556

STEADY-STATE MOTION OF RAILWAY VEHICLES

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

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

of
A SIGNIFICANT PROPORTION the total length of track on a
railway system is composed of curved track. It is therefore
important that the dynamical behaviour of vehicles tra-
versing curves be understood, both for assessing the per-
formance of existing vehicles and for defining the design
requirements of future vehicles.
A problem which has received the attention of many
authors is that of the steady motion through curves of
constant curvature. The customary analytical approach-
see, for instance, references (I)+ (2) (3)-is based on the
view that the outer flange of the leading wheelset bears
against the side of the outer rail, so that the vehicle is
guided round curves by lateral forces acting on the flange.
Theories founded on flange guidance usually assume that
the wheels act as though cylindrical and that axles are
rigidly constrained parallel to each other. These assump-
tions, particularly the second, are frequently justified
when applied to many existing vehicles, and the observed
behaviour on curves often agrees well with the idea of
guidance by the leading flange. However, an alternative
approach to curve traversing may be developed; this is
based on the concept of avoiding flange contact.
The possibility of guidance without flange contact
follows from a recognition of the strong guiding forces
acting in the contact area between wheel tread and rail.
These forces, termed creep forces, are generated as a
result of micro-slip in conjunction with wheel conicity.
It has been shown theoretically in (4) and experimentally
in ( 5 ) that, in the absence of excessive constraints, creep
forces cause the wheelsets to take up approximately radial
The M S . of this paper was received at the Institution on 12th
December 1968 and accepted for publication on.3rdJune 1969. 22
* Head of Suspension Section, Advanced Projects Group, British
Railways Board, The Railway Technical Centre, London Road,
Derby.
t References are given in Appendix 2.
J O U R N A L MECHANICAL ENGINEERING SCIENCE
Flange contact and its associated forces are avoided, since
steady-state force equilibrium can be attained by balancing
the yaw restraining couples and unbalanced centrifugal
forces by longitudinal and lateral creep forces.
Curve traversing under the control of creep forces has
the attractive advantages of minimizing wear of treads,
flanges, and rails; also, the risk of derailment due to flange
climbing is diminished. The scope of creep force guidance,
however, is limited by the coefficient of friction between
wheel and rail. Excessive suspension stiffnesses or high
centrifugal forces demand resultant creep forces greater
than the limiting friction force. I n consequence, the wheels
slip, correct alignment of axles is lost, and the mode of
guidance degenerates, requiring flange forces to restore
equilibrium.
I n the following, a linear analysis is developed to
describe the approximate behaviour of a bogie vehicle on
curved track; the two-axled vehicle is treated as a reduc-
tion of the general case. The analysis is simplified by dis-
regarding small effects such as wheelset roll, gravitational
stiffness, and spin creepage. The bounds of the linear
theory are defined by the onset of wheel slip. Representa-
tive experimental results for a two-axled vehicle are
presented, tests being performed both on a laboratory
roller-rig and on the track.
Notation
a Semi-wheelbase.
ab Semi-distance between bogie centres.
a'h fa,.
e Eccentricity of body mass centre.
fllYf22 Longitudinal and lateral creep coeffiaents.
fx (1-%q2V11.
fv fm.
g Gravitational acceleration.
Vol I 1 No 6 196'4
 STEADY-STATE MOTION OF RAILWAY VEHICLES ON CURVED TRACK 557

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

Pure //
rolling k
line e
c
ceiire -line

rig. 1. Line diagram of bogie on curved track

JOURNAL MECHANICAL ENGINEERING SCIENCE Vol I 1 No 6 1969
558 D. BOOCOCK

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

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

to the leading bogie-frame by the secondary suspension is The increment is seen to vary directly with the differential
in wheel loads.
F,b = k,by*, . . . . (74
It now follows that the creepages a t the right- and left-
If it is assumed that the wheelset and suspension displace- hand wheels may be written as
ments are very small compared with the distance between
bogie centres, so that the vehicle body lies approximately
tangential to the track at its mid-length, the expression
for the secondary yaw suspension couple becomes
Ylr
Y11
= -(1+5q)/\y*/ro
= (1-+7)Ay*/ro YZI =
y2 -*-7
(13)
The corresponding longitudinal and lateral creep forces
are

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

T x , = -T,I = (1-6q2)f11~Y*/ro
Ta r =, ( I - - ; 4 ) 3 f 2 2 4 TVI = (1+Sdf224 } (14)
forces and couples developed by the other primary and It is evident that a difference in wheel loads causes an in-
secondary suspensions are similar in form to equations crease in longitudinal creepage at the lighter-loaded
(6) and (7). wheel and a decrease at the heavier-loaded wheel, until
Creep forces are associated with small relative velocities the associated creep forces are equal in magnitude but of
between wheel tread and rail. These velocities can be opposite sign. These forces are normally only slightly
accommodated without slip, owing to elastic deformations lower than those for equal wheel loads. In contrast,
in the contact zone, which permit conditions intermediate lateral creep forces of different magnitudes are generated
between pure adhesion and pure slip. Since creep forces at the two wheels.
can be large, their magnitudes saturating at the limiting The total lateral force and yaw couple exerted on a
friction force, they are able to exert a strong guiding in- wheelset by creep forces may be written as
fluence during curve traversing.
Assuming the contact angle between wheel and rail to be T,,+Tu1 = 2fy# .. . . (15a)
small, the creep force components in the longitudinal and (T.xl- TxrYO = -2fx&Y*/ro . (1%)
lateral directions may be written as where
T, = -f 11YlY T, = -f 22Yz . . (8 ) f x = (1-$q2)f11 and f, = f 2 2
JOURNAL MECHANICAL ENGINEERING SCIENCE VoI I I No 6 1969
 STEADY-STATE MOTION OF RAILWAY VEHICLES ON CURVED TRACK 559

Equations of motion
Fourteen equations are required to describe the force
equilibrium of the vehicle. However, because of the
simplifying assumptions associated with equation (7b), (19)
the equations for the leading and trailing bogies and the
vehicle body may be decoupled. By defining the following
parameter alternatives :
**b =
1
[k*(
(k@+jk&b)rO
2fxAloa ) fi- a'b
0 wBdl
Ro + k * b R + k * -
2fY

1
mIc = (1 +e)m,, alb = ab for leading bogie; . . . (20)
m', = (1-e)m,, a',, = -ab for trailing bogie; where
where eab is the longitudinal eccentricity of the body mass (k&+$k@b)
centre from the geometric centre, the motion can be
K O =1+
kya2
described in terms of only seven equations, which are
applicable to both leading and trailing bogies. ( k +!fk#b)k&rO
~
Ki = Kn+ (21)
The relative lateral displacements of the vehicle body 4f x A l o f v a 2
and bogie-frames are given by the simple expressions k@bk,rO
K z = 1+
Y*c = -m'cg8d/2kyb
Y*b = -(mbfqm'c)god/2kg 1
. . (16)
The remaining displacements are yielded by the following
8f x A l o f g a 2
Reduced forms of the above solutions have been derived
by the author (4) (5) and by Newland (8) and applied to
five coupled equations : two-axled vehicles and bogies unrestrained in yaw.
2f!d#l+kya**b
Equations ( 1 8 ) , (19) and (20) are valid only if wheel slip
= 7 and flange contact are avoided. I n general, wheel slip
occurs before flange contact, provided the effective
conicity is not too low (C0.05).Flange contact is not, in
fact, an accurate term when applied to hollow-profiled
wheels, since the contact point follows a continuous path
from tread to flange, causing large increases in effective
conicity and gravitational stiffness. Hence, the bounds of
k* k* the linear theory will be taken to be the slip condition. This
--
a Y*l + k d l f a y *ZCk**Z
is defined as an equality between the vector sum of the
creep forces and the limiting friction force, i.e.
(Tx2+Ty2)1'2 = pTz . . (22a)
. . . (17) where p is the coefficient of friction between wheel and
where W is the axle load, i.e. rail, and T , is the wheel load. Inserting equations (14), the
w = [m+t(mb+$m'c)lg slip equation becomes
It is seen that a vehicle is subjected essentially to two in-
puts during curve traversing, namely, track curvature and
+ r3~~"(f,*~"1''"
K f X A Y */ro)z (1 w = 3P(1Ff4) (22b)
It is apparent that slid develops at the lighter-loaded wheel.
cant deficiency. Since the creep force-creepage characteristic is non-linear,
Equations (17) have been derived in (7), and their the creep coefficients defined by equations (8) do, in fact,
solutions compared with those for the fourteen coupled vary with creepage. At the slip condition the creep co-
equations obtained using rigorous expressions for the efficients are approximately one third of the values at zero
secondary yaw couples, equation (7b). It is shown that creepage, as indicated by Hobbs (9).
the errors introduced by decoupling the equations for the
leading and trailing bogies are not significant from a
practical viewpoint. CHARACTERISTICS OF STEADY-STATE
MOTION
Solution of equations of motion The major features of curve traversing will be explored
Solutions for the lateral and yaw displacements of the initially by considering vehicles with simple suspension
wheelsets and yaw of the bogie-frame are derived, after arrangements. Then an overall picture of how vehicles be-
lengthy manipulation, from equations (17). They are have through curves will be derived by studying the
effects of varying the primary and secondary suspension
parameters.

Simple bogie without yaw restraint

The solutions for a bogie without secondary yaw restraint,
and also for a two-axled vehicle, are obtained by setting
kr,,h=O in equations (18)-(21). If it is assumed that the
JOURNAL MECHANICAL ENGINEERING SCIENCE Vol I1 No 6 1969
560 D. BOOCOCK
primary yaw stiffness is also zero, the solutions degenerate
to
y*l = y * 2 = = #2 = **b = 0
in the absence of cant deficiency. It is clear, therefore, that
independent of track curvature, unrestrained wheelsets
adopt radial positions in the track and roll along the pure
rolling line.
In the presence of cant deficiency, the solutions become
Y * ~= y*2 = $*b = 0 and = = WOd/2fg
. . . (23)
i.e. the wheelsets yaw inwards through a small angle
sufficient to generate lateral creep forces equal and
opposite to the unbalanced centrifugal forces, but they are
not displaced laterally from the pure rolling line.
If it is now assumed that the wheelsets are restrained in
yaw, but that the lateral suspension stiffness is negligibly
small, the following solutions are obtained:
k r a
y * l = -Y * 2 -- -2 .- . (24a)
2f &o Ro
k,ro 1 WQ,
-+-
**= 2f,l\l,Ro 2f,
. . (24~)
These equations indicate that the leading wheelset dis-
places radially outwards and the trailing wheelset inwards,
until sufficient longitudinal creep forces are generated to
strain the yaw suspension springs through angles of
f a / R , and so align the wheelsets almost radially. Again
the deviations from radial alignment are just those neces-
sary for the unbalanced centrifugal forces to be reacted by
lateral creep forces. The bogie-frame takes up a position
tangential to the track centre-line, except for a small in-
ward yaw angle in sympathy with that of the wheelsets.
Equations (24) are only valid when wheel slip is avoided.
Applying equation (22) it is found that the limiting con-
dition for slip takes the special form
Since this equation applies both to the leading and to the
trailing wheelsets, they both slip simultaneously. It is
apparent that at zero cant deficiency, slip develops when
the yaw couples generated by the limiting friction forces
are just insufficient to strain the yaw suspensions through
angles of fa/Ro, i.e. when radial alignment cannot be
sustained. Therefore, slip occurs on all curves of radius
If the cant deficiency is not zero, a proportion of the
available friction force is required to react unbalanced
centrifugal forces. Consequently, the yaw suspension
cannot be strained through such large angles, with the
result that the wheelsets slip on curves of lower curvature.
On very shallow curves, cant deficiencies up to values
JOURNAL MECHANICAL ENGINEERING SCIENCE
somewhat lower than the limiting friction angle can be
attained without slip.
The simple but important result defined by equation (26)
indicates three features which promote good curving per-
formance, namely, low yaw stiffness, short wheelbase, and
high axle load. It is clear from equation (25) that the change
in wheel loads with cant deficiency effectively reduces the
coefficient of friction. This effect should preferably be
small, i.e. the vehicle mass centre should be low.
Rigid bogie
Equations (18)-(21) yield the following solutions for bogies
with rigid primary suspensions but flexible secondary yaw
suspensions :
. . . (27a)
a WH,
#I,*- = F-+- . .
Ro 2f,
$*o = 0 . . . . (27~)
It is apparent that the rigid constraints acting within a
bogie free of secondary yaw restraint cause lateral creep
forces of equal magnitude but of opposite sign to act at
the leading and trailing wheelsets. Both wheelsets, there-
fore, move radially outwards from the pure rolling line by
a distance approximated by ( ~ / l , ) (assuming
~y~ f x z fy),
so that the longitudinal creep forces necessary to sustain
the bogie in yaw equilibrium and overall radial alignment
can be generated. These wheelset displacements are in-
dependent of the absolute values of the creep coefficients;
they thus have the appearance of kinematic displace-
ments. However, in contrast with an unrestrained wheel-
set, which displaces by y o from the track centre-line to
maintain zero creepage, an unrestrained rigid bogie dis-
+
places by approximately [ 1 (a/lo)2]yo in order to generate
creepage.
Equations (27) show that cant deficiency causes a rigid
bogie to yaw inwards and produce counterbalancing
lateral creep forces. Although this motion necessitates
inward and outward lateral displacements of a$ at the
leading and trailing wheelsets respectively, equilibrium is
not upset, for the yaw couples generated by longitudinal
creep forces counteract each other. It is evident from
equation (27a) that secondary yaw stiffness causes both
wheelsets of the leading bogie to move radially outwards
and both wheelsets of the trailing bogie to move inwards.
The resulting longitudinal creep forces therefore strain the
secondary yaw suspensions through angles of f a h / R oto
align the bogies radially. A small additional strain is then
required to enable cant deficiency to be reacted. The in-
fluence of the secondary yaw suspension on rigid bogies
is clearly analogous to the influence of the primary yaw
suspension on the wheelsets of a laterally flexible bogie-
see equations (24).
By substituting equations (27) into equation (22) the
limiting condition for slip is obtained. The resulting ex-
pression is complex, but if it is assumed that klYb= 6d = 0,
Vol I 1 No 6 1969
 STEADY-STATE MOTION OF RAILWAY VEHICLES ON CURVED TRACK
a simple form is given. This indicates that the leading and
trailing wheelsets slip when
Since creep coefficients vary as (axle l ~ a d ) ~it' ~follows
, lateral displacement of the leading wheelset always equals
that the curving performance of a rigid bogie at zero cant
deficiency depends almost entirely on its wheelbase.
Vehicle with bogies unrestrained in yaw
Some of the simplified suspension arrangements con-
sidered above are unrealistic from the standpoint of either
structural feasibility or dynamic stability. Practical
vehicles, therefore, have suspensions which lie somewhere
between the extremes of very soft and almost rigid sus-
pensions. T o determine how the choice of suspension
parameters controls a vehicle's curving performance, the
effects of varying these parameters will be studied using
the example bogie vehicle configuration specified in
Appendix 1. Initially the behaviour of bogies without
secondary yaw restraints will be examined, this being
qualitatively descriptive of two-axled vehicles also.
Fig. 2 shows how the leading and trailing wheelsets of
a bogie displace laterally in response to track curvature. It
is seen that as the lateral and yaw stiffnesses are both in-
creased, the character of the responses gradually changes
from the simple 'anti-phase' response, defined by equation
(24a) when k, = 0, to the simple 'in-phase' response, de-
fined by equation (27a), when k, = k, = w. At inter-
mediate suspension stiffnesses, the leading wheelset is
always displaced radially outwards, but the trailing wheel-
4 / /
PRIMARY YAW STIFFNESS. k + - M N rn/rad
Fig. 2. Effect of primary stiffnesses on lateral responses of
wheelsets to track curvature: k*,, = q = 0, A = 0.15
JOURNAL MECHANICAL E N G I N E E R I N G SCIENCE
561
set may be displaced inwards or outwards, depending on
the extent of the interaction between the lateral and yaw
suspensions. If the lateral stiffness alone is increased, both
wheelsets move towards the position adopted by a rigid
bogie. It is interesting to note that when k, = 2fya, the
that of a rigid bogie.
The longitudinal creep forces resulting from lateral
displacements tend to align the wheelsets radially by
straining the yaw suspensions. The angles of yaw sus-
pension strain at the leading and trailing wheelsets are
a
**I = R, +*1 -(Y*I-Y*2)/2a-**b
a
**2 = -R, +A-(Y *I -Y*2)/2u-+*b
It follows, using equations (6b) and (15b), that yaw
equilibrium of a wheelset is given when
It may be deduced from Fig. 2 that the highest yaw
strains are developed at the leading wheelset when the
lateral stiffness is high and the yaw stiffness low. Equation
(19) indicates that the wheelsets depart more and more
from radial alignment as both the yaw and lateral stiff-
nesses are increased. The yaw strains therefore decrease
and tend to zero. The corresponding'maximum yaw mis-
alignments are clearly f a / R o , when the bogie is rigid.
The influence of cant deficiency on the yaw displace-
ments of the wheelsets is shown in Fig. 3. It is apparent
that the responses for the two wheelsets differ, unless the
bogie incorporates either very flexible lateral suspensions
or fully rigid suspensions, for which the responses are the
same and are given by +/Od = W/2f,. It follows, therefore,
that lateral stiffness causes the unbalanced centrifugal
0.00
&
\
3
Li- 0.0 0
v)
J
w
W
I
3
g 0.00
w
z
v)
P R I M A R Y YAW STIFFNESS, k$-MN drad
Fig. 3. Effect of primary stiffnesses on y a w responses of
wheelsets to cant deficiency: k,, = 'q = 0, h = 0-15
Vol I I No 6 1969
562
forces to be reacted unequally at the leading and trailing
wheelsets. This arises because of internal lateral forces,
which are induced by yaw displacements of the bogie-
frame.
Cant deficiency also causes slight lateral displacements
of the wheelsets. The longitudinal creep forces arising
from these displacements align the wheelsets correctly by
straining the yaw suspensions, and so enable the necessary
lateral creep forces to be generated. With soft yaw sus-
pensions the lateral displacements are in-phase and out-
wards ;with fully rigid suspensions they are anti-phase, in
accordance with equation (27a).
As stated previously, the theoretical responses can be
supported only if the resultant creep forces do not exceed
the limiting friction force. The bounds of the theoretical
responses are therefore defined by the slip equation (22).
If solutions to this equation are plotted in terms of cant
deficiencies against track curvatures, the resulting curve
circumscribes an area which is a useful two-dimensional
representation of a vehicles performance. This curve, the
performance curve, defines the range of operating con-
ditions over which wheel slip is avoided. In general, a
different curve is obtained for each wheelset. Conse-
TRACK CURVATURE, i / R o - k c i
k,, MN/m k M N m/rad
A 0 5 consequence, the wheelsets of both the leading and trailing
B 5 5 bogies slip on track of lower curvature. This effect is
C 5 10
D X 10
E 33 x.
Fig. 4. Dependence of curving performance on primary
stiffnesses: k,, = 0, A = 0.15, p = 0.2
J O U R N A L MECHANICAL E N G I N E E R I N G SCIENCE
D. BOOCOCK
quently, the overall performance of a vehicle is defined by
the common area enclosed by the curves of all wheelsets.
Fig. 4 shows performance curves for various combina-
tions of lateral and yaw stiffnesses. It is seen that there are
two symmetrical curves. One, curve A, applies to the
laterally flexible bogie, whose leading and trailing wheel-
sets slip simultaneously. The other, curve E, applies to the
rigid bogie, whose leading wheelset slips at negative cant
deficiencies and whose trailing wheelset slips at positive
cant deficiencies. A further symmetrical curve, which is
not shown, is that of a bogie with zero paw stiffness. This
represents the ultimate in performance, giving slip
boundaries which are independent of track curvature and
defined simply by 8, = & p ( l F q ) / ( l F i q ) .
It is clear that, in general, performance degenerates as
either of the suspension stiffnesses is increased, the worst
overall performance being that of the rigid bogie. With
low suspension stiffnesses, an increase in yaw stiffness
reduces considerably the maximum curvature which can
be negotiated without slip, but the maximum cant de-
ficiency sustainable without slip is only slightly affected.
In contrast, an increase in yaw stiffness when both sus-
pension stiffnesses are high has little effect on curvature
performance, but a significant effect on cant deficiency
performance. Raising the lateral stiffness generally leads
to a reduction in cant deficiency performance. Normally,
slip due to excessive curvature is initiated at the leading
wheelset, whereas slip due to excessive cant deficiency
begins a t the trailing wheelset.
Vehicle with bogies restrained in yaw
Equations (18) and (19) indicate that secondary yaw
restraints between the bogies and the vehicle body sub-
stantially increase the lateral and yaw displacements of the
wheelsets in response to track curvature. The responses to
cant deficiency are not significantly affected. In aligning
themselves correctly, the wheelsets must now generate
additional longitudinal and lateral creep forces to strain
the secondary yaw suspensions. Both wheelsets of each
bogie therefore displace laterally in the same direction, so
that the yaw couples produced by the longitudinal creep
forces augment each other. Since couples of opposite sign
are required at the two bogies, the leading bogie moves
radially outwards and the trailing bogie inwards, as
shown in Fig. 5. Further yaw couples of appropriate sign
are produced by equal and opposite lateral creep forces,
generated as a result of anti-phase yaw displacements, at
the leading and trailing wheelsets of each bogie.
The increased lateral and yaw displacements of the
wheelsets caused by secondary yaw stiffness carry the
penalty of increased rates of creepage on curves. In
clearly shown in Fig. 6 , which presents performance
curves for the leading bogie, at which slip is usually
initiated. T h e cant deficiency performance is seen to be
only slightly reduced by secondary yaw restraint.
Vol I 1 No 6 1969
 STEADY-STATE MOTION OF RAILWAY VEHICLES ON CURVED TRACK 563

I I I I J
-10; 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5
TRACK CURVATURE, I/Ro- km-'

Fig. 6. Dependence of curving performance on secondary

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

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

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

JOURNAL MECHANICAL ENGINEERING SCIENCE Vol I I No 6 I969
564
EQUIVALENT TRACK CURVATURE, q,,,/u-krn-'
Fig. 8. Variation of wheeZset displacements with symmetric
misalignment of y a w suspensions: X = 0.27
symmetric yaw misalignments into the yaw suspensions.
If the suspensions at the leading and trailing wheelsets
are misaligned through angles of -+,, and +,, respectively,
the vehicle experiences the effects of traversing a curve of
radius a/+,-except That the pure rolling line and track
centre-line are now coincident.
A misalignment test on HSFV-1 in the tare condition
( W = 52 kN) was carried out at a low roller speed
(4-5 m/s). First, the position of zero misalignment was
ascertained by slackening off the longitudinal traction bars
and allowing the creep forces to freely set the wheelsets
parallel to the rollers. The yaw suspensions were then
misaligned incrementally by adjusting the unstrained
lengths of the traction bars. The resulting lateral displace-
ments of both wheelsets were measured by means of dial
gauges. The experimental and theoretical results are com-
pared in Fig. 8.
It is seen that the leading and trailing wheelsets are
displaced laterally in opposite directions, so that the
vehicle adopts a 'crabwise' attitude. The linear theory
predicts closely the initial behaviour of the wheelsets, but
an expected divergence between the theoretical and ex-
perimental results develops as the slip condition for the
leading wheelset is approached. The displacements of the
leading wheelset do, in fact, follow the saturation charac-
teristic of the creep force-creepage curve. The occurrence
of slip results in a loss of parallel alignment at the leading
wheelset, followed by flange contact. This condition
causes a sudden reduction in the angle of yaw suspension
strain at the trailing wheelset, so that it moves back some
way towards the centre of the rollers. Had the yaw mis-
alignments been increased further, the trailing wheelset
JOURNAL MECHANICAL E N G I N E E R I N G SCIENCE
D. BOOCOCK
would subsequently have slipped and moved into flange
contact.
The slip equation (22) may be expressed alternatively in
terms of the angle of yaw suspension strain by substituting
equation (30). It follows that at zero cant deficiency, the
angle of yaw strain required to cause slip is
From this generalization of equation (26), it was calcu-
lated that the coefficient of friction between wheels and
rollers was 0.17.
Track experiments
Track experiments were performed at constant speeds
ranging from 2 m/s to 40 m/s round curves having radii
ranging from 0.12 km to 8.8 km, HSFV-1 being loose-
coupled in the test train. Cant deficiencies were varied
within the range f4". Measurements of the yaw strain
angles q5*, body displacement y**, and body yaw angle
+** were obtained using linear potentiometers. Owing to
severe practical difficulties the lateral displacements of the
wheelsets were not measured.
Typical responses for the vehicle rounding a curve
are shown in Fig. 9. Superimposed on the steady-state
responses produced by curvature and cant deficiency are
considerable dynamic variations. These are caused by
track irregularities and inputs associated with the curve
transitions. Representative results for the steady-state
components of the yaw suspension strain angles at the
leading and trailing wheelsets are presented in Fig. 10 for
the unladen vehicle ( W = 52 kN) and for the laden vehicle
( W = 162 kN). Since the tests were performed with
hollow-profiled wheel treads, the effective conicity varied
continually and appreciably with the condition and type of
track. Hence, an exact comparison of theoretical and
experimental results is not possible. However, the theory
indicates that the yaw strain angles are relatively insensitive
to variations in conicity, as they are also to variations in
cant deficiency. Therefore, two theoretical curves are
plotted which delineate the extremes between which the
yaw angles should lie for any combination of experimental
conditions, i.e. for cant deficiencies in the range f4", and
conicities in the estimated range of 0.1 to 0.3.
It is seen that at low track curvatures the experimental
points, particularly those for the leading wheelset, are en-
closed quite well between the theoretical curves, allowing
for estimated measurement inaccuracies of up to f0.03'.
At the higher track curvatures, the experimental results
diverge from the theoretical, so indicating that the leading
wheelset has slipped and lost correct alignment. This
occurs when the yaw strain angle corresponds to a
limiting friction coefficient of about 0.2. At this adhesion
level the minimum curve radii which can be negotiated
without slip at zero cant deficiency are approximately
1.6 km for the vehicle unladen and 0.6 km for the vehicle
laden.
The substantial improvement in performance when
VoI I1 No 6 1969
 STEADY-STATE MOTION OF RAILWAY VEHICLES ON CURVED TRACK 565

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

-track--

+o 080-
$7 0 q"J?"--A"A A h"/ Leading wheelset yaw t\ n . -,
-008O-
+o 08Ot
Ji" 0 t
-0 0 8
+5mm
Jc
-5mm
0
ody latera displacement
t

- 0 04'
+: 0 f

+ O 04' I
I
- Seconds
I
5

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

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

CONCLUSIONS
The linear analysis of steady-state curving developed in
this paper, and its experimental confirmation, have shown
that the concept of steering under the control of creep
forces is a realistic and desirable alternative to flange
guidance. The dual inputs of track curvature and cant
deficiency can be accommodated without flange contact
by employing the guidance mechanism inherent in coned
wheels. This attains force equilibrium by causing the
wheelsets to displace laterally and in yaw, and thereby
generate longitudinal and lateral creep forces, which (1)
tend to align the wheelsets almost radially by straining the
yaw suspensions, and (2) resist unbalanced centrifugal
forces.
Creep force guidance is possible only within a certain
FACTORED TRACK CURVATURE, (&)@) !$),)ladm-k61 range of vehicle and track parameters. Outside this range,
-__-_ Theory. which is governed directly by the coefficient of friction,
zZzn) Experiment.
the wheels slip and flange contact ensues. Features which
improve overall curving performance are (1) low primary
Fig. 10. Variation of y a w suspension strain angles with and secondary yaw stiffnesses, (2) low primary lateral
track curvature: A = 0.I to 0-3, ed = -4" to 4" stiffness, ( 3 ) short wheelbase, (4) short distance between
JOURNAL MECHANICAL ENGiNEERlNG SCIENCE Vol 11 No 6 1969
2
566 D. BOOCOCK

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

f22 = 2.5 M N ,
1
for slip studies.

stability performance and good curving performance. APPENDIX 2

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

J O U R N A L MECHANICAL E N G I N E E R I N G SCIENCE Vol I 1 No 6 1969