Government of India

Ministry of Railways

PROCEEDINGS
OF
SEMINAR OF
CHIEF BRIDGE ENGINEERS

3rd& 4thMay, 2018

Indian Railways Institute of Civil Engineering

Pune
 PROCEEDINGS OF CHIEF BRIDGE ENGINEERS’ SEMINAR
HELD AT IRICEN/PUNE ON 3rd & 4th May’ 2018

Officers Present:

RDSO

1. Shri. Rajeev Verma ED/B&S

2. Shri. Vineet Shrivastava ED/Structures

Zonal Railways

3. Shri. R. K. Goel CBE/[Link].

4. Shri. S. K. Sardar CBE/ER
5. Shri. D. P. Lal CBE/[Link].
6. Shri. P. K. Gupta CBE/[Link].
7. Shri. A. M. Rizvi CE/C/[Link].
8. Shri. S. K. Jindal CBE/[Link]
9. Shri. K. Ravindrababu CBE/[Link]
10. Shri. V. T. Pandi CGE/S Rly.
11. Shri. B. Ashok CBE/[Link].
12. Shri. Amit Goel CBE/NR
13. Shri. R. P. Jinger CBE/[Link].
14. Shri. M. Ravindranath Reddy CBE/[Link].
15. Shri. Anand Bhatia CBE/[Link].
16. Shri. Ajay Goyal CBE/[Link].
17. Shri. A.K. Das CBE/[Link]
18. Shri Ved Prakash CE(C) NR
19. Shri. G. B. Venkat Rao Dy CE/Br. Line/HQ/SW Rly
20. Shri. A. K. Shukla Dy CE/B&S/BBS/[Link]
IRICEN

21. Shri. A. K. Mishra Director

22. Shri. Vineet Gupta Sr. Professor/Bridges-1
 PROCEEDINGS OF CBEs’ SEMINAR AT IRICEN ON
3rd & 4th May’ 2018

1. Director’s address:

At the outset Director IRICEN welcomed all the participants. He stressed that Track and
Bridges are the core areas in railways. Problems in bridges are not simple. Bridges are
getting older. He emphasized on incorporating newer developments in the field of Bridge
engineering. Inspection of bridges is also very vital.

2. Presentations made: Following presentations were made in the seminar:

i) Widening of Existing Tunnel No T1 by Sh K. Raveendrababu CBE / S. Rly

ii) Innovative Works Done by [Link] BR. Lines Organisation (Field Unit) /Hq/Scr
by Sh B. Ashok CBE/SCR
iii) Construction Of Road Over Bridge Bow String Type Welded Arch Girder-A
Case Study by Sh A. M. Rizvi, CE/C/NE. Rly.
iv) Construction of LHS between Mohana - Sonipat by “Cut and Air-Pushing
Method” by Sh Ved Prakash, CE(C), NR
v) Economical Design and construction of ROBs and Railway Bridges with U
shaped Composite Girder by Sh V. T. Pandi, CGE/S. Rly.
vi) Elimination of UMLCs by Subways on NWR Fast Track Methods by Sh S. K.
Jindal, CBE/[Link]
vii) Provision of Additional Water Way in Bhubaneswar Yard by Micro tunneling
Technique by Sh D. P. Lal, CBE/[Link].

Recommendation on the agenda items discussed during the seminar:

1. Items raised by ED/ Structures RDSO:
Item 1 (a): Issues related with approval of launching scheme of ROB/FOB by the
CBEs for the projects being executed by the Construction Organization (Ref:
Correction Slip 36 of IRBM):
Discussion: Department/ organization who execute the work itself should approve
launching scheme.
Recommendation: Necessary ACS may be issued in this connection
Item 1 (b): Adoption of single box instead of segmental boxes
Discussion: Discussed. No need to change.
Recommendation: Nil.
Item 1 (c): Fatigue criteria
Discussion: As per ACS -18 of Steel Br. Code, Million Cycles criteria is now eliminated
and GMT and life in years is now base of fatigue criteria. This does not warrant any
change.

Recommendation: Nil.

2: POLICY/GUIDELNES
2(a) Metalizing of complete Open Web Girders:
Issue: In Open Web Girders in other than industrial, or coastal areas, only members of
floor system i.e stringers and cross girders have been found to be prone to corrosion.
Para 218 of IRBM also stipulates that flooring system of open web girders in all cases
may be metalized. However, as per AC slip no.8 dated 27.08.2014 to IRS B-1, all
components of steel girder bridges for all the locations have to be metalized. It adversely
affects the delivery schedule of work orders in the Engg. Workshops.

Discussion: Corrosion is prevalent at top members also. It is a better practice to do

complete metalizing. Cost is also not significant as compared to the cost of the bridge.
There is need to relax existing provisions of IRS-B1.

Recommendation: Nil.
2(b) Rebuilding of small span Bridges:
Issue: As per provisions of Indian Railway Bridge Manual (Para No 104&107), Bridge
Organization is executing rehabilitation / strengthening of steel girders of span 12.2m and
above. Rehabilitation /Rebuilding of substructures of minor bridges are being done by
Sectional DENs/[Link]. Rebuilding of small span bridges shall also be entrusted to
Bridge units with supervision of SSE/ Works under administration control of Bridge
Organization.
Discussion: In many railways existing system is well established and no problems are
being felt. If ECOR is facing any problems matter may be dealt with at zonal level.
Recommendation: Nil.
2(c) Enhancement of power of ceiling for consultancy for works other than
property development:
Issue: As per Para No 5 (B) of the model SOP : 2017, PCE has the maximum power of
consultancy of Rs 20 Lakhs per case for works other than property development with
annual ceiling limit of Rs.1.5 Crores. Large number of bridges need instrumentation to
decide present health and rehabilitation strategies. Since, instrumentation is a highly
specialized works and needs to be undertaken in association with IITs/Research
Institutes and cost per case is in general more than Rs. 20 Lakhs. Hence ceiling of Rs 20
Lakhs may be enhanced to Rs 50 Lakhs for instrumentation of Bridges and Annual
ceiling limit may be raised to Rs 5.0 Crores.
Discussion: Per case ceiling of Rs 20 lakh is not sufficient for bridge related
consultancies. Moreover CBE shall be delegated this power.
Recommendation: Powers of consultancy for bridge related items to be delegated to
CBE. E Co. Rly should send self-contained proposal to railway board.
2(d) Exemption to IITs / Academic institutes from EMD, Cost of Tender Forms,
security deposits etc:
Issue: Process Reforms for Engagement of consultants has been issued by Railway
Board vide Letter No 2017/ Trans/01/Policy Dated 27.11.2017, vide Para No 4.8 of the
letter Single Source Selection (SSS) may be adopted under special circumstances for
award of consultancy contract. As normal tendering process is to be adopted, problems
are being faced in case of IITs and other govt institutes as academic institutes do not
participate in Tender process.
Discussion: The policy needs to be liberalized further in favour of IITs or other academic
institutes, exemption from EMD, cost of tender forms and Security Deposits etc may be
provided. Hence, policy shall cover SSS on MOU between parties without undergoing
tendering process.
Recommendation: Policy should be liberalized to permit MOU with govt. academic
institutes &research organizations without following normal tender system. E Co. Rly to
send proposal to board.
2(e) Strengthening of Bridge Organization:
Issue: As per Railway Board’s letter No.2017/02/CE-II/BR/Misc dated 08.12.2017,
Bridge Organization should be strengthened by re-organizing the work-charged posts. In
this letter, Railway Board has also clearly indicated the works to be executed by Open
Line and by the Construction Organization. However, no guidelines regarding
strengthening of the Bridge Organization, as advised vide Board’s letter mentioned
above, has been issued by Railway Board.

Discussion: In absence of guidelines it is difficult to reorganize work charged posts.

Thus detailed guidelines indicating the method to be adopted towards strengthening of
the Bridge Organization, both at the Divisional level as well as HQ levels are required.
Committee on Bridge Yardstick has suggested bridge organization at all levels. Report
submitted to board in March 2018.

Recommendation: Railway Board may issue suitable guidelines.

2(f) Withdrawal of CS-138 regarding construction of subway/RUB with RCC
segments by Open Cut Method for elimination of manned level crossings:

Issue: Previously no CRS sanction was necessary for construction of the subway / RUB
with RCC segments by Open Cut Method for elimination of the manned level crossings.
However, as per CS-138, it has been re-introduced. This is creating delay in execution.
Discussion: Many works are getting delayed and precast segments are waiting to be
laid for want of CRS sanction after introduction of CS138. In order to expedite the
process of elimination of the manned level crossings by constructing subway/ RUB with
RCC segments by Open Cut Method, CS-138 needs to be withdrawn.

Recommendation: CS 138 of IRPWM is proposed to be withdrawn.

2(g) Action plan for bridges more than hundred years old:

Issue: There are no separate guidelines for inspection and maintenance of the bridges
more than hundred years old.
Discussion: On Eastern Railway, about 64% of the total bridges are more than hundred
years old. Railway Board may issue guidelines regarding the frequency of inspection,
maintenance and re-building of the bridges more than hundred years old. The issue was
deliberated and most of the CBEs were of the view that existing system is satisfactory.
However PCE/CBE may issue local guidelines on case to case basis.
Recommendation: Nil.
2(h) Role and Responsibility of CBE regarding obtaining CRS sanction for
proposals initiated by other departments:

Issue: There are no guidelines regarding the responsibility of CBE in dealing with the
items of CRS sanction except that CBE will be acting as the nodal authority.
Discussion: It is eating away huge time of CBE in dealing with the CRS sanctions for the
proposals of other departments. Necessary guidelines defining the role and responsibility
of CBE in dealing with such proposals for CRS sanctions are required. Discussed and
Closed.
Recommendation: Nil.
2(i) Approval of structures other than Bridges:

Issue: There are different practices in different railways for approval of Structural
design/drawing of the works other than bridges like general building/ Station building.
Water treatment plant, Overhead tank etc. In some railways it is being done by CE/P & D
and in others being done by CBE design office. Matter may be deliberated and uniform
policy is required to be framed in this regard.
Discussion: CBEs shall approve drawing and design only for works which require CRS
sanction. Rest shall be with CPDE. However this can be done with local instructions.
Recommendation: Nil.
2(j) Approval of Bridge Structures:

Issue: There are different practices in different railways for approval of Structural
design/drawing of bridges. In some railways, it is being done by Dy. CE/Br/HQ and in
others, same is being done by CBE. Uniform policy is required to be framed.
Discussion: Discussed and closed.
Recommendation: Nil.

2(k) Codification of Inspection Schedule of Dy. CE/Bridge-Line in IR Bridge

Manual:
Issue: Vide para 1106 of IRBM, Dy. CE/Bridge will inspect Bridges as per following
stipulations. “He shall inspect the steel work of such bridges. (a) as called for his
inspection after scrutiny of the registers, (b) as directed by the Chief Bridge Engineer and
enter his notes and ensure prompt action thereon.”
No specific routine/schedule has been stipulated.
Discussion: Discussed and closed.

Recommendation: NIL.

2(l) Amendment of Schedule of Inspection by SSE/Bridge (In Charge) in the IR

Bridge Manual:

Issue: Vide Para 107/1 (d) of IRBM. SSE/Bridge (In Charge) will inspect Bridges as per
following stipulations:
“Super-structure including Bearings of all Steel girders of span 12.2 m and above, RCC,
PSC and composite girder bridges once in five years on planned basis."
Periodicity of once in five years is considered to be too long.
Discussion: Discussed and closed.
Recommendation: NIL

2(m) Provision of re-railing ramps for important bridge and for ROR crossings:

Issue: It is desirable to provide re-railing ramps on important bridges and on ROR

crossings. Designs have been developed for provision of these re-railing ramps over
special PSC sleepers.
Discussion: These assembly drawings need to be approved for regular adoption and
suitable guidelines be issued for provision of re-railing ramps with special PSC sleepers,
so that the same may be provided on programmed basis. However maintenance issues
need to be addressed.
Recommendation: Zonal railways may use at one or two locations on trial basis.

2(n) Provision of PSC bridges for span above 24.4 m:

Issue: As per the present instructions for Railway bridges of spans above 24.4 m, PSC
girders cannot be provided and only steel girders are provided. At many locations,
especially on corrosion prone areas, over nallahs etc., the steel girder bridges are prone
to accelerated corrosion. It may be desirable to provide PSC bridges at such locations.

Discussion: Problem of corrosion can be tackled by proper inspection and maintenance.

Inspection and maintenance of PSC girders is not as well laid down as steel girders.

Recommendation: Discussed and closed.

2(o) Closure of small bridges:

Issue:There are large population of minor bridges including hume pipes, E.W. pipes, C.I.
pipes , open top etc., which are either buried or filled up and not traceable at present at
site. The same is also getting reflected in Bridge registers since many years. Many of
these bridges may not be required to be retained or reprovided because of changed
hydrological condition of the area, urbanization, construction of structures etc.

Discussion: Presently, closure of bridges is a cumbersome exercise which involves

permission of State authorities, preparation of GADs along with other details, approval of
C.B.E. and CRS sanction. Being so much lengthy steps involved, the cases are not
processed. It is felt that it may be worthwhile to simplify the system for closure of very
small bridges which are out of use/ redundant. CBE shall be empowered to close bridges
less than 1 m waterway without going to CRS and after intimation to state authorities.
Recommendation: This requires revision of respective clauses in IRPWM. Zonal
railways to propose in TSC.

2(p) Minimum height of the bridge:

Issue: As per Advance Correction Slip No.25 Para 311 of IRBM, Minimum headroom of
1.2M should be provided in new bridges duly lowering of bed level.
While constructing/rebuilding new bridges on existing lines, efforts should be made to
provide minimum headroom of 1.2m duly exploring the possibility of lowering of bed level
etc. If the lowering is done for the double or triple track on the Upstream, there is a
chance of stagnation of water to the extent of lowered portion, with reference to existing
bridge during rainy season.
Discussion: In order to circumvent this problem, a sump in approach of lowered bridge
on upstream side at a distance of nearly 2m away from the bank slope with slope of
extended bridge sloping towards the upstream side is required, so that the bridge floor is
always dry and the accumulated water will be drained-out to the sump. S.C. Railway has
already adopted this. This scheme or any other site specific scheme may be adopted.
Recommendation: Nil.

2(q) Fixing of OHE mast on existing bridges – entry in bridge completion drawings:

Issue: CRS, S.C. Circle is insisting that whatever structure, which is being made or
made to cross on the bridge, which will structurally disturb the existing structure, has to
be indicated in the Bridge Completion Drawing by way of alteration.
Discussion: Discussed and closed.
Recommendation: Nil.

2(r) Approval of GADs for road-over-bridge/RUB on new lines being executed by

construction organization:

Issue: Recently, Railway Board has given instruction to the effect that on new lines being
executed by Construction Organization, CBE’s clearance is not required for any of the
bridges including Important Bridges, which were earlier being scrutinized by CBE.
Further Railway Board has again given a letter asking CBE to clear the GADs of
RUBs/ROBs, which are coming in the new line construction.
Discussion: This is not required as Construction Organization is equally competent and
capable of following all the instructions/stipulations of Railway Board on ROBs/RUBs.
Recommendation: ACS 36 of IRBM is required to be modified.
2(s) Execution of works by national highways/sagarmala etc., by the surface
transport ministry:
Issue: Increase in work load of CBE and his office due to extra workload of ROBs on
NHAI/Sagarmala and other works for different agencies.
Discussion: Many instructions and MOUs have been issued by the Board for facilitating
quick execution of work by NHAI/Sagar Mala with a minimum deposit of money. For all
these works, the Railway Organization support is required from the stage of initial
conceptual drawing to final General Arrangement Drawing. The launching scheme and
design are also being verified by Railways, which is consuming huge time. This is
leading to heavy pressure on the Bridge Organization, which will indirectly affect CBE’s
concentration towards Railway Bridges rebuilding/rehabilitation and inspection etc. It
may be desirable that works of National Highway/Sagar Mala and ROB/RUB works that
are crossing the Railway tracks and do not involve elimination of the gate, may be
entrusted to a consultancy organization with requisite expertise.
Recommendation: Formation of a committee is recommended.

2(t) Guidelines for Imposition of speed restriction for ORN-1 & ORN-2 rated bridges
as per IRBM para 503:

Issue: In correction slip no. 30 to IRBM, the concept of the distressed bridges has been
done away with deleting paras from 504 to 509. Para 503 has been modified to highlight
the repair/Maintenance/Rebuilding according to ORN Rating. Difficulty is being faced in
imposing suitable speed restriction. Guidelines containing in the old para 505 needs to
be restored.

Discussion: There is no need to make any changes in the present provisions as it helps
to avoid imposition of unnecessary restrictive speed restrictions and avoids unnecessary
inspections, In any case decision can be taken by inspecting officials who are competent
to take decision as per exact physical condition of the bridge.

Recommendation: Nil.

2(u) Headquarters Office of Chief Bridge Engineer:

Issue: The headquarters office of Chief Bridge Engineer has ministerial staff such as
clerical and stenographers. As Bridge office is mainly dealing with technical matters,
these ministerial staff can be replaced by Technical staff.
Discussion: Discussed and closed.
Recommendation: Nil.

2(v) Deposition of P&E charges for ROB/RUB works pertaining to NHAI:

Issue: As per MOU between MOR and MORTH dated 10.11.2014, P&E charges for
construction of ROB/RUB on deposit terms of NHAI/NH Division has to be made to
FA&CAO, Northern Railway through NEFT transaction. However, the bank details of
FA&CAO, Northern Railway is not available for depositing the amount and many cases
are pending for approval and processing through RORACS on this account. FA&CAO of
the concerned Zonal Railway should be permitted to collect P&E charges from the NHAI.
Discussion: Discussed and closed.
Recommendation: Nil.

2(w) Closure of manned LCs provided on deposit terms by ROB/RUB:

Issue: As per the recent policies, all manned LCs are also to be eliminated in a
programmed basis by ROB/RUB/LUS. For the elimination of manned LCs provided on
deposit terms, the depositors are not coming forward to sponsor the construction of
ROB/RUB.

Discussion: In order to achieve a corporate goal of elimination of manned LCs , suitable

policy decision is requested from Railway Board to deal with such cases,

Recommendation: Railway Board may issue suitable guidelines.

Item 3: INSPECTION / MAINTENANCE OF BRIDGES
3(a) Permitting use of Red Lead – IS 102 as primer coat:
Issue: Earlier, up to 2007, as per provisions in IRBM and IRS B-1, ready mixed paint red
lead priming to IS: 102 was being applied as primer coat on steel girders in service
condition as well as on fabrication of girders in Engg. Workshops. It was found to be a
good paint system and time tested over the years, giving efficient protection to the steel
works. However, the provisions for the said primer have been deleted from IRBM vide
AC slip no. 12 dated 18.12.2007 and also from IRS B-1.

Discussion: Discussed and closed.

Recommendation: NIL.
3(b) Inspection and maintenance of the crane gantry girders in the Mechanical and
Electrical Workshops:
Issue: Safety certification of gantry girders in mechanical and electrical workshops by
SSE(Br) without detailed safety check.
Discussion: There are hundreds of crane gantry girders in the Mechanical and Electrical
Workshops. As per the extant practice, the BRI of the division where the workshops
exists inspects the crane gantry girders once in a year and gives Safety Certification.
Most of these girders are even more than hundred years old. BRIs are giving these
certification without any detailed safety check. Necessary organisation may be created
under the CWM of the Workshops for inspection and maintenance of the crane gantry
girders in lieu of the routine certification by the BRIs.
Recommendation: Necessary instruction in this regard may be issued by Railway
board.
3(c) Provision of inspection facility in the standard bridge girder drawings issued
by RDSO:
Issue: There is no inspection facility provided in the standard plan for bridge drawings
issued by RDSO. It creates unsafe condition during inspection and maintenance of the
bridges.
Discussion: BS-113 deals with inspection and maintenance facilities required on a
bridge. BS -113 shall be followed. However it is desirable that the inspection facility may
be incorporated in the standard drawings for bridges being issued by RDSO.
Recommendation: RDSO to incorporate inspection facilities in the standard drawings.
3(d) Provision of Deck plate for the standard steel bridge girder plans:
Issue: Deck plate is not being provided on the standard steel bridge girders. It
sometimes creates problems for the staff in maintenance of the girders, particularly for
the bridges across the rivers and deep valley.

Discussion: Deck plates are not being provided as these create problem in
maintenance. Other safety measures are available. These safety measures should be
adopted during inspection and maintenance of steel girders.

Recommendation: Nil.
3(e) Issue of Standard guidelines for inspection and maintenance of the welded
girders:
Discussion: There are no instructions/guidelines available at present for inspection and
checking of the welds of the welded girders.
Discussion: Welds in open web girders carry insignificant load. In plate girders weld are
done in workshops and are tested in detail. Thus existing system is considered
adequate.
Recommendation: Nil.
3(f) Monitoring system for the health of PSC structures:
Issue: PSC girders and slabs are being provided for the bridges. Presently for
monitoring the condition, available tools are camber measurement and visual inspection
only.

Discussion: RDSO report BS-36 deals with this issue. This shall be followed.

Recommendation: Nil.
3(g) System of ORN for condition of the bridge:
Issue: There is a need to review the numerical rating system in such a manner that
ORN rating is able to reflect the health of the bridge with respect to the safety of the
bridge.
Discussion: There are certain components of the bridge such as training and protection
works, flooring, ballast retainers etc, which though may be required for
rehabilitation/rebuilding on programmed basis or immediate basis depending on their
condition, but may not be critical to the safety of the bridge. The condition of such
components may also result into low ORN rating i.e. ORN-1 or ORN-2. Such ratings
though may not be critical for the safety of the bridge but, may raise a false alarm.
Recommendation: Committee is formed. Committee should submit the report early.
3(h) Provision of side path ways on the bridges:
Issue: For movement of maintenance staff, generally middle path ways are provided
over the steel girder bridges. There is a constant demand from the traffic department as
well as from organized Unions that side path ways must be provided on the steel girder
bridge to facilitate safe movement of staff as well as to facilitate attending the ACPs of
trains over bridges.
Discussion: Discussed and closed.
Recommendation: NIL.
3(i) Difficulties in Inspection:
Issue: Large numbers of elevated bridges and tall bridges have been constructed during
gauge conversion and also in MRTS project. There are large numbers of tall bridges
available in Ghat section. Inspections of PSC girders in such bridges are found to be
difficult.
Discussion: Inaccessibility to locations where inspection is to be done is a major
problem. It is difficult to measure camber. The condition of bridges especially in Anchor
zone and soffit are also not available for visual examination. In such cases inspection by
drone should be done to supplement visual inspection. Also advance laser based
equipment may be used for camber measurement. Inspection methodology shall be
taken from the consultants of such type of bridges. Many such bridges are being
constructed on NFR. CBE NFR may share provisions being made by NFR construction.
Recommendation: Nil.
3(j) Inspection proforma for PSC Girder:
Issue: There is no specific inspection proforma for PSC Girders in IRBM. RDSO vide
letter [Link]/BSC/Structures dated 28.09.2016 has mentioned that existing provision of
IRBM is sufficient.
Discussion: RDSO informed that proforma has been prepared by them.
Recommendation: RDSO to circulate proforma to all zonal railways.
3(k) Periodicity of recording of camber:
Issue: No guidelines / manual provisions available in bridge manual for the periodicity of
recording of camber both in steel and PSC girders.
Discussion: In Southern Railway it is being recorded every year. It is suggested to issue
uniform directions for the same once in 3 years irrespective of steel / PSC girders.
Recommendation: RDSO to issue guidelines on the periodicity of recording camber in
steel and PSC girder and also methods of measurement 0f camber.
Item 4: DESIGN / DRAWINGS
4(a) Frequent changes in standard drawings of steel girders and reducing number
of different sections of rolled steel:
Issue: A) Standard Drawings of OWG issued by RDSO should not be changed very
frequently
B) Number of different sizes/thickness of structural steel sections can be reduced for
reducing the inventory.
Discussion: Frequent changes require repeated templating, re-manufacturing of Jigs
&Fixtures and trial assembly. It also affects the material supply schedule as indents for
steel sections are placed two years in advance. Unequal Angles may be avoided as they
are not readily available with the approved manufacturers and are manufactured only on
special orders for some definite minimum quantity thereby delaying the procurement.
Minor alterations should be permitted at CBE level where sections of specified sizes are
not available.
Recommendation: RDSO to look into this.
4(b) Provision of HSFG bolts in new Open Web Girders:
Issue: Drawings of Welded Open Web Girders with HSFG bolts connections have been
issued, thereby mandating the use of HSFG bolts in place of rivets. This needs to be
reviewed in the light of following-
i) It requires metalizing of all members in order to get sufficient slip factor of 0.40
between the connecting interfaces
ii) The gap between drilled hole (23.5mm) &dia of HSFG bolt (22 mm) remains even after
giving full torque.
iii) The BRI staff of Bridge Line Organization was well versed in inspection and the
needed maintenance/replacement of rivets. Their skills in testing of HSFG bolts and its
maintenance is yet to be developed.
Discussion: Discussed and closed.
Recommendation: Nil.
4(c) Criterion for suitability/eligibility of Design Consultants for proof checking:
Issue: Work of designs-drawings of structures like rail bridges, ROBs, FOBs, crossings
(flyovers) of metro and monorails etc. should be assigned only to Railway approved
design consultants. Also, the proof checking of designs-drawings needs be get done
through a Railway approved design consultant.

Discussion: Now a days there is a tremendous rush of Design-Drawings for large no. of
structures i.e Rail bridges, ROBs, FOBs, crossings (flyovers) of metro and monorails etc.
Many of the new Design Consultants do not understand the provisions of Railway’s
SOD/Codes and the maintenance requirements which are quite significant and peculiar
in nature. Railway can get such consultants on its panel for which a uniform eligibility
criterion is required to be framed. RDSO may frame the suitability/eligibility criterion for
selecting design consultants for the approved list to be maintained by zonal Railways.
Suitable policy instructions will be required from the railway board as well.
Recommendation: A committee may be constituted to recommend the policy and
methodology in this regard.
4(d) Snapping of rivets from stringers/cross girders connections of 45.7m span
TOWG girders (HML Standard):
Issue: There are 02 Nos. of important bridges in East Coast Railway which have been
commissioned in the recent past. It has been noticed during various inspections that the
rivets at the stringer and cross girder connections are getting snapped.
Discussion: Although, replacement of the rivets at such connections have been planned
by HSFG Bolts of Property Clause 10.9, there appears to be design failure of the
connections at such location. Therefore, it is requested that suitable corrective action
may please be advised by RDSO. The matter has already been referred to RDSO vide
this office letter no.W-3/Br/DrgCorres/ Dated 25/01/2018.
Recommendation: RDSO to advise ECOR in this matter.
4(e) Suitability of bridges on Delhi-Howrah Route and Delhi – Mumbai Route for
running trains at 160kmph:
Issue: Railway Board vide letter No.2012/CE-III/BR/ High Speed dated 19.03.2018 has
asked to check suitability of all the bridges on Delhi – Howrah and Delhi – Mumbai
Routes for trains running at 160Kmph.

Discussion: Necessary guidelines regarding the checks to be done for the bridges
which are even more than 150 years old, may be issued by RDSO.

Recommendation: RDSO may issue necessary guidelines.

4(f) Suitability of bridges on DFC Feeder Route for trains running at 100kmph:
Issue: Railway Board vide letter No.2017/48/CE-III/BR/DFC Feeder Route dated
19.03.2018 has issued instructions to check the suitability of the bridges on DFC feeder
route to carry trains of 25T Axle load at 100kmph.
Discussion: Majority of the bridges on Delhi – Howrah Route in the jurisdiction of
Eastern railway are more than 150 years old. RDSO may also issue necessary
guidelines regarding the design check for the bridges.
Recommendation: RDSO may issue necessary guidelines.
4(g) Solar Panel on COP:
Issue: There are many proposals for mounting of solar panels on COPs of stations. As
per extant provisions, all the GADs related to COPs are approved and signed by CE/P&D
but in some of the railways, it is being cleared by CBE. The role of CBE in approval of
GADs of the same needs to be clarified.
Discussion: There are many issues other than structural adequacy like safety and future
maintenance for installing solar panels on COPs. COPs are of RDSO’s standard
drawings therefore structural adequacy is to be checked by RDSO and general
guidelines should be issued.
Recommendation: RDSO to issue general guidelines as cases may very from site to
site.
4(h) Splice joints in FOB:
Issue: Structural drawing for construction of FOBs is issued by RDSO for various spans.
Splice joints in these structural drawings is given as welded joint. It is requested that
splice joints to be issued with HSFG bolts instead of welded joint.
Discussion: Many railways have already adopted FOB splice with HSFG bolts. Issue
can be dealt with at CBE level.
Recommendation: Nil.
4(i) Skew RCC boxes:
Issue: Standard drawings of RCC boxes issued by RDSO for various spans of bridges. It
may be clarified whether it is safe for skew bridges up to 20.
Discussion: RDSO clarified that standard drawing of boxes cannot be used in skew
alignment.
Recommendation: Nil.
4(j) Standard Drawing of Service Girder of span less than 14.4 m (Overall):
Issue: Drawing for duplicate RH Girder of smaller spans of approx. 10.5 m which does
not require any sleeper.
Discussion: RDSO has issued drawing for Temporary Girders of span 14.4 m (Overall)
and above. Sometimes it becomes essential to utilize Service Girders of smaller spans
for construction/rebuilding of smaller spans such as 2-3 m Box culverts etc. with less
bank height. Service Girders of zonal design (NFR) requires Wooden Sleepers which is
very difficult to arrange at present along with its requisite fittings. CBE NFR agreed that
NFR will get the design of RH Girder of smaller spans of approx. 10.5 m which does not
require any sleeper. RDSO agreed to proof check this,.
Recommendation: NFR to design the small span (approx 10.5 m overall) duplicate RH
girder and RDSO to proof check and issue this design.
4(k) Standard drawings of RUBs boxes on DFC feeder routes.
Issue: RUBs are being planned and provided on DFC feeder routes for sizes as per road
traffic requirement passing through respective level crossings. RDSO has issued
standard RCC Boxes drawings for DFC loading to be used in RUBs with sizes 4x3.6m,
4x4.0m, 5x3.6m, 5x4.0m, 5.5x3.6m, 5.5x4.0m.
Standard drawings of RCC Boxes for DFC loading to be used in RUBs of sizes 4x4.5m,
4x5.0m, 4.5x4.0m, 4.5x4.5m, 4.5x5.0m, 5x4.5m, 5x5.0m, 5.5x4.0m and 5.5x4.5m need
to be issued by RDSO.
Discussion: It is not possible for RDSO to issue standard drawings of all possible sizes
and configurations. It was agreed by CBE NWR that NWR will get boxes of sizes
required by them. RDSO can then issue them as standard drawing after due proof check.
Recommendation: Nil.
4(l) Provision of weep holes in the earth fills sub structure.
Issue: RDSO drawing no. 10152 of RCC box bridges does not have any provision of
weep holes in the vertical walls of RCC box which are also acting as earth retaining sub
structure
Discussion: As per para 7.6 of Sub structure Code, weep holes shall be provided in the
abutments above low water level.. RDSO should propose suitable amendments in the
clause of sub structure code referring provision of weep holes in the earth retaining sub
structure of RCC Box.
Recommendation: Foundation and substructure code is under review. This aspect shall
be taken care of during revision.
4(m) Design of Bow String Girders for ROBs of six lanes submitted by NHAI/NH
Authorities.
Issue: RDSO issued standard drawings for bow string girders of NH loading standard
with spans of 42.0 m, 48.0 m, 54.0 m, 60.0 m and 72.0 m for ROBs of four lane with
carriage way of 9.5 m for each two lane. NHAI/NH Authorities are submitting GADs for
ROBs with six lanes for their various projects in South Eastern Railway with carriage way
11.0 m for each three lane.
Discussion: As per Railway Board’s guide lines, standard girders are to be used in
Railway spans to avoid delay in design of girders and quick approval of GADs. As per
MOU between NHAI and Railway, NHAI should get the design done and this shall be
checked by railway. RDSO may issue standard drawings for ROBs of six lane for above
spans with carriage way 11.0 m for each three lane in consultation with MORTH as per
their requirements. This will also require modification in MOU.
Recommendation: Zonal Railways should refer the issue to railway board.
4(n) Details of seating arrangement for the composite girders of various spans
issued by RDSO for 4 degree curve.
Issue: RDSO issued standard drawings for composite girders of various spans and
indicated in the note of the drawings that girders are fit for 4 degree curves. But, seating
arrangement of girders due to super elevation of curvature effect is not furnished in the
drawings.
Discussion: Super elevation is provided partly in bed block and partly through ballast.
However RDSO to study the issue and clarify suitably, If required RDSO may issue
detailed drawings for seating arrangement of girders.
Recommendation: RDSO to study the issue and take necessary action.
4(o) Drawings for construction of 4-lane and 6-lane Bow String Girders
Issue: In the RDSO drawing for ROBs with Bow string superstructure, only the girder
cross section with carriage way width of 7.5m and 9.5m are available. However, in many
recent works, especially those related to construction of ROBs by NHAI/NH divisions, six
lane ROBs are being proposed.
Discussion: NHAI is proposing 6 lanes and 4 lanes ROBs as per IRC: SP: 87-2013 and
IRC: SP:84-2014 with carriageway widths more than 12.0m and overall width of 16.0m.
RDSO standard drawings for ROBs with Bowstring girders for four and six lane
carriageway width configurations are not available. RDSO clarified that as per MOU,
NHAI has to design and railway has to approve the design. This system shall be
followed.
Recommendation: Nil.
4(p) Drawings of insulated fittings for ‘H’ beam sleepers for track circuiting area:
Issue: Drawings of insulated fittings for track circuiting area for ‘H’ beam sleepers to be
provided on steel girders is not available. Also, the drawings of temporary girders of
various spans with channel sleepers and insulted fittings to be used for track circulating
area are not available.
Discussion: Issue pertains to track directorate.
Recommendation: Nil.
4(q) Issue of standard drawings of FOB with N- type truss:
Issue: For the Foot Over Bridges, RDSO has issued structural drawings for various Span
& 3m/6m width for plate Girder type FOB’s. It is observed due to use of these standard
drawings, passengers have to climb more, further it is uneconomical as compared to N-
Type truss.
Discussion: There are distinct advantages of plate girder type FOB especially from the
fabrication and launching point of view. It is an improvement and should not be scrapped.
However zonal railways are free to use N-type truss construction with their own designs.
Recommendation: NIL.
4(r) Standard RDSO drawing of PSC slabs with earth fill:
Issue: For RCC/PSC slabs, standard RDSO drawings are issued for different span, but
no earth cushion (fill) is provided in these drawings.
Discussion: These slabs are designed only for 400mm ballast cushion. Whereas earth
cushion (fill) is required over the slabs for doubling/3rd line to match with Bridges on
existing lines. RDSO design for different thickness of earth over slabs similar to standard
drawings for Boxes should be provided.
Recommendation: RDSO to check and give solution of this problem.
4(s) Higher steel grades should be included in the steel bridge code:
Issue: IS: 2062-2011 permits high grade of steel up to E650. There are 9 grades of steel
mentioned in this code starting from E250 to E650. However, in steel bridge code there is
no provision of steel of higher grades mentioned in IS: 2062-2011.
Discussion: The specifications of steel mentioned in the code are very old whereas IS
codes have been revised many times. For example IS 2062 has been revised in 2011
whereas Steel Bridge code refers to 1969 version of IS: 2062. Higher grade of steel as
per latest IS specs should be included in steel bridge code. Special need is felt in view of
designs being done for DFCCIL and NHSRCL.
Recommendation: RDSO to take necessary action of including higher grades of steel in
Steel Bridge Code.
4(t) Effective area of bearing type bolts considered in design:
Issue: As per steel bridge code, for calculating area of bolt, effective diameter of bolt is
taken as nominal diameter of bolt. As per IS 800:2007 and IRC24:2010, since threads
can occur in the shear plane, the area for resisting shear is taken as net tensile area of
the bolt. For bolts, where the net tensile area is not defined, effective area shall be taken
as the root of the thread.
Discussion: RDSO to check this issue and take suitable action of revising the code if
required.
Recommendation: RDSO to check and take necessary action.
4(u) Implementation of CS no 48 to Bridge Rules:
Issue: Clause no.2.16.4 has been added to Bridge Rules vide ACS No. 48. This clause
specifies the methodology for checking structures for accidental impact from derailed
trains. The structures not considered protected as per clause [Link].1 and [Link].2
shall be designed for the loads specified in clause [Link].3.
Discussion: Maximum load of 50m train length x k acting in the direction of travel; or
maximum load of 15m train length x k acting in direction perpendicular to the direction of
travel shall be considered for design of wall type piers, where factor k varies from 0.5 to
1.5 for train speed of less than 50 kmph to 160 kmph. The sizes of piers and foundations
become excessive because of these accidental impact loads. This provision needs
review.
Recommendation: This issue should be raised in BSC.
4(v) Provision of boulder filling behind abutments.
Issue: As per clause no 7.5.2 of Sub structure Code, 600mm thick boulder filling/layer
shall be provided behind the abutments. RDSO vide Alteration no -01 in the Drawing no
RDSO/B-10152 has deleted requirement of boulder filling behind the vertical walls of
RCC Box towards approach side which are also acting as earth retaining sub structure.
Discussion: RDSO should propose suitable amendments in the clause of sub structure
Code referring boulder filling behind earth retaining sub structure of RCC BOX.
Recommendation: RDSO to study this aspect and consider revision of the clause while
revising foundation and substructure code.
Item 5: ROBs / RUBs/LHS
5(a) Drawings for Bowstring Girders for Straight / Skew type ROBs:
Issue: RDSO standard drawings available for bowstring girders on ROBs are suitable for
straight track & carriageway width of 9.5m only. There is need to develop drawings for
bowstring girders suitable for ROBs & carriage way widths of 12m as per being
proposed for 6 lanes by NHAI in RORACS.
Discussion: Same as item no. 4(o).
Recommendation: Nil.
5(b) Carriageway of ROBs as defined in the Engineering Code and as per MORTH:
Issue: Engineering Code for Indian Railways provide for 7.5m wide carriageway for the
ROBs which are mostly constructed on cost sharing basis. However, MORTH has
issued correction slip for provision of ROBs with 10.5m carriageway. As such, it is
requested that necessary correction slip to the relevant para of the Engineering Code
may be issued by Railway Board to take care of this anomaly.
Discussion: ROB works for MORTH and NHAI are being carried out as per MOU.
Recommendation: Nil.
5(c) Elimination of manned level crossings by constructing subway/ RUB with
precast single box:
Issue: CRS/EC is pursuing for elimination of the manned level crossings by constructing
subway/RUB with single RCC box by pushing it during the traffic block period. However,
there is no guidelines available at present for it. No guideline is also available banning
construction of the subway/ RUB by RCC Segmental Method at present. Necessary
guidelines regarding construction of the subway/ RUB by constructing single box and
pushing in position are required.
Discussion: Discussed and closed.
Recommendation: Nil.
5(d) Thickness of wearing coats in RCC boxes:
Issue: As per IRC code, the thickness of wearing coat provided in the RCC box to
protect the structure from wearing is 75 mm whereas same is 150 mm in RDSO standard
drawings.

Discussion: Suitable thickness of wearing course may be decided by CBE. However it

should not less than 75 mm.

Recommendation: Nil.
5(e) Covering of Road Under Bridge to prevent falling of dirty droppings on road
users:
Issue: In Northern Railway there are number of RUBs, where a common problem of
falling of waste/garbage, night soil and droppings from the train over the road users is
existing.
Discussion: To overcome this problem, different Railways have provided different
covering arrangement over/ in-between/ under the steel girders. Since, it is a common
problem, therefore some uniform and standard solution has to be worked out to provide
full covering to prevent falling of dirty water/ waste/ garbage etc. from running trains on
road users. If required, help of RDSO may be taken in standardization of the designs.
Recommendation: Zonal railways to share their experiences. 2-3 drawings may be
uploaded on IRICEN website for sharing with all.
5(f) Use of sacrificial shuttering for casting deck slabs of ROBs in standard RDSO
drawings of composite steel girders:
Issue: Some Railways are using sacrificial shuttering for casting deck slabs of ROBs on
busy lines which reduces speed restriction period considerably.
Discussion: RDSO may look in to the matter to issue standard drawings of sacrificial
shuttering for casting of Deck slabs of ROBs. RDSO may also confirm that permanent
dead weight of sacrificial shuttering has been considered or not during the design of
standard composite steel girder drawings.
Recommendation: RDSO to check and add suitable note in standard drawings.
Item 6: MANPOWER PLANNING / TRAINING / CADRE
6(a) Yardstick for bridges, FOBs, ROBs:
Issue: Large number of Mega, Important and Major bridges, ROBs, FOBs are being
constructed and taken over by Open Line without creation of any manpower for
periodical inspection and maintenance thereof. Creation of post is difficult in absence of
yardstick.

Discussion: As such, the existing strength is grossly inadequate to deal with the
bridges. FOBs and ROBs being added to the system without either creating or providing
any additional manpower for inspection and maintenance thereof is compounding the
problem. Necessary yardstick may be issued for creation of manpower for bridges, FOBs
and ROBs.

Recommendation: Committee has submitted its report to railway board.

6(b) Filling up the vacancies in Bridge cadre:
Issue: Over last few decades, whatever vacancies in Engineering Department have
been filled up for Artisans, skilled/unskilled staff are mostly for Track and Track Machine
organization. As a result large scale vacancies have accrued in Bridge organization for
skilled, semi-skilled and non-skilled staff.
Discussion: The work on the bridges is a specialized job and the skills get transferred
from one generation to next generation. Due to large scale vacancies maintenance of
bridges is suffering and the specialized skills are getting lost. This issue needs to be
addressed early.
Recommendation: Railway board may look into this issue.
6(c) Appointment of Trainee Jr. Engineer/Bridges in Rs. 9300-34800 with Grade Pay
Rs.4200:
Issue: JE/BRs have been recruited in Rs.9300-34800 with Grade Pay Rs. 4200. Their
monthly stipend is fixed as Rs. 8560+2800 per month +DA and one increment is granted
during the second year.
Their counterpart trainee Jr. Engineer/Works & P. Way are being paid Rs. 9300-34800
with Grade Pay Rs. 4200 +DA as stipend. This discrepancy in basic pay of Rs. 8560
(Instead of Rs. 9300) may be sorted out since some of the trainees have not reported for
training due to less stipend.
Further trainee Jr. Engineer/Bridges are required to undergo 24 months of training
whereas Jr. Engineer / Works & P. Way have to undergo training ONLY for 12 months.
Discussion: As far as disparity of stipend is concerned, zonal railway may send a
comprehensive proposal to railway board. As regards training, IRBM stipulates training
for 1 year only. This can be enforced at CBE/PCE level.
Recommendation: Nil.

*****************************