Government of India

Ministry of Railways

AGENDA
SEMINAR OF

CHIEF BRIDGE ENGINEERS

20th & 21st September, 2012

Indian Railways Institute of Civil Engineering

Pune

AGENDA OF CBEs SEMINAR AT IRICEN/PUNE

20th & 21st September, 2012
INDEX

S.No.

Contents

Page No.

Review of last years agenda items in ref. to

Railway Boards orders

24

Agenda of CBEs Seminar Sept. 2012

2

Policy / Guidelines

56

Construction of PSC/Composite/Steel Bridges

67

Inspection / Maintenance of Bridges

7 10

Design / Drawings

11 15

ROBs / RUBs

15 17

Pathway / Man Refuge

Manpower Planning / Training / Cadre

General

18
18 20
20

REVIEW OF AGENDA ITEMS DISCUSSED IN

CBEs SEMINAR HELD ON 8TH & 9TH NOVEMBER, 2011
IRICEN

1(e)

Provision of permeability test as per clause 5.4.2 of concrete bridge code

5.4.2 Permeability :
5.4.2.1 One of the main characteristics influencing the durability of any
concrete is its permeability. Therefore, tests for permeability shall be carried
out for concrete bridges as recommended in clause.
5.4.2.2. With Strong, dense aggregates, a suitably low permeability is achieved
by having a sufficiently low water-cement ratio, by ensuring as thorough
compaction of the concrete as possible and by ensuring sufficient hydration of
cement through proper curing methods. Therefore, for given aggregates, the
cement content should be sufficient to provide adequate workability with a low
water-cement ratio so that concrete can be completely compacted by vibration.
Test procedure for penetration measuring permeability has been given in
Appendix-G. The depth of penetration of moisture shall not exceed 25mm.
5.4.2.2 : Permeability test :
i) Permeability test shall be mandatory for all RCC/PSC bridges under severe,
very severe and extreme environment.
ii) Under mild and moderate environment, permeability test shall be mandatory
for all major bridges and for other bridges permeability test is desirable to the
extent possible.
iii) Permeability test is required for RCC/PSC structural element only .
Issue
Permeability test is mandatory for PSC/RCC structures except for minor
bridges in moderate environment. The criteria given is that depth of penetration
of water shall not exceed 25 mm. This limit is irrespective of environment
condition and grade of concrete. Normally criteria get satisfied for concrete of
higher strength bus fails for low strength concrete. CBE,s may share
experience and discuss whether limit of depth of penetration should be based
on environment condition.

SR

2(e)

Schedule of Camber recording

As per IRBM 1998 para No.1107 (5), Camber measurements are recording
once in a year. At present, almost all bridges have been rebuilt/replaced with
PSC girders during Gauge conversion. Due to this, maintenance of PSC
workload is increased drastically mainly due to camber.
2

Hence, it is suggested that the schedule of camber measurements may

be increased to once in three years instead of once in a year.
SCR

4(a)

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 4500 mm which is not sufficient
for BCM cutter bar and its associated parts to pass through in working
condition. Moreover, many existing ballasted bridges are having barrel length
less than 4500mm. 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 maintaining a precision while operating the machine over a bridge
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:
i)

All minor bridges barrel length has to be increased to minimum

4300mm + space for movement of the person on either side i.e.
600mm on each side.
ii) All new bridges have to be planned with a minimum barrel length of
5500mm
iii) 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).
iv) 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
v) Definite policy of passing the cables through the bridge, provision of
duct beyond minimum specified width for BCM working.
There is a need to discuss the matter and detailed instructions shall be issued
by RDSO.
NCR

4(g)

Guidelines for proof-checking of design / drawings

As such there are no clear guidelines/procedure to be adopted for proof
checking of design/drawings submitted by outside agencies for railway
approval. At present, as a token of proof-check, the person only signs the
design calculation/drawing. Different Railways are following their own practice
in this regard. RDSO may issue a unified guideline for proof checking of
design/drawing incorporating criteria of fixing of various proof-checking
agencies, their accountability/credibility etc. These guidelines should specify
reverse calculation as must for bridge works wherever possible.
3

SER

4(h)

Standard design of RCC box on curved track

RDSO has issued standard type of design for RCC box for various sizes with
varying depth of fill for DFC and 25 ton loading vide drawing No.B-10151 and
B-10152. 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. Generally,
additional centrifugal force due to curvature effect on curve track is taken into
consideration while designing any bridge structure on curve track. RDSO may
exercise on above standard drawings considering additional centrifugal force
due to curvature effect to make fit above drawings for curve 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.

AGENDA OF CBEs SEMINAR AT IRICEN ON

20th & 21st September, 2012
1.

Policy / Guidelines

SER

(a)

Standard design of RCC box on curve track

RDSO has issued standard type of design for RCC box 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. Generally, additional centrifugal force due to curvature
effect on curve track is taken into consideration while designing any bridge
structure on curve track. RDSO may exercise on above standard drawings
considering additional centrifugal force due to curvature effect to make fit
above drawings for curve 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.

SCR

(b)

Railway Board direction regarding no charges for Metro Crossings

In South Central Railway, Hyderabad Metro Rail Limited ( HMRL ) is crossing
the Railway track at several locations with the large spans varying from 50 to
80m or more over Railway boundary. Each crossing may cost not less than Rs.
5.0 crores.
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 there is no inspection and maintenance charges
or plan and development charges be levied on the Metro Railways by Zonal
Railways.
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.
Hence, it needs to deliberate the issue on such cases on safety and
supervision aspects and levy of charges.

CR

(c)

Adaptation of steel superstructure of bridges for all spans of ROB/RUBs

As per Railway Boards 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
5

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, it is
recommended that same should be used for ROBs in spans over Railway
portion.
2.

CONSTRUCTION OF PSC / COMPOSITE / STEEL BRIDGES

SECR

(a)

Guideline for CI Carrier Pipe for Electrical Crossing

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.

SECR

(b)

Strengthening / Rehabilitation work of all FT, Arches, Rail Opening

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. In general, new line (3 rd line) being
constructed to become a directional line whereas the existing directional line
becomes single line and becomes MID line between two unidirectional lines.
This point is being raised by CRS/SE Circle, Kolkata during his previous
inspections.

SER

(c)

Influence of higher loading on existing minor bridges due to minimum

track center for doubling projects
Due to minimum track centers for doubling projects dealt by Construction
organization and RVNL, most of the existing minor bridges for BGML/RBG
6

loading standards are getting influenced for 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.
NCR

(d)

Suitabilty of NP4 pipes in pushing case

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.
Discussion is invited on the issue.

SR

(e)

Designing of water way in tidal reaches

There is no guideline for designing the waterway in Tidal/Backwater reaches.
This Railway was asked by RDSO, to approach CWPRS/Pune to conduct
model study in Tidal Reaches to standardize the waterway calculation method.
In turn, they 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, instead they have stated that individual cases to be
studied with model to calculate the waterway. Hence suitable guideline may
please be issued.

3.

INSPECTION / MAINTENANCE OF BRIDGES

NFR

(a)

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 (lateral bracings are not that much effective). It is better if
lateral bracings are of heavier section. Experience of other railways may be
discussed.

ER

(b)

Use of Grade-B steel in open line for maintenance work

As per IRS B-1 2001, para no.8 this Railway should use steel of IS : 2062 GrB. 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 like plates. To get rolled sections of Gr-B
quality of one item, a sufficient quantity is required and to be ordered to the
firms, in such cases time for availability of the materials remains indefinite. In
open line, the requirement of one specific sized angle or channel or joist is very
very small varying upto 17/18 M.T., which is abnormally low than the stipulated
minimum quantity required for the firms to take the order for rolling/supply of
7

these materials. Therefore, 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.
This actually contradicts the codal provision and also invites vigilance but no
other options are left than using it for maintenance work.
Constructions can use if one bridge can have sufficient quantity to place order
to a firm of reputation.
Hence, RDSO need to look after this aspect in view of the small requirement of
the rolled sections of Gr-B and prescribe a way out.
SCR

(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. Moreover, many existed ballasted bridges are having barrel
length less than 4500mm. 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.

There is a need to discuss the matter and detailed instructions shall be issued
8

SWR

(d)

by RDSO.
Year of construction in case of Strengthening of arch bridges/ Jacketting
of bridges
There are number of works for strengthening of bridges such as construction of
RCC curved box in the arch bridges and Jacketting of foundations & substructure etc. which are in progress on the entire Indian Railways particularly in
view of introducing 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.
Forum may deliberate on this issue.

SWR

(e)

Maintenance of steel girder bridges by SSE/P.Way or SSE/Works

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.
The maintenance of the girder bridges includes the technical inspection such
as inspection of welds/rivets/bearings/structural members of girders including
periodical greasing of bearings, painting of girders, replacement of corroded
rivets, replacement of corroded rail bearers etc., which are quite important
activities.
On SWR, there are some big major bridges of 17 spans of 9.14m 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 knowhow to do all the maintenance activities as stated in the above paras. As such,
the girder bridges of less than 12.20m span are not being maintained upto the
mark actually in the field.
9

This Railway proposes that at least all major and important girder bridges
including less than 12.20m should be kept under SSE/Bridges for better
maintenance.
Forum may deliberate on this issue.
SCR

(f)

Separation of welding of end bearing stiffener in bottom flange portion of

welded plate girder Bridges
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 on this railway in more than one
span in different bridges and in a shorter service life, therefore, a doubt has
arisen whether:
The said welding is a structural requirement or it can be dispensed with.
The possibility of providing riveted connection to the bearing stiffeners,
similar to the other stiffeners using counter sunk rivets. This will need
modification in the existing RDSOs approved drawing and this job may not
be practicable in the field as the modification is only possible outside the
running track.
Whether any remedial measure is required at the locations where such
cracks have appeared or it can be allowed to continue by keeping the
bridge under observation.
Remedial measure which is feasible under running track.
It is appropriate to mention that vide clause No. 15.4.1 of IRS welded bridge
code that Fillet welds at the right angles to the line of the principal stresses in
a plate subjected to tension shall be avoided in dynamically loaded structures.
And probably this might be the reason for not connecting the outstanding leg of
the bearing stiffeners to the bottom and top flanges in case of riveted girders
where they are only snug fitted.

10

4.

DESIGN / DRAWINGS

SECR

(a)

Sufficient end Gaps between two plate girder in RDSO ROB drawings
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.

SER

(b)

Standard design of triple span RCC box

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 RDSOs 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.

NCR

(c)

Suitabilty of RDSO standard single RCC Box drawing for Double track
In the R.D.S.O. Drawing no. RDSO/B-10154 of RCC Double Box Culvert for
DFC loading standard, it has 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. R.D.S.O. is requested to check the
suitability of RCC Single Box Culvert for double track also. It may also be
specified the minimum distance between the tracks along with fill height
applicable.

NFR

(d)

The mechanical properties of structural steel issued by RDSO against GADs of

ROB relates to Fe 410W conforming to IS 2062. Drawing with higher grade
such as Fe540 my be advantageous. This aspect needs to be examined.

NFR

(e)

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.
In order to overcome the aforesaid difficulty, it is proposed to use equal angles
having identical properties against unequal angles as approved by RDSO in
their drawings. As such, adoption of equivalent section of equal angles against
unequal angles having similar properties may be incorporated in the respective
drawings issued earlier.
11

NFR

(f)

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. This may be discussed and
considered.

SR

(g)

Uniform Policy for Metro Crossings from Design Point of view:

Railway board have issued uniform Policy for Metro Railway Crossings over
existing Railway tracks vide letter no. 2011/Proj/SCR/9/8 dt.22.03.12 issued by
Executive Director/Works (Plg)./Railway Board.
Para 7 of the Boards letter states that the involvement of Zonal Railway would
only be at the level of approving the GAD and for Joint Inspection. Hence no
inspection and maintenance charges to be levied on the Metro Railways by
Zonal Railways.
There are no guidelines from B&S Directorate which permit the Zonal Railway
to skip the approval of Design and Drawings of Metro Crossings. Factual
position to be deliberated.

CR

(h)

Standard design & drawings for FOBs with single or two columns in
between the track
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 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.

CR

(i)

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.
RDSO Drg. No.B/10402/1 for FOB
RDSO has issued the roofing arrangement with tubular structure in which size
of the weld is proposed 3 mm only which is not suitable for coastal areas due
to heavy corrosion and thickness of most of the tubular section is having 4 mm
only. This may be reviewed or suitable guidelines may be issued in this
regard.
12

SWR

(j)

Standard Designs of Superstructure of ROBs

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 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. RDSO may issue details regarding minimum and maximum shifting
possible of the girders in each design so that proper carriageway is
obtained by requisite re-spacing of the girders.
As per Railway Boards 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. Now since there
is a demand for PSC girders for which IRC drawings are available for
various spans but without skew, RDSO may issue drawings for PSC girders
with different skew angles. Also, now a days, trend is to construct
expressways etc. for which demand is to cross the tracks at whatever angle
it comes as nobody wants to introduce S-curves on both the ends to reduce
skew. Hence RDSO may also think in terms of issuing drawings of both
composite and PSC upto skew angle of 50-60 degrees.

Likewise similar drawings may be issued for subways also for various skew
angles (as on date Drawing nos. RDSO/B-10153 and M/00008 are available).
CR

(k)

Design of Skew Girders

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.

WCR

(l)

Structural drawing for skew composite girder (ROB)

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.

13

SWR

(m)

Standard designs of Arch top RCC boxes for Strengthening of Arch

Bridges
Lot of Arch Bridges across the entire 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.

WCR

(n)

LHS Construction
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

WCR

(o)

Haunch size in Standard drawing for LHS & RCC Box

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

WCR

(p)

Standard drawing for FOB

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.
1
2

RDSO Drg. No.

RDSO/B-10401 to 10401/7
RDSO/B 10402 to 10402/7

Span
25.2m
25.2m

Depth of girder
0.8m
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.
WCR

(q)

Provision of Footpath on plate girders

As per instruction of Board footpath is to be provided on Major & important
bridges. On Welded plate girders standard drawings of footpath may be issued
by RDSO.

14

SCR

(r)

Design of ballast less PSC slabs for replacing the small span shallow
type girders
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.

5.

ROBs / RUBs

SECR

(a)

Construction of ROBs in lieu of Unmanned Level Crossings at the cost of

Railway
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.

NFR

(b)

To provide clear height of 4.0m for road vehicles in a RUB, height difference of
rail level and road level should be 5.2 metres. In most of the places height of
bank is much less. What can be done to provide a RUB in such cases.
Various options which are being adopted in different railways may be
discussed.

SR

(c)

Increase in width of carriageway for the ROBs in National Highways

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 Bds 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. It is to be clarified, 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.

CR

(d)

Sharing cost of four-laning/widening of ROB/RUB

As per Railway Boards 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
15

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.
CR

(e)

Review of maintenance charges of ROB/RUB

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, Boards letter of 98/CE-I/Misc.
(14)/BRO dated 28.02.2002. Now vide letter No.98/CE-I/Misc.(14)/BRO dt.
10.07.2012 used to be taken.
Now as per 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
in case of ROB/RUB sanction 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. Since, large nos. of
ROB/RUBs are already existing, Railways can easily calculate actual
maintenance cost incurred on these ROBs/RUBs and derive the reasonable
cost of maintenance to be levied in case of ROBs/RUBs proposed to be
constructed on deposit term.
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.

CR

(f)

Guidelines for Box Pushing Technology

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.

SCR

(g)

Construction of Limited Height Subways in lieu of Level Crossings with

approach coverings
The railway is planning for Limited Height Subways in lieu of Level Crossings
with approach coverings where the bank height is limited say 2.0m to 2.5m and
at the locations where natural drainage facility is not available, but such
16

solution results in enormous requirement of land. The water which is collected

through seepage and other ways can be diverted to the percolation pits or
nearby drains. It is suggested that the experiences gained by the various
railways so far for LHS are discussed in this forum, so that the problems being
faced by different railways get highlighted and also some uniform solutions
may be found.
SCR

(h)

Use of viaduct on approaches of ROB in Railway portion

As per Railway Boards 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 concessionaires agreement etc.,

SWR

(i)

Diversion of existing road for construction of ROB

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 Boards
guidelines and there is hardly a difference of about 3% of the cost in railways
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.
In this context, practices followed on other railways may be discussed in the
forum.

6.

PATHWAY / MAN REFUGE

17

ER

(a)

Provision of Man Refuge and Trolley Refuge and foot path in Plate
Girders Deck Type Bridges of Multiple spans
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. Therefore, it is not possible to provide Man refuge,
Trolley refuge in multiple spans of Deck type plate girder bridges as top flange
is to be drilled for fixing channels/RSJs etc.
Similarly, provision of foot path in these bridges becomes a problem. Normally,
there always remains a demand from the nearer localities to provide footpath.
In some bridges footpaths are already provided in riveted type plate girders but
regirdering of these bridges are to be done by Welded girders without
footpaths. This results into agitation amongst the neighbourhood inhabitants.
Thus, it is necessary to think of a solution for provision of Man Refuge and
Trolley Refuge and foot path in Plate Girders Deck Type Bridges of Multiple
spans.

7.

MANPOWER PLANNING / TRAINING / CADRE

SR

(a)

Bridge cadre to be brought under Safety Category

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.

SR

(b)

Imparting NDT training for BRIs through RDSO / Lucknow

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

18

ER

(c)

Newly recruited SSE/Brs and JE/Brs Leaving Railways after joining or not
reporting
It has been experienced that newly recruited SSE/Brs and JE/Brs are leaving
Railways after joining within a few months. On ER, in 2009, out of 17 candidates
who were appointed as JE/Br, only 2 candidates joined in this railway, others did
not even reported. Out of two JE/Brs who joined, one remained absent after 2
days after reporting and other candidate also left. Further, a panel of 15 nos are
under process with RRB.
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. Non joining or non reporting of candidates in this
cadre will create a void in this category after retiring of the seniors. 18 SE/SSE/Brs
will retire by 2023 out of existing total of 36 nos. If such scenario continues then
the future of the bridge of the bridge unit will be very much alarming as transfer of
knowledge will not there to share to sufficient number of supervisors.
Therefore, this is high time to look into this aspect so that candidates join and
remain in Railways and the future of Bridge unit remains integrated.

CR

(d)

Incentive for Design Assistants

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

SCR

(e)

Removal of anomaly in initial training period for directly recruited JE

(Bridges)
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

19

basis of Railway Boards circular mentioned above.

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.
SCR

(f)

Yard stick for the Bridge Organization

As it can be sensed, in coming days the bridges are to be strengthened and rebuilt
as per 25T axle load and also keeping in view old age of most of the bridges. 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, basing upon definite predefined norms. Hence, Yard stick for
maintenance of PSC girder bridges are required to be prepared.

8.

GENERAL ISSUES

NR

(a)

Bridge Statistics
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 Railways. Some of the prevalent practices for numbering of bridges are
illustrated below:i)

ii)

iii)
iv)

In double line/ multiple lines, bridge is numbered based on the line passing
over that bridge i.e. up line/ dn. line/ third line/ yard line etc. Hence it is not
clear whether it has to be considered as one bridge (for statistics purpose) or
equivalent to no. of lines.
It has been noticed that in some sections bridges have been numbered in
ascending order within a kilometer i.e 1481/1. 1481/2 & so on. Bridges in the
next kilometer have similarly been numbered as 1482/1, 1482/2 & so on. This
practice is similar to that being adopted for Road Bridges.
There are examples where bridge nos. has started in ascending order from a
junction station/ AENs jurisdiction/ IOWs jurisdiction etc. also.
While constructing new lines, again bridge numbering may be very
subjective, i.e. some time a new series may be adopted or old series may be
continued.

In view of the above ambiguity, clear guidelines are required on the following
issues:1)
2)

Uniform policy for type of structures qualifying as bridge.

Number system for bridges so that accurate bridge statistics is available

20

21