length below 13 m, which is primarily on account of
failures or defects needed to be removed from track, has not been resulting into corresponding
reduction. This is evident from the data contained in the following table displaying failure data on
CC+8+2 routes, IR’s prime freight routes supporting passenger operations as well:
Table-2
Routes with 60 Kg, 880 Gr Rail (Total track Km: 29,443)

Year Km x GMT Nos. of Nos. of Nos. of withdrawal/

withdrawal withdrawal/ Track Km. GMT
Track Km

2014-15 1097,642 10,185 0.346 0.009

2015-16 1065,454 13,584 0.461 0.013

2016-17 1023,616 23,689 0.805 0.023

2017-18 1047,693 35,157 1.194 0.034

2018-19 1041,642 51,552 1.751 0.049

Table-3
Routes with 52 Kg Rail (Total track Km: 16,224)

Year Km*GMT Nos. of Nos. of Nos. of withdrawal/

withdrawal withdrawal/ Track Km. GMT
Track Km

2014-15 291,219 4,927 0.304 0.017

2015-16 289,664 8,859 0.546 0.031

2016-17 261,953 16,161 0.997 0.062

2017-18 282,229 19,660 1.212 0.07

2018-19 275,088 29,593 1.824 0.108

2|Page
 Table-4

Nos. of withdrawal per Track Km.GMT

Rails
2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19

60kg track 0.009 0.013 0.023 0.034 0.049

52kg track 0.017 0.031 0.062 0.07 0.108

3. Possible Reasons for High Rate of Rail Failures

It is important to examine possible reasons for having such large number of rail withdrawal despite
sustained efforts going into annual track and rail renewals. This leads to examining the adequacy
of track structure, primarily rail section and grade being used currently as well as other
contributory factors e.g. incidence of overloading, rolling stock maintenance, issues of under-
powering of loads, timely track maintenance, etc. Each issue is discussed in detail as under:
3.1 Adequacy of Rail Section and Grade:
RDSO has carried out exhaustive rail stress analysis using internationally accepted practice and
the total rail stresses of current rail section of 60 kg, 880 grade used for all new renewals, new
construction, gauge conversion etc (no renewal being sanctioned with 52 kg rail now) for different
axle loads and speed combination is brought out in the following tables:

Table-5
For 60kg, 880 Grade rail for 22.82 t axle load (CC+8+2)

Speed (kmph) 60 75 90 100

*Bending Stress at F2 (kg/mm2) 9.90 10.31 10.85 11.48

Temp Stress (kg/mm2) calculated for Td =
11.32 11.32 11.32 11.32
Tm+7.5 deg
Residual stress (kg/mm2) at foot center based
24.5 24.5 24.5 24.5
on actual measurement
Unforseen Stress (kg/mm2) 0.99 1.03 1.08 1.15

Total Stress at foot center (kg/mm2) 46.71 47.16 47.75 48.44

Permissible Stress (kg/mm2) 46.80

*F2 is the foot center of rail as the stresses have been found to be most critical at it.

As can been seen from the above table, the current rail section of 60kg, 880 Grade is fit to support
CC+8+2 operations only upto a speed of 60 kmph and therefore Rly. Board vide letter no
2018/CE-II/TS/25t dtd. 14.03.2018 has already restricted speed of operations for CC+8+2 loading
to 60 kmph and recommended use of higher strength rails for supporting operations of 25 t axle

3|Page
load. It is important to note that over the yield stress there is no factor of safety which is applied
and total stresses worked out for 60 kmph is just marginally below the permissible stress of 46.80
kg/sqmm which is actually measured in rail manufacturing plant, making the rail section vulnerable
in case the assumptions made in the calculation are violated in field operations, some of which
shall be discussed in the following sections.
It is also important to appreciate that in the design of building structure or many other components,
there is always a factor of safety applied over the elastic limit of material strength or limit state
leaving a room that some of the worst combinations of loading having low probability are not
considered in the calculation. For instance, maximum wind load and maximum earth quake loads
are not considered together in building structure due to the fact that, first, it is designed with a
factor of safety and second, the probability of occurrence of both maximum wind load and earth
quake load simultaneously are extremely low. This analogy given by many opinion makers on
railway track structure design cannot be applied to rail design as neither there is factor of safety
applied nor the probability of occurring maximum bending, temperature and residual stress, the
three prime constituents of total rail stresses are low. This can be further understood by real
situation visualization that on cold winter morning rail temperature often goes to 0 to 2 deg Celsius
over a substantial length in Northern Region resulting into maximum tensile strength in the rail,
over which a flat tyre wheel with 22.9 t axle load can easily be expected exerting the assumed
dynamic augment or even more if the defect is larger than assumed or track is unscreened thus
resulting in maximum bending stress at every round of wheel, with track containing a rail rolled in
Bhilai Steel Plant having residual stress of 250 Mpa at foot center, therefore resulting into the total
stress at foot center as assumed in the above table or even higher. Therefore, analogy of rail
design cannot be considered at par with building structure or other component design as argued
by some.
Table-6
For 60kg, 880 Grade rail manufactured as per IRS Specifications for 25 t axle load

Speed (kmph) 50 60 75 90 100

F2 (kg/mm2) 10.51 10.79 11.23 11.82 12.51

Temp Stress (kg/mm2) calculated for Td =
11.32 11.32 11.32 11.32 11.32
Tm+7.5 deg
Residual stress (kg/mm2) at foot center
24.5 24.5 24.5 24.5 24.5
based on actual measurement
Unforseen Stress (kg/mm2) 1.05 1.08 1.12 1.18 1.25

Total Stress (kg/mm2) 47.38 47.68 48.18 48.82 49.58

Permissible Stress (kg/mm2) 46.80

As can been seen from table-6, the current rail section of 60kg, 880 Grade is not found fit to
support 25 t axle load operations even at 50 kmph and accordingly Railway Board has
recommended use of high strength rail vide their letter dtd. 14.03.2018 for supporting 25 t axle
load operations.

4|Page
3.2 Issues Related to Rolling Stock
Impact Loading: Fixed infrastructure e.g. Track, Bridges including some S&T fixtures (due to
their direct link with type of track structure used) are designed for specific loading. Barring the
assumed margin in the calculation, any higher loading would act as detrimental to the life and
reliability of the structure leading to its sudden or premature failure. On IR rails are designed for
incorporating an additional dynamic load upto 72% of wheel load (for a speed of 100 kmph, for
lower speed, reduced value of dynamic augment are considered in calculation) which
incorporates all possible sources of dynamic augment of wheel load e.g. rail/wheel defects e.g.
rail dip/scab, wheel flat/scab, out of round wheels, offloading, excess play at axle box/pivot,
wheel/axle angularity, excess cant deficiency, etc. For 60 kg, 880 grade rails currently being used
on IR, the maximum wheel load that can safely negotiate the rail section work out to about 17 t
assuming all factors considered in the rail stress calculation. To check and attend track side
defects regular trolley/engine inspections, OMS monitoring, Track Recording cars, etc are carried
out followed by spot or planned attention. For containing wheel defects Wheel Impact Load
Detectors (WILD) are installed as standard fixtures world over and weigh bridges installed to
control overloading of wagons. IR has on date 15 strain gauge based WILDs installed at various
locations on IR network. Data obtained from these WILDs indicate Wheel Load of upto 61 t with
frequent cases of wheel load exceeding 45 t. A 45 t wheel load translates into a dynamic augment
of over 390% for a wheel load of 11.45 t (22.9 t axle load). Though plying of one such wheel even
once a day may look to be trivial statistically, in reality it might be causing plastic
deformation/augmenting an already available trivial defect into a critical one in the rail at every
round of wheel i.e. at every πD. Considering wheel diameter to be 1 m, the distance of impact of
such wheel works out to every 3.14 m on the rail over which such wheel is plying. This will render
challenge with rail in terms of its reliability & maintainability leading to large number of instances
sudden/premature failure in service. Therefore, the maintenance of rolling stock as well as timely
detection and isolating defective vehicle is important to contain impact loading within design
values to prevent failures.
As stated above, to tackle the problem of high impact loading, a dense network of WILD is
deployed on advance railway systems with strict protocol of maintaining/isolating defective vehicle
due to seriousness consequences of high impact loads. For instance, there is 1 WILD for every
300 track kms on AMTREK network having mixed traffic like that on IR. In 2005-06 while
introducing CC+8+2, it was planned to install 260 WILDs over IR network covering about 85000
tkms of network over which freight operations are carried out, translating into density of 1 WILD
over about every 325 tkms. However, only 17 WILDs (15 strain gauge based and 2 accelerometer
based) have so far been installed on IR in last 13 years of operations of CC+8+2 with poor record
of isolating defective vehicles therefore making IR to live with low rail reliability on this account.
Over Loading: Overloading of rolling stock causes the similar excess loading on rail as higher
impact loading as discussed in preceding section. Indian Railways took great initiative in installing
a dense network of weigh bridges to prevent over-loading. However, the experience of more than
a decade on IR indicates that the available infrastructure is hardly being used to prevent
overloading. The following table shows the recent past record of overloading on some of the high
freight carrying zonal railways

5|Page
 Table-7

Period Railway No. of Rakes No. of Rakes found with % age

Weighed overloaded wagons overloading

SER 30411 16602 54.6%

2017-18
SECR 25276 9708 38.4%

SER 32145 18890 58.8%

2018-19
SECR 23684 17147 72.4%

Though there is exhaustive Joint Procedure Order (JPO) to tackle the overloaded vehicles, but is
hardly practiced in field in its letter and spirit. Further, there is dilution in permitting the defective
weigh bridges as DRMs are now empowered for the same for indefinite period. Such operational
practices further render rail reliability doubtful in field due to higher probability of exceeding the
design loads.
Rail-Wheel Interaction & Profile maintenance: The rail-wheel forces occur when interaction
between rail and wheel is with compatible profile. IR is supposed to use rail profile suggested by
NRC, Canda based on the study entrusted to them by IR in late nineties. This ensures contact
stresses to remain within permissible limit. Further, the calculation of contact stresses is based
on Hertz theory which assumes rail wheel contact to be ellipsoid1. Non maintenance of compatible
rail wheel profile or contact patch may lead to contact stresses going up even 4-5 times of the
permissible limits leading to premature rail failure. Besides non-maintained rail and wheel profile
through proper grinding schedule leading to higher contact stresses, wheel defects like hollow
tyre or wheel tread end portion having reverse curve may make line contact3 on non-gauge side
leading to premature failure of rail. A typical wheel having similar defect on IR network is displayed
as under underlining the need of proper maintenance of rail surface and wheel profile for safe
operations.

Pic 1 & 2 exhibiting reverse curve on end of wheel tread and shelled wheel from IR

6|Page
Rolling Stock Design & Clearance:
IR current design of freight stock carrying largest axle load is largely based on Casnub bogie (3-
piece truck). Though a few changes in the design since induction of this vehicle has been carried
out, the design has not been found to be track friendly by Permanent Way engineers on IR as
large maintenance challenges are encountered besides high rate of track degradation on sections
where freight stocks ply compared to areas where only/predominantly passenger stocks ply. This
perennial issue can only be solved by inducting a track friendly design freight bogie on IR as there
are large number of freight bogies design available world over that are known to be track friendly.
Operation of combination of high speed and heavier axle load entails managing rail-vehicle
dynamics for economical and safe operation for any rail operator, realization of that dream for IR
would need inducting an more track friendly suspension and bogie design.

Due to Maximum Moving Dimensions (MMD) already being fixed on IR and fixed infrastructure
being as per MMD, the dimensions of the current fleet of freight stocks cannot be altered much.
Advance railway system have been going for using aluminum alloy bodies and bogie frames to
reduce the dead weight and increase the pay load. On IR however in a quest to enhance carrying
capacity and pay load, designers have recently reduced the wheel diameter from 914 mm to 840
mm. Such low diameter stocks are normally not designed internationally for the axle load for which
IR has gone for it. The stipulation of UIC-510-2 is reproduced as pic-3 as follows. The reduced
diameter coupled with increased axle load not only subject rail to higher contact forces but also
result into higher incidences of rail contact fatigue (RCF) due to reduced flange contact. Coupled
with rail-wheel defect they create unacceptable level of loading.

Pic-3; Abstract from UIC-512-2

7|Page
IR has got one of the slackest vehicle clearance protocol for the speed and axle loads now being
operated. The protocol as finalised by 3rd Criteria Committee of RDSO does not match even the
stipulations of British Rly of 1976 vintage. For instance, for freight stock on IR, which subject track
structure the maximum loading and result into highest beating due to large number of wheels per
train, do not have even stipulate vertical and lateral accelerations limits. These limits are part of
essential stipulations for all kind of regular rolling stocks for most advance railway systems
including stipulations in UIC code. Higher vertical and lateral accelerations result into faster track
degradation, reduced fatigue life of track components and even sudden failures when subjected
to overloading or high dynamic load. The measurement of accelerations at body level on IR during
oscillation trial indicate values recorded upto 1.38 vertical & 2.79 lateral in case of empty run and
1.35 vertical & 0.85 lateral in case of loaded wagons. The stocks with such higher accelerations
get cleared due to non-availability of such standards on IR but are not acceptable by any
international standards. These values are extremely high considering limiting values of 0.44g
vertical & 0.33g lateral stipulated by British Railway and 5 m/sqsec (~0.5g) vertical & 3 m/sqsec
(~0.3g) lateral by UIC-518 subjecting IR tracks to very high dynamics and fast fatigue than
permitted world over. Even important safety stipulation of calculation of Derailment coefficient and
Lateral force has been kept optional as incase these are not measured, freight stocks can still be
cleared on Ride Index measurement as per RDSO criteria committee standards. All these factors
may result into unknown additional loading thus extra stresses causing increased failures. It is an
encouraging step that RDSO has taken decision to implement provisions of UIC-518 for vehicle
clearance which shall help in introduction of compatible vehicles as per international standards in
future.

3.3 Track Issues:

Track Design:
Accurate estimation of track-vehicle interaction parameters like forces and accelerations is most
important aspect of design of the track structure for a particular set of operating conditions
prevailing on a given railway system. Introduction of heavy axle load operations in mixed traffic
regime calls for even more accurate estimation of these parameters considering the safety of
passenger operations as heavy axle load operations take toll on fixed infrastructure. There are
complexities associated with dynamic forces developed from track-vehicle interactions in mixed
traffic regime. Most of the track deterioration is strongly associated to the development of dynamic
loads resulting from the wheel-rail contact. These dynamic loads are influenced by many factors.
Some important factors are:

(i) Axle load

(ii) Speed of operation
(iii) Characteristics of rolling stock affecting dynamic behavior i.e. wheel diameter, suspension
system, unsprung mass, etc.
(iv) Maintenance standards of rolling stock – permissible size of wheel flat, wheel deformations
(v) Track structure, its geometry and maintenance standards

8|Page
The correct estimation of vertical & lateral forces, accelerations, off-loading, etc is essentially
required for deciding the design strength of track structure so as to withstand the loads during
service safely and with economical maintainability. For instance, larger than anticipated lateral
forces arising out of high speed/axle load operations coupled with locked up thermal stresses in
rail may lead to severe misalignment in track, even leading to derailments. Similarly, high vertical
accelerations coupled with high impact vertical load will cause high bending stresses in rail
leading to decrease in fatigue life in general and sudden failure from weak area in particular if
gets combined with large track and other vehicle defects.

Salient points of UIC leaflet 724-R which deliberates on design aspects and track equipment for
operation of 25 ton axle loads on ballasted track are worth reproduction as under:

“when considering the phenomenon of track deterioration, some salient aspects of the deterioration needs
to be clearly defined; such as
- fatigue of rail and other components
- wear of rail and other components
- deterioration of track geometry quality
- deterioration of track components
Research, test results, railway literature, reports and experience have shown that the best way to
decrease the deteriorating effects on track when operating with high axle loads is through reduction in
dynamic wheel loads. Both the total wheel load and the dynamic part of it have to be considered.
Preconditions for reducing dynamic wheel loads include:
- good track geometry quality
- adapted speed
- good wheel quality
- track friendly vehicle design”

RDSO has now initiated steps in measuring the real time forces using measuring wheel which
may help in evaluating the forces coming on rail-wheel interface for revising the existing designs
for all track components having linked with the actual forces encountered. This will eliminate the
contribution of asset failures on account of encountering unknown forces.

Track Maintenance:
Unscreened Tracks: For exploiting the fixed infrastructure optimally, it is mandatory that required
maintenance inputs are given when due, else the prolonged deterioration may not be
economically recoverable for optimal life. It is for this reasons that all advance railway systems
have a well-defined system of track possession which is implemented without any exception. The
current culture on IR for granting traffic block both number and duration wise is arbitrary rather
than being a system and largely depends on last minute decisions at managerial level. Due to
non-availability of adequate track possessions, there is arrear of approx. 28000 tkms of deep
screening of mainline track on IR and 16500 number of turnout as on 1.4.2019. The non-screened
track results into high dynamic forces due to harder ballast bed and loss of resilience, ill effects

9|Page
of which in terms of higher rail stresses have already been discussed in this paper in adequate
detail. Besides increased failure, the degradation of track is faster for a non-screened track
leading to premature renewal costing more money and time loss than actually would have been
incurred had the maintenance inputs given in time.

Rail Grinding at Stipulated Frequency: As can be visualized from rail stress table, for operation
of high axle loads use of higher strength rails are mandatory to bear the increased stresses in rail.
These rail get more brittle with increase of tensile strength getting more prone to scabs/wheel
burns due to under-powering of load, head checks and rolling contact fatigue (RCF). These initial
surface defects need to be removed before they penetrate deep under the rail leading to its failure.
As per international practice a proper rail-wheel interaction and removal of surface defects on rail
are ensured meticulously through rail grinding at the stipulated frequency even for 880 Grade
rails. There is no way to maintain rail profile and surface without resorting to rail grinding which is
normal maintenance operation for rail just like tamping of ballast at a stipulated frequency. Though
the rail grinding has been introduced on IR long back but the available two machines are being
utilized only to 30-35% of their capacity due to paucity of traffic blocks leaving arrears of grinding
adding to the rail failures.

Rail Corrosion: Corrosion of rail particularly in foot and web region has been a perennial problem
for p-way engineers resulting into many rail failures including some bad accidents. The problem
is partly tackled through rail painting as no paint has been found to fully address the bacterial
corrosion due to discharge from train toilets. Recently tests had conducted with zinc coated rail
for resistance against bio-corrosion and results have been found encouraging. Though some
railways have already taken steps for zinc coating in rail welding plants, continuous follow up is
being done at Railway Board level to undertake rail painting (zinc coating) at Bhailai Steel Plant
itself. Further, the problem of bio-corrosion mostly resulting into rail foot and web corrosion would
get addressed once 100 % bio-toilets are provided and become fully functional.

4.0 Choice of Right Rail:

As can be seen from the rail stress table, even for the existing freight operation of 22.9 t axle load
at 60 kmph, the rail stresses are within very thin margin of available strength of current 880 Grade.
Further, there are large number of approximation done in assuming the forces the track is
subjected to. For instance, the WILD data obtained do not support the limits of dynamic augment
assumed in the stress calculation and far exceed the values. Similarly, the other factors discussed
in the preceding para further lead to enhanced stresses. Furthermore, IR envisages operations
of 25 t axle loads upto 100 kmph which as such requires use of higher strength rails. The
statement by the expert team belonging to faculty of University of Illinois, Chicago, US, given in
the final report of validity of rail stress evaluation by RDSO is worth stating as under-

As a point of comparison, the IR’s 880-MPa rail is of lower strength than even the
standard grade used in the United States. As such, and given the importance of
rail as an asset from both a safety and reliability point of view for IR’s operation of
both passenger and freight trains on the same infrastructure, TTT recommends
the use of higher strength rails.”

10 | P a g e
As regards rail section is concerned, the choice on a given railway system is driven by historical
reasons and many railway systems use rail sections developed in-house like IRS 52 kg section
on Indian Railways or 135 lb/yd on US railroads. However, in recent past due to quality reasons
and successful experience, the choice of rail section is becoming more universalized world over.
UIC 60 kg rail section is therefore one of the most used sections currently particularly on European
and Japanese Railroads. However many freight predominant railways do use heavier rail sections
e.g. RE-136 (~68 Kg/m), RE-141 (~71 kg/m), etc. Due to varying rail foot width and height, it is
considered more prudent to continue with the existing 60 kg section on IR.
For altering the choice of rail grades, some important grades developed world over as well the
ones being used predominantly world over are discussed as under:
IRS grade 880 Rail:
It is non heat treated rail with pearlitic microstructure manufactured as per Indian Railway
Standards (IRS) T-12. Mechanical properties of these rails are almost equal to those of R260
grade Rails manufactured as per EN 13674-1-2011 except that yield strength of IRS grade is 460
Mpa and for R260 the same is not specified.

IRS grade 1080 Cr Rail:

It is non heat treated rail with pearlitic microstructure manufactured with Chromium added in the
range of 0.8 to 1.2 % to enhance corrosion resistant properties as per Indian Railway Standards
T-12. Mechanical properties of these rails are improved in terms of ultimate tensile strength being
min of 1080 Mpa, Yield strength being 560 Mpa and hardness improving to min of 320 BHN but
with slightly lower elongation of 9%. This grade is equivalent to R 320 Cr grade as per EN
specifications which has somewhat lower fracture toughness than IRS 880 Grade rails. These
rails have not been very popular due to challenges faced in developing satisfactory welding
technology.

IRS grade 1080 HH Rail:

This is a head hardened (HH) grade achieved through the same metallurgy as that of 880 grade
as per Indian Railway Standards T-12. Mechanical properties of these rails are improved in terms
ultimate tensile strength being min of 1080 Mpa and hardness improving to min of 340 BHN.
Though the elongation remains same at 10 % as for 880 Grade but there is no improvement in
yield strength which remains to be min of 460 Mpa, as that of 880 grade. This grade can be
equated to R 350 HT as per EN specification except the fact that R 350 HT is not a merely head
hardened rail but a heat treated one in which besides improving the hardness, microstructure also
gets refined leading to improvement in yield strength and fracture toughness.

Rail grade R260:

It is non heat treated rail with pearlitic microstructure but ferrite may occur. These rails are in
accordance with EN 13674-1-2011. Mechanical properties of these rails are almost equal to those
of Grade 880 rail (As per IRST- 12-2009). It is important to note that unlike IRS 880 grade rail,
the metallurgy of R260 is cleaner as non-metallic content of Nitrogen is limited to 0.010 % against
no restriction in IRS 880 grade. The Hydrogen content by most European manufacturers is aimed
at 2.5 PPM against 1.6 PPM stipulated by IRS T-12, however, there is no issue with most

11 | P a g e
manufacturers to produce these rails with 1.6 PPM Hydrogen content as claimed by them.
Further, EN specification does not stipulate minimum yield strength for R260 grade but the limited
measurement has shown the same to be in excess of 500 Mpa. This is the most used grade on
European railway system as manufactured by all leading rail manufacturers of the world.

R350HT Grade:
This is a heat treated rail grade in accordance with EN13674-1 and is a fine pearlitic with minimum
hardness of 350BHN. These rails are available in nearly 100 different profiles and are produced
in lengths of up to 120m. All sections of R350HT rail grade are available according to EN, AREMA
as well as other standards and specification. From mechanical properties point of view, this rail
grade provides a minimum UTS of 1175 Mpa, improved fracture toughness of 30 min single (MS)
value and 32 min avg (MA) value against 26 (MS) & 29 (MA) of IRS 880 grade. The grade has
been found to have upto 3 times higher RCF and wear resistance and therefore is getting more
popular on both heavy haul and high speed routes internationally compared to R260 grade.
Though the EN specification does not stipulate yield strength, the details obtained from some of
the plant manufacturers in Europe have shown it to be in excess of 700 Mpa due to improved
microstructure through heat treatment process.

R350LHT Grade:
This rail grade is also produced in accordance with EN13674-1. Mechanical properties of this rail
grade are similar to those for R350HT but with lower fracture toughness. Hence, From mechanical
properties point of view, this rail grade is similar to 1080 HH given in IRS-T-12-2009 with better
UTS (1175 against 1080) but lower % elongation (9 against 10) and lower fracture toughness.

R370CrHT Grade:
This is alloy (1%Cr) rail. R370CrHT rail grade is produced in accordance with EN13674-1. From
mechanical properties point of view, this rail grade is similar to 1080 HH given in IRS-T-12-2009
with better UTS (1280 against 1080) but lower % elongation (9 against 10) and lower fracture
toughness. As discussed earlier, the weldability of chromium rails remain a challenge restricting
these grades to be popular internationally.

R400HT Grade:
R400HT rail grade in accordance with EN13674-1 is a fine pearlitic heat treated rail grade with
minimum hardness of 400BHN. M/s Voestalpine manufacture this hyper-eutectoide steel grade
through its worldwide patented HSH® process under the brand 400UHC HSH®, following a special
metallurgical approach. The rails which are produced in lengths of up to 120m are available in
numerous different rail sections of various standards and specifications. From mechanical
properties point of view, this rail grade is similar to 1080 HH given in IRS-T-12-2009 with better
UTS (1280 against 1080) and hardness (400 against 340) but lower % elongation (9 against 10)
without any improvement in facture toughness being 26 MS value and 29 MA value, as that of
IRS 880 grade.

12 | P a g e
Rail Grade HP335:
It is a pearlitic high carbon non heat treated rail grade apparently a propriety of Tata Steel (now
British Steel) that is specially aimed at increasing the resistance of the rail steel to key degradation
mechanisms of wear, rolling contact fatigue and plastic deformation. Though the grade has higher
UTS of 1150 Mpa, min yield strength of 600 Mpa but have lower elongation of 7 %. The hardness
is improved at min of 330 BHN. The fracture toughness is 26 MS value and 29 MA value, as that
of IRS 880 grade. These rails are reported to be used on about 800 kms of Network Rail as a
trial.

Rail Grade MHH:

It is also a high carbon, high hardness and heat treated propriety grade developed by British Steel
for high wear resistance and to address plastic deformation and severe wear conditions when
used on heavy haul tracks with axle loads up to and above 32.5 t/axle. As per the information
available through discussion with international experts on the subject, this grade has been used
as trial in tight curves in heavy haul conditions on Dutch network and has demonstrated its
resistance to RCF. The manufacturer of this grade claims the unique attribute of relieving the
residual stresses present in the rails due to cooling and straightening operations as part of the
rolling process. It is claimed that these rails do not require roller straightening after heat treatment
and favorable residual stresses are retained. The details on weldability and acceptability to be
used as cost effective regular rail grade for this grade are not readily available.

HH340 and HH370 Deep Head Hardened rails as per JISE1120-2007:

Nippon Steel, Japan has developed Deep Head Hardened (DHH) rails HH340 and HH370. UTS
of theses rails are almost similar to 1080 HH given in IRS-T-12-2009 with lesser ductility with
minimum elongation at 8%. Running surface hardness of these rails is also in the range of that
of 1080 HH grade of IRS-T-12-2009 with added advantage that they have more uniform hardness
and fine uniform pearlitic microstructure over the entire rail head section. Consequently, DHH rails
retain high hardness and strength deep in to the rail head. During trials these rails have particularly
been found effective in preventing Gauge corner defects in high rails on curves. Other details e.g.
weldability, propriety issues, etc are not readily available.

Rail Grade B320:

This is a low carbon (0.15-0.25%) steel with a composition designed to yield a carbide free
microstructure comprising upper *bainite and retained austenite upon natural cooling following
hot rolling. It is said to have improved resistance to surface cracking by fatigue and rail wear,
tougher and more ductile than pearlitic rails, higher proof stress, reduced wheel wear, enhanced
rail life requiring less frequent rail grinding. These rails are not known to be wear resistant and
considered to be much costlier than pearlitic rails.

13 | P a g e
Grade B360:
It is a slightly higher carbon version (0.25%-0.35%) of the B320 grade with a composition
designed to yield a carbide free microstructure comprising upper *bainite and retained austenite
upon natural cooling following hot rolling. The slightly higher hardness provides increased
resistance to wear compared to grade B320 while maintaining the RCF resistance performances.
The superior RCF resistance of B360 has been demonstrated in several trial sites in France,
Switzerland and Germany. From 2012, all moveable point frogs that equipped the HSL in France
for speeds up to 320 Km/h are equipped with B360 points and counterpoints, with a life span
multiplied by 3 of these components with associated reduced maintenance costs.

*As per the interaction done with experts on the subject, Bainitic rails are not part of any of the leading rail
specifications of world railways so far. These rails have mostly been used on trial basis in Germany, France
and Switzerland. There appears to be no world wide regular adoption of these rails so far therefore cannot
be considered for immediate use on IR. For some of the major apparent advantages this rail may offer over
pearlitic rails, RDSO has taken up a project on development of Bainitic Rails in association with IIT
Kharagpur under Center for Railway Research (CRR).
Based on the detailed discussion above, details of properties of some of the important grades
discussed above are tabulated below for easy comparison:
Table-8

880 Gr
Properties (IR) R260 R350HT R400HT R320Cr B320 B360 HP335 MHH

Ultimate Tensile
880 979-998 1175 1280 1080 1095 1200 1150 1280
Strength in MPa
(not (Not (Not
Yield Strength in stipulated) stipulated) stipulated)
460 Not given 800 850 600 800
MPa (Minimum) Found found found
470-510 above 700 above 700
Percentage
Elongation (%) 10 10-Dec 9 9 9 14 13 7 12
(Minimum)
Running surface
Hardness in BHN 260 284-290 350-390 400-440 320-360 320 360 330-375 375
(Minimum)
Fracture 26 min
Toughness in Single 26 MS, 29 26 MS, 35
26 MS, 29 30 MS, 32 26 MS, 29 24 MS, 26 26 MS, 35 Not
MPa√m Value, 29 MA MA)
MA MA MA MA MA Given
(at -20 Degree Min Mean
Celsius) Value
250 250 ˂50
Residual stress
(As per 250 (As or
(MPa) (Maximum) 250 MPa as 167-219 (As per EN 250 as per
EN per EN 121 230 compressi
20 mm slice as per IRS T-12 as per EN standards) EN
standards) standards) ve
per EN

Hydrogen Content
in liquid steel in
Tundish or Mould 1.6 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 1.6 NA ˂ 2.5 ˂1.6
in ppm
(Maximum)
British British Vostalpine British
Some of the
BSP-SAIL, Steel, Steel, Steel, British British British British
manufacturers of
JSPL Vostalpine, Vostalpine, Vostalpine, Steel Steel Steel Steel
Grade
Nippon Nippon Nippon

14 | P a g e
Possible Rail Choices for IR:
From the rail grade comparative table-8, Grade MHH developed by British steel emerges
apparently as the most appropriate choice to address the issues currently being faced but also
would serve the future axle loads & speeds. However, due to being a propriety item and having
not been proven in substantial lengths over world railway system, the choice contains huge risks
in terms of cost and usability in IR conditions. Similar is the issue with other premium grades
which are either propriety items or yet not been proven substantially or both. These grades can
at best be put on trial to see their effectiveness in long term on life cycle cost basis.
IR needs to have a rail that is well proven abroad in substantial length of tracks for the axle loads
and speeds IR is currently supporting and plan to support in next 10-15 years. Except small
quantities, import is also not a solution as it would mean taking delivery in short lengths which
increases the joints in track and is not an advisable option for track maintainability perspective.
Therefore, there needs to be a rail grade that can be produced indigenously in long lengths.
Viewing all these factors, R350HT emerges as one of the most appropriate choices which is being
produced by many of the current leading rail manufacturers and does not contain any propriety
technology behind it. The mechanical properties offered by this grade are in line with IR current
as well as future requirement. Slight loss of ductility as represented by 9% elongation is well taken
care by improved fracture toughness this grade offers. Furthermore, the lower bending or higher
stiffness of the rail augers well for undergoing less rail deflection for the same load, reducing
bending stresses. This rail grade is well established for offering much improved resistance to
RCF and wear (claimed to be as high as 3 times of R260 or 880 Grade). IR vision for going for
high speed and heavier axle load operations would not be possible to be sustained safely without
using rails offering high resistance to rolling contact fatigue as both high axle load freight stock
and higher yaw stiffness of high speed passenger stocks are known for initiating rolling contact
defects.

5.0 Technological Constraints & Throughput of Operations:

Though this section may appear to be out of context but considered relevant as the throughput
on IR is directly affected not only due to the existing load bearing capacity of track structure but
also other issues related to rolling stock design and maintenance imparting higher stresses
leading to increased failures. Until 2005-06 IR had been carrying out operations at 20.32 t axle
load successfully which is taken care adequately by the existing track structure. As the
understanding on residual stress has developed rather recently now facilitating rail stress
evaluation in a more authentic manner, need of more robust track infrastructure and rail is well
established. Accordingly, IR has already taken steps in terms of introducing wider sleeper
designed for 25 t axle load with improved rail pad of 10 mm thickness having impact attenuation
properties, going for welded CMS crossing and proliferation of Thick Web Switches, inducting
improved SEJs etc. For shifting to use of higher strength rail on IR, matter has been zealously
taken up by Railway Board authorities with Ministry of Steel so that Bhiali Steel Plant can start
rolling the same at the earliest.

15 | P a g e
Until all the requisite elements of track structure become reality in field, supporting vision of IR to
run 25 t axle load at 100 kmph, there is need to view the operational advantage in running 20.32
t axle loads (CC) trains at speed of 90 kmph which the current rail grade can support. Advantage
in discharge (throughput) by running this combination can be easily assessed from the simple
calculation as given in table-9 below:
Table-9
Axle Load (t) Speed Discharge % gain % gain % gain
(kmph) (tonne km/hr) w.r.t 22.9 t w.r.t 22.9 t w.r.t 25 t at
(Axle Load x at 75 at 60 50 kmph
Speed) kmph kmph
25 50 1250 - - -
22.9 60 1374 - - 9.9%
(CC+8+2)
22.9 75 1717.5 - 25% 37.4%
20.32 (CC) 90 1828.8 6.5% 33% 46.3 %

Operating CC at 90 kmph is not only helpful in improving upon the very high asset failures but
also provides the improved throughput. The reduction in track vehicle dynamics is going to help
both fixed as well as moving infrastructure owners in terms of improved maintainability. The
increase in the speed of freight operations is going to improve the average speed of goods train
on IR which in turn would substantially improve the overall efficiency of the system.

4.0 Conclusion & Recommendations:

4.1 IR aims to speed up 22.9 t axle load freight trains (CC+8+2) to 100 kmph now and 25t
axle load trains at 100 kmph in future. The permissible strength of 60 kg, 880 Grade rails
in use at present restricts operation of CC+8+2 at 60 kmph.
4.2 Besides the limiting strength of current rail grade, there are many other factors which
cause additional stresses in rails resulting in high rate of rail failures despite sustained
renewal of track and rail infrastructure year after year. These factors exist in the form of
limitations in rolling stock & track design and their maintenance. Even the monitoring
protocol e.g. WILD, Weigh Bridges, etc are not in sufficient numbers or being not put in
use with requisite discipline.
4.3 IR has taken many steps to upgrade the track structure for future needs e.g. improving the
sleeper into wider & heavier designed for 25 t loading, proliferation of Thick Web Switches,
Introduction of Welded CMS Crossing, Improved SEJs, etc.
4.4 There is need to replace the existing rail grade with a higher strength one not only to cover
the gap in strength for existing operations but also for future loading of 25 t axle load to be
run at 100 kmph and high speed passenger operation at 160 kmph and beyond.

16 | P a g e
4.5 A number of high strength grades of rail have been developed world over some of which
are well proven and do not attach issues e.g. propriety, proveness, weldability, high cost,
etc and can successfully be adopted on Indian Railways based on international experience
so far. R 350 HT grade manufactured as per EN specification is one such grade that has
very high possibility to be manufactured indigenously in long lengths bringing over all
suitability for IR needs.
4.6 IR needs to address the long standing design issues related to rolling stock and track as
per international norms and also put state of art monitoring mechanism in place so that
design limits taken into consideration are not exceeded even if high strength rails are put
in use.
4.7 In the interim, to contain the high asset failures, merit of running 20.32 t axle load (CC)
can also be explored which may result into higher throughput as well as improving overall
network speed on IR.

17 | P a g e
References:
1. Engineering Analysis of Stresses in Railroad Rails, PB82-129610 by Federal Railroad
Administration, USA
2. Review of Rail Stress Technical Report for the Indian Railways – by Transport
Technology Transfer Inc., Chicago, US
3. Effect of Heavy Axle Load on Track, Proceeding of 12th Annual Railroad Engineering
Conference by Department of Transportation, FRA, USA
4. Development and Evaluation of Rail Steel Grade for damage restraint to High Rail in
curve section by Yoshikazu Kanematsu, et al. QR of RTRI, Vol. 58.

18 | P a g e