Curvature Lubrication

CRC for Rail
Innovation
Established and supported under the Australian

Government’s
Cooperative Research Centres Programme
Annual report –
Rail curve lubrication
best practice for
Australian heavy
haul lines
Rail Curve Lubrication Best Practice
DOCUMENT CONTROL SHEET
Document:
CRC for Rail Innovation
Title: Annual report
Floor 23, HSBC Building
Brisbane Qld 4000
Project Leader: Professor Gopinath Chattopadhyay
GPO Box 1422
Authors: Professor Gopinath Chattopadhyay, Alex Howie, Md Gyas Uddin,
Brisbane Qld 4001
Peter Sroba
Tel: +61 7 3221 2536
Project no: R3.110
Fax: +61 7 3235 2987
Project name: Rail Curve Lubrication Best Practice for Australian Heavy Haul
Lines
www.railcrc.net.au
Synopsis:
Wayside lubrication method is widely used in rail industry for reducing rail–wheel wear. Several approaches have been
attempted in the past to select the correct lubricant, lubricator and placement model. However, research on the Australian
heavy haul network is limited. This report captures the current practices of the curve lubrication and assesses their
effectiveness, based on lubricators, lubricants and placement for developing a best practice for heavy haul lines.
REVISION/CHECKING HISTORY
REVISION DATE ACADEMIC REVIEW INDUSTRY REVIEW APPROVAL

NUMBER (PROGRAM LEADER) (PROJECT CHAIR) (RESEARCH DIRECTOR)
0 02/09/2010 Professor Gopinath Alex Howie
Chattopadhyay
DISTRIBUTION
REVISION
DESTINATION
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Industry x
participant for
review
Established and supported under the Australian Government’s Cooperative Research Centres Programme
Copyright © 2011 CRC for Rail Innovation
This work is copyright. Apart from any use permitted under the Copyright Act 1968, no part may be reproduced
by any process, nor may any other exclusive right be exercised, without the permission of CRC for Rail Innovation.
CRC for Rail Innovation 23 July 2010 Page i

Table of contents
Executive summary ....................................................................................................................... iii

List of figures and tables ............................................................................................................... iv
Abbreviations and acronyms ......................................................................................................... v
Introduction ................................................................................................................................... 1
1. Background of research ........................................................................................................ 2
1.1 Overview ...................................................................................................................... 2
1.2 Scope of research ......................................................................................................... 2
1.3 Aims and objectives of research ................................................................................... 2
2. Rail–wheel wear and lubrication .......................................................................................... 4
2.1 Overview ...................................................................................................................... 4
2.2 Wear in rail–wheel interface ........................................................................................ 4
2.3 Methods of rail–wheel lubrication ................................................................................ 6
2.4 Wayside lubrication………………………………………………………………………………………....………….7
2.5 Wayside lubricator placement model……………………………………………………………… …………14
2.5 Summaryl……………………………………………………………… ..........................................…………15
3. Methodology in lubricator placement model ..................................................................... 16
3.1 Overview .................................................................................................................... 16
3.2 Test plan for the porposed model .............................................................................. 16
3.3 Results ....................................................................................................................... 19
3.4 Expected outcomes .................................................................................................... 20
3.5 Summary……………………………………………………………… ...........................................…………20
4. Rail–wheel lubrication in Australian rail industry ............................................................... 21
4.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................ 21
4.2 Response to current practice ..................................................................................... 21
4.3 Issues in current practice ........................................................................................... 21
5. Recommendations on wayside lubrication best practice ................................................... 29
References ................................................................................................................................... 31
Appendix A – Field trial brief report ............................................................................................. 35
Appendix B – Summary of field trip to Callemondah and Mt Larcom ......................................... 49
CRC for Rail Innovation 23 July 2010 Page ii

Executive summary
Proper management of the rail–wheel interface helps the rail industry to reduce wear and fatigue, which
results in enhancement of asset life. It helps industry to grow business and improves reliability of service.
Wear has a detrimental effect on rail and wheel life, and adds to maintenance costs. Lubrication is
considered one of the most effective maintenance programs to reduce wear, energy consumption and
noise.
The wayside lubrication method is widely used in the rail industry. Several attempts have been made in
the past to select the correct lubricant, lubricator, and placement model. However, research on the
Australian heavy haul network is limited. The performance of lubrication on the track can change
significantly, depending on the weather conditions, track characteristics, dispensing equipment, type of
lubricant and maintenance activities. There is a need for improved understanding of the effect of
lubricator performance, applicator bars (short and long bars), and locations of the bar based on track
geometry, direction of traffic, lubricants and other important factors. Proper application of wayside
lubricators also includes appropriate equipment selection, suitable lubricant for the particular operating
condition, measurement and management of the lubrication effectiveness, positioning of lubricators, and
maintenance.
Performance of wayside lubrication is generally indicated by carryover. There is a need to develop an

effective lubrication strategy combining lubricators, lubricants and placement.
The objective of the research is to capture the current practices of the curve lubrication and assess their
effectiveness, based on lubricators, lubricants and placement for a best practice in heavy haul lines. A
detailed literature review has been conducted on the current technology and lubricants. Field trials and lab
tests have been conducted for data collection and analysis of performance and development of the
lubricator placement model.
CRC for Rail Innovation 23 July 2010 Page iii

List of figures and tables

Figures
2.1 Wear zones of wheel and rail ................................................................................................ 4
2.2 Condiction of unlubricated worn rail in curves ...................................................................... 5
2.3 Three methods of rail–wheel lubrication ............................................................................... 6
2.4 Hydraulic lubricator ............................................................................................................... 7
2.5 Mechanical lubricator ........................................................................................................... 8
2.6 Electric lubricator in the spiral curve on heavy haul network ................................................. 9
2.7 Lubricators and applicator bars ............................................................................................. 9
2.8 Long bars (in tangent) and short bars (in spiral) application ................................................ 10
2.9 Severe RCF and abrasive wear ............................................................................................. 10
2.10 Lubrication, friction controls and benefits ........................................................................... 12
4.1 Waste of grease and dry gauge ........................................................................................... 24
4.2 Cavitation at the pump inlet ................................................................................................ 24
4.3 Electric lubricator unit at Mt Larcom, Aldoga section .......................................................... 24
4.4 Mechanical lubricator unit at Mt Larcom, Aldoga section .................................................... 25
4.5 Mechanical lubricator unit at Mt Larcom, Aldoga section .................................................... 25
4.6 Hydraulic unit ...................................................................................................................... 27
4.7 Lubricator site curve dry close to the lubricatorunit ............................................................ 27
4.8 Out of orer lubricator unit and dry curve ............................................................................. 28
Tables
2.1 Energy savings comparison of different lubrication applicators ........................................... 13
2.2 Reduction of wheel maintenance due to lubrication ........................................................... 13
2.3 Lubrication cost to rail players ............................................................................................ 14
4.1 Summary of responses to lubrication survey by Australian rail operators ............................ 22
4.2 Average coefficient of friction data within first two curves (supplier A) ............................... 26
2.6 Average coefficient of friction data within first two curves (supplier B) ............................... 26
CRC for Rail Innovation 23 July 2010 Page iv

Abbreviations and acronyms

AAR American Association of Railroads
CQU Central Queensland University
GF Gauge face
MGT Million gross tons
QR Queensland Rail
RCF
RPM Remote performance monitoring
TOR Top of rail
CRC for Rail Innovation 23 July 2010 Page v

Introduction
The Australian rail network carries passengers, freight and heavy haul across the country through all types
of terrain, and experiences varied climatic conditions. It is one of the most significant driving forces of the
Australian economy and commerce. Rail is one of the high capital intensive industries, with long asset life.
Proper maintenance and investment have a significant impact on the reliability, availability, maintainability
and safety (RAMS) of rail operations. To increase productivity and achieve safety, it is necessary to ensure
that existing rail assets are maintained effectively. Total revenue from rail activities grew to $11.3 billion in
2007–08, and turnover grew by $1.5 billion, or 14.9 per cent, between 2004–05 and 2007–08
(www.ara.net.au). According to a rail productivity review in August 2008, in 2005–06, 992.91 million
tonnes of freight was carried by rail, representing a 9.6 per cent increase over the 2002–03 freight load of
906.33 million tonnes. Transport of coal and mineral ores comprised 51 per cent and 27 per cent of the
total tonnage respectively. Coal and bulk freight delivered by QR Network (QR) in 2007–08 comprised 185
and 56 million tonnes respectively. The growing needs of the industry and commerce led the railway
operators to increase the number of trains, number of wagons per train, or the load per wagon, i.e. heavy
axle loads. Increase of axle load in heavy haul lines increases the challenges of maintenance due to track
deterioration, wear, change of track geometry and derailments, resulting in loss of assets, lives and
revenue due to disruption of service. Wear in general and fatigue are major problems in railway
infrastructure. Wear is a result of friction between wheel and rail. Gauge side wear in curve for high rail is
a common problem (Turner 2008). Wear affects the life and performance of below rail and above rail
(wheel) assets. The influential wear factors are: axle loads, lateral forces, longitudinal force, creepage,
curve radius, gradient of the track, cant/super elevation, track gauge, surface condition of the wheel and
rail, speed, length, frequency and type of trains, rolling stock performance, and operational, maintenance
and environmental issues.
CRC for Rail Innovation 23 July 2010 Page 1

Rail Curve Lubrication Best Practice Chapter 1
1. Background of research
1.1. Overview
Lubrication enhances wheel–rail life by reducing wear. It also reduces energy consumption, noise and risks
of derailment. Excessive lubrication has an impact on operating conditions, and could cause rollover,
abnormal truck behaviour, top of rail contamination, a n d reduction of traction and braking capacity.
The American Association of Railroads (AAR) estimated that the wear and friction occurring at the wheel–
rail interface of trains due to ineffective lubrication costs American railways more than US$2 billion each
year (Sid & Wolf 2002). Daniels (2008) reported that, in 2004, more than US$10 billion was spent on rail
transit system maintenance in the USA due to poor lubrication. There is a need for better lubrication
practice which covers technology, lubricants and placement.
1.2. Scope of research

Wayside lubrication is widely used for its cost-effectiveness and ease in operation. There are many
influential factors which impact on the effectiveness of lubrication, for example, length of curve, curve
radius, tangent track, lubricant properties, type of applicator bars (short and long), use of single pair or
double pair bars, applicator bar height from top of rail, application rate, train direction (bi‐directional or
uni‐directional), locomotive truck wheelbase, axle load, speed, track alignment factor, train braking, bogie
type, sanding, gradient, wheel–rail profile, rail–wheel temperature, contamination and climate.
Of the various types of wayside lubricators available in the industry — mechanical, hydraulic and
electric — the electric lubricator has the best performance, with improved application accuracy and less
lubricant waste. Electric lubricators are more reliable, are used with large tanks, a n d a r e able to use
remote sensing technology to better plan maintenance based on when and where it is needed.
The placement of wayside lubricators is dependent on bar type (long or short), bar height below the top
of the rail, placement in tangent or curve spirals, track gauge at the lubricator site, grease application
rates, RCF present on the rail surface, optimal dispensing rates to minimise splash, and effective grease
carry distance (coefficient of friction).
Models for lubricator placement have not considered the following important wheel–rail interaction
characteristics: wheel and rail temperature, wheel and rail profile, track gauge in curves being lubricated,
and the effect of pressure and temperature on the lubricant properties. These factors need to be
investigated in future lubricator placement models based on cost-benefit analysis.
1.3. Aims and objectives of the research
The goal of this project is to develop the best practices in wayside lubrication. This will be achieved by
developing:
the method for determining the best lubricant for the track and traffic
the criteria for the selection of the best lubricator equipment to dispense the best lubricant to
the wheels
the optimal positioning of lubricators
the optimal dispensing rate for lubricators
the measurement of lubrication effectiveness
the cost-effectiveness of the lubricator placement compared to existing railway standards.

The objectives of the project are to:
survey the current lubrication practices and assess their effectiveness in reduction of
rail–wheel wear, energy consumption, rail–wheel maintenance cost and noise
test and evaluate different types of lubricants, lubricators and applicators and their
position to evaluate their effectiveness
evaluate the impact of different track-related factors, human factors, and environmental
and weather conditions on the lubrication’s effectiveness
develop a practical lubricator placement decision model based on the evaluation of
the lubrication effectiveness and cost–benefit analysis
develop the most cost-effective lubrication strategy and incorporate it into a best
practice standard.

2. Rail–wheel wear and lubrication

2.1. Overview
Rail lubrication is a well-known track maintenance practice. A low coefficient of friction is needed
between the rail gauge face and wheel flange. An optimum level of friction is needed on the rail surface
to maintain proper traction and reduce bogie hunting in the tangent tracks, in addition to reduced friction
in the gauge face contact area.
2.2. Wear in rail–wheel interface

In sharp curves, wear becomes more dominant. Level of wear depends on temperature, track geometry,
applied force, types of material or material layers, operating speeds and other operating conditions.
Predicting wear in railroad applications includes traction, angle of attack and load, where angle of
attack has the greatest effect on flange wear (Waara 2001). Danks and Clayton (1987) found three types of
wear by using Amsler twin‐disk machine wear for the top of the rail and gauge face.
Reiff (1985) investigated the effect of different levels of lubrication on wear rate. From field tests, Rippeth
et at. (1996) showed that the life of track sections, originally worn out after 18 months, could be
extended by up to four or five years through proper lubrication and rail grinding. Elkins et al. (1984)
showed that even moderate levels of lubrication on standard carbon rail had an improvement of a factor
of 17 compared t o dry rail. For a low level of effectiveness of lubrication, relative improvement is
close to a factor of 5.
2.2.1 Wear zones on wheel and rail

The area worn away is defined as the area between the two measured profiles, and is calculated from
where the profiles intersect on the rail head to the intersection point with the lower inner flange (Waara
2001). Wear zones on wheel and rail can be seen in Figure 2.1.
Figure 2.1: Wear zones of wheel and rail
(a) Wheel wear zones (Esveld 2001) (b) Worn rail profile (the area worn away is shaded) —
W1, rail head wear; W2, horizontal rail flange wear; W3,
gauge corner wear (Waara 2001)
The following figures show the condition of unlubricated worn rail in curves which were recorded in field
trips.

Figure 2.2: Condition of unlubricated worn rail in curves
Danks and Clayton (1987) analysed three types of wear by using Amsler twin‐disk machine. Wear is
common on the top of the rail and on the gauge face. According to Waara (2001), four methods can be
used to evaluate rail wear:
comparing the difference in worn and new rail profiles

comparing the vertical wear on the rail head – W1
comparing the horizontal wear at a vertical distance, h, from the rail head – W2
comparing the wear measured at some angle, α, on the rail or gauge corner
between two profiles – W3.
The nature of the shape change of the rail and wheel is a function of the wear and material flow caused by
various contact conditions, which depend on the track curvature, vehicle alignment, axle load, vehicle
speed, vehicle type, traction and braking (Tourney & Mulder 1996).
Povilaitiene and Podagelis (2003) report that curve radius, rail steels, and rail track geometrical parameters
such as rail rise and gauge width have significant influence on rail side wearing (intensity of rail side
wearing is the size of wearing in mm after every million gross tonnes (MGT)). Curve radius has the greatest
influence on side wearing intensity. If the radius of the curve increases from 300 m to 600 m, side wear
intensity is decreased by 2.1 to 3.2, and if it is increased from 600 m to 900 m, side wear intensity is
decreased by 1.6 to 1.9 (Povilaitiene & Podagelis 2003). The quality of rail steel has a significant effect on
the rail side wear. When the curve radius is within 400 m to 600m, the wear intensity of standard carbon
rails is 30 per cent more than that of tempered rails; and when the curve radius is within 800 m to 1000 m,
it is 20 per cent more than that of the tempered rails. The variation of gauge width from standard has a
significant effect on the rail side wear. For curves from 350 m to 400m radius, the gauge should not be less
than 1526 mm (i.e. 1530 mm, with deviations not more than 4 mm to the inner side). A gauge of 1530 mm
instead of 1520 mm can reduce wear by two times.
Povilaitiene, Podagelis and Kamaitis (2006) proposed that the effective standards that regulate the gauge
should be specified to reduce wear on curves for different curve radii. The results of the experimental
research carried out on Lithuanian railway lines show that widening the gauge on the curves with a radius
less than 650 m decreases rail head side wear up to 1.72 times. Sadeghi and Akbari (2006) observed that
gauge deficiency is the most influential geometrical factor in rail wear in tangent track and switches.
Narrowed gauge increases the lateral wear, and widened gauge increases the vertical wear. Regular track
inspections were recommended for controlling track geometrical parameter deficiencies. Highly viscous
lubricants were recommended to reduce vertical wear, and higher hardness rail was recommended to
decrease switch wear. Knothe and Liebelt (1995) suggested that in sliding contact, temperature increases

and surface damage can have the major influence on contact temperatures. Thermally induced stress can
have a strong influence on the tribological behaviour.
Alp, Erdemir and Kumar (1996) simulated tribological conditions of the rail–wheel interface in a curve to
analyse lubricants, and ranked them according to the performance of power consumption, coefficient of
friction, sliding distance and duration of lubricant breakdown. In the early stages of sliding contacts, an
applied load is transmitted through the interface and/or lubricant film, and gross sliding occurs when the
tangential stress exceeds the shear strength of the contact surface. The interface shear strength can be
reduced by applying lubricant in the interface. The shear strength of the lubricant film plays an important
role in the sliding friction coefficient. When a lubricant is applied to the rubbing surfaces, adhesive forces
between contacting asperities is reduced substantially, and the tangential stress becomes small, as the
shear strength of the lubricant film is smaller than that of the metal. Friction decreases and load carrying
capacity increases with lubrication (Alp, Erdemir & Kumar 1996).
2.3. Methods of rail–wheel lubrication

Different methods of rail lubrication have been developed based on suitability of application and
performance requirement. Figure 2.3 shows the three current methods of lubrication:
wayside lubrication
onboard lubrication
high‐rail lubrication.
Wayside lubrication is a commonly used method. Grease is applied to the track from a lubricator unit
through the applicator bars installed beside the track. Reiff (2006) reported that when curves are
concentrated in specific locations, wayside applicators are useful.
Onboard lubrication is a method where the lubricator is mounted on the locomotive, and the lubricant is
applied to the locomotive wheel flange. When curves are uniformly distributed, locomotive-mounted
applications are more useful.
High-rail l ubrication means the lubrication of the line by the controlled application of a bead of grease
directly to the wear face of the rail from a vehicle travelling on the track. The high‐rail vehicle is usually an
adapted delivery vehicle, equipped with a special storage and application system (de Koker 2004).
One or a combination of the above systems is used by rail operators to achieve 100 per cent effective
lubrication and significant savings in fuel and wheel–rail maintenance.
Figure 2.3: Three methods of rail–wheel lubrication
(a) Wayside lubrication system

(b) Onboard lubrication system (c) Hi-rail lubrication system
2.4 Wayside lubrication

The wayside lubrication method is used for both gauge face application and top of rail application. The
whole unit consists of a reservoir tank, grease pump unit, controller, connecting hoses, power supply unit,
applicator bars, wheel–axle sensor unit or plunger, and sometimes a telemetry or remote condition
monitoring system such as RPM (remote performance monitoring).
2.4.1 Wayside lubricators

There are three types of wayside lubricators available.
Hydraulic lubricators
Hydraulic lubricators are predominantly used in Australian rail networks (Portec RTE‐25 lubricators,
Australian made, and Portec PW 37.5 lubricators). Figure 2.4 shows the hydraulic lubricator in a wayside
application. The main features of hydraulic lubricators are a grease reservoir, grease pump, hydraulic
plunger or actuator assembly clamped to the field side of the rail, with a single hydraulic line connected
grease pump externally mounted on the grease reservoir, and grease distribution units (applicator bars)
and hose system. Hydraulic lubricators are very simple in construction. The grease pump is activated with
the hydraulic actuator, and delivers grease to the applicator bars when the wheel strikes the plunger. No
power supply is needed from a n external source, e.g. electricity or solar power. Grease is delivered by
the action of the wheels passing over and depressing a mechanical plunger at the field side of the rail head.
This system has little control over grease delivery rates, and results in substantial amounts of grease
delivered by the unit to the bars. This results in grease waste to the track, and contamination of the top of
the rail. These units are installed on the high rail side at the transitions to left- and right-hand curves, and
therefore have to be removed before each grinding cycle to prevent damage to the units.
Figure 2.4: Hydraulic lubricator (inset – hydraulic plunger)

Mechanical lubricators
Mechanical lubricators (Figure 2.5) are of simple design, and rely on the same principle of operation as the
hydraulic units.
Figure 2.5: Mechanical lubricator
It consists of a grease tank, grease delivery pump and grease distribution unit. With the passage of each
wheel over the plunger, the ramp lever rotates, and this lever is connected to the pump through the drive
shaft. The drive shaft uses the pressure from the wheel impact to pump lubricant to the applicators.
The entire pumping mechanism is housed in the reservoir, and can be removed for servicing. The grease
tank can be of different capacities, and applicator bars are also of different sizes. There is no need for an
external power supply. No precise control of grease application rate is possible. Due to excessive grease
delivery, there is top of the rail contamination and waste to the ballast in the track. RCF can be the result of
non-grinding, due to units being left in track each grinding cycle. No remote sensing feature is available.
Electric lubricators
Electric lubricators are the latest generation lubricators, with precise electronic control, based on axle
or wheel count via the sensors mounted beside the rail. It consists of a grease reservoir, electronic
controller unit, delivery pump, battery or A/C controller, and distribution bars. These are high pressure,
positive displacement and positive distribution systems, which are designed to dispense grease on the
gauge face or friction modifier to the top of the rail. Lubricators can be used for gauge face and top of rail
application. They are available in different specifications of power supply, reservoir size, applicator units
and telemetry. Figures 2.6 and 2.7 show electric lubricators with different applicator bars.

Figure 2.6: Electric lubricator in the spiral of a curve on a heavy haul network
Figure 2.7: Lubricators and applicator bars ( www.portecrail.com )
The most significant features of the electric lubricator are:
highly reliable and efficient operation

application of grease based on the axle–wheel count
precise control of grease application rate to reduce lubricant wastage
ability to survive for longer periods in harsh weather
less total cost of ownership
flexibility in grease application due to change of conditions
continuous performance in all weather and seasons
less maintenance cost and time
ability of maintenance personnel to plan daily work based on remote condition monitoring of the
units
intelligent condition monitoring unit, able to transfer data to remote authority
continuous power generation from solar energy or power grid, and rechargeable battery for
emergency back-up
higher capacity tank in most cases.
Electric lubricators rely on solar or electric power.

2.4.2 Lubricant applicator bars

There are two types of applicator bars — short bars and long bars. Lubricant applicator bars are mounted
on the gauge face of the rail to deliver lubricant in the gauge corner. Figure 2.8 shows different types of
applicator bars installed on the gauge face of the rail. Short bars are generally placed on the high rail in the
spiral of a curve. Long bars are suitable to be placed in the tangent track before a curve. Generally, two
short bars are installed on the gauge side of high‐rail, whereas one or two long bars are installed on each
rail. The ideal application should be evaluated based on the effective lubrication carry distance and
coverage in the gauge face.
Figure 2.8: Long bars (in tangent) and short bars (in spiral) application
Long bars have advantages over short bars in that they are installed on the tangent track and don’t need
to be removed during a curve grinding cycle. Because of placement on the tangent track, they deliver
grease on both the high and low rail; and left- and right-hand curve. Long bars apply grease on the
greater length of the track, therefore wheels have a better chance to pick up grease. Short bars have to
be removed in every grinding cycle and placed back again. During this period, the track remains
unlubricated, which can cause severe wear. Severe RCF was seen in the field trip around short bars due to
the bars not being removed during the grinding cycle, requiring the grinder to skip that location. Rail not
ground for long periods develops severe RCF in heavy haul track.
Short bars apply grease to smaller lengths of track. Generally, two units are needed to cover left- and right-
hand curves.
Figure 2.9 shows the gauge side of the high‐rail with severe RCF and abrasive wear caused by lubricant
contamination on the top of the rail.
Figure 2.9: Severe RCF and abrasive wear on

the gauge side in short bar grease application area

Proper placement of applicator bars and their comparative study are essential for effective lubrication.
Research needs to be conducted on the design and application of applicator bars. Lubricator and
applicator bars are significant elements in lubrication effectiveness. Therefore, improvements in lubricator
technology, good lubricants and dedicated maintenance of lubricators are necessary for effective
lubrication.
2.4.3 Lubrication transport mechanism

Wheel flange and its contact with rail are used as the lubricant transport mechanism. The success
of a lubrication strategy depends on the transport mechanism. According to Thelen and Lovette
(1996), lubrication can be successful only if the transport mechanism is handled in an effective
manner. Human factors have some impact on the transport mechanism, as with any technical
issue.
2.4.4 Factors influencing effective lubrication

Lubrication in the rail–wheel interface is influenced by many factors, including:
location and placement, including positioning of applicator bar

lubricator unit, and the ability to adjust the precise application of the lubricant
properties and composition of lubricants
rail–wheel temperature
axle loads, lateral and longitudinal forces, creepage, curve radius and gradient
speed, frequency and length of trains
rail–wheel interaction, which may cause grease to be squeezed off the rail at the transition
or in sharp curves, and impact on carry distance
surface roughness
rail–wheel profile conformity
track surface irregularities
management dedication and technical expertise of workforce
environmental factors.
2.4.5 Issues and recommendations for friction management guidelines

The following issues need to be considered in proper application of wayside lubrication systems:
selection of most appropriate equipment for dispensing lubricant

selection of the optimal type of lubricant for the particular operating conditions
regular measurement and management of the lubrication effectiveness
evaluation of wear data per certain MGT intervals, and reporting of lubricator
performance
optimal positioning of lubricators for grease pick-up and longer carry distance
dedicated maintenance and servicing program with effective training
regular evaluation of program policy, performance of lubricators and lubricants
regular communication with vendors about product performance and problems.
Severe wear was seen in some curves having a lubricator on site because the lubricator was out of
order, the grease tank was empty, or there was poor grease carry in the curve. An investigation of the rail
showed it was fairly dry within few metres of lubricator site. Special attention is required for lubricating
switches and curves with turnouts. Lubricators should be placed in a suitable location so that the grease
can be picked up effectively by the wheel flange. According to Sroba et al. (2001), some selection criteria
for appropriate lubricator unit include:
ease of installation and simplicity of operation

reliability of performance and easy to maintain

availability of spare parts
availability of lubricant to be used
economic viability
availability of remote monitoring system.
Friction management guidelines
AREMA recommends (Reiff 2006):
gauge face friction values should be < 0.20

gauge corner friction value should be < 0.20 which was under review
top of rail friction value should be 0.35 +/‐0.05
left to right rail friction value differential should be < 0.1.
Canadian Pacific Railway (CPR) suggested (Sroba et al. 2001):
top of rail friction coefficient differential should be left to right < 0.1
top of Rail friction coefficient should be 0.3 ≤ μ ≤ 0.35
gauge face of high rail coefficient of friction should be µ ≤ 0.25.
Tools to measure lubrication effectiveness are:
tribometer
lubrication level (Goop) gauge
instrumented wheel set
temperature measuring instrumentation.
2.4.6 Benefits of lubrication

Train resistance around the curve can be reduced dramatically by lubrication of the rail–wheel flange
interface. Successful lubrication can produce enormous benefits for the rail industry by managing friction in
the desired level, reducing wear of rail and wheel, improving rail–wheel life, saving energy, reducing
noise and reducing maintenance costs. Figure 2.10 shows the benefits of lubrication and friction control in
the rail–wheel interface.
Figure 2.10: Lubrication, friction control and benefits
Reduction in the wheel–rail coefficient of friction reduces the train resistance, leading to significant fuel
savings. Effective lubrication must be ensured on both tangents and curves to obtain the highest fuel
savings. If only curves are lubricated, the flanging effect of tracks will rapidly dry off wheels on long
tangents, and it’s impossible to maintain adequate lubrication between widely separated curves. The study

at FAST produced Table 2.1, which shows the fuel savings when lubrication was used (Sims, Miller and
Schepmann 1996).
Reduction in rolling resistance due to rail and wheel flange lubrication of up to 50 per cent around
the curves, and up to 30 per cent on straight or tangent track, was measured against unlubricated track in
the USA, leading to energy savings of between 20 per cent and 30 per cent under service conditions (de
Koker 2004). A good correlation exists between energy saving and rail lubrication. Spoornet conducted a
test on a 200 m radius curve in unlubricated and lubricated condition, and calculated the energy
consumption. It showed that for an unlubricated curve, the wagons required 54 Newton/ton to traverse
the curve, but when lubricated, only 28 Newton/ton, requiring 48 per cent less energy (de Koker 2004). Rail
lubrication results in increased tonnage ratings where curves control train composition. In practice, 10 to
20 per cent more wagons can be added to a train if the line is consistently and well lubricated (de Koker
2004). Table 2.1 shows considerable improvement on energy savings with application of different
lubricating systems.
Table 2.1: Energy savings comparison of different lubrication applicators (Sims, Miller &
Schepmann 1996)
Lubricating system Efficiency (gal/MGT) Savings over dry rail

Dry rail 6000 n/a
Wayside lubricator‐active 4100 32%
1‐in‐4 Lub. Car
Graphite 4100 20%
Low graphite 5300 11%
Hi‐rail vehicle 5500 8%
(1‐in‐35 trains)
Onboard 5140 14%
Another study on energy consumption performed by AAR found that lubrication can reduce fuel
consumption by as much as 5 per cent. This report also suggested that the reduction could be higher if
favourable conditions are maintained (Sims, Miller & Schepmann 1996).
Wheel–rail life improvement and cost of lubrication implementation

Lubrication at the wheel–rail interface dramatically reduces the wheel and rail degradation. Rail life has
increased by a factor of two and wheel life by a factor of five (Queensland Rail) using appropriate
lubrication. Spoornet (South Africa) reported that rail life was increased from 27 MGT to up to 350 MGT,
depending on curve radius. HKMTRC (Hong Kong) reported a cost saving of £783,000 per year on wheel
and rail maintenance on the solid lubricant lines. Eurostar conservatively estimates savings of £1,000,000
per year on maintenance and wheel replacement costs with effective lubrication (Reddy et al. 2006). Table
2.2 shows the ERL/Malaysia recorded data on improvement of wheel life and of annual wheel cost with
lubrication compared to no lubrication.
Table 2.2: Reduction of wheel maintenance due to lubrication (Larke 2003 and Reddy et al. 2006)
Track/vehicle condition Wheel life in (km) Wheel life in (week) Annual wheel cost in (£)
No lubrication 170,000 20 1.6 million
Rail lubrication 300,000 35 825,000
Vehicle lubrication 1,000,000 118 250,000
Target 1,500,000 177 170,000

Compared to rail–wheel life improvement, energy savings and other benefits, the lubrication cost is
significantly low. Table 2.3 shows the cost of lubrication in different railway operators around the world.
Table 2.3: Lubrication cost to rail players (adapted from Larke 2003 and Reddy et al. 2006)
Railway Quantity Lubricator (£/yr) Lubricant Cost

(tonnes/yr) (£/yr) (£/yr)
Spoornet 200 125,000 134,000 259,000
IBCV Not known 325,000 279,000 604,000
HKMTR 0.3 (depots) 5.600 550 6,150
Eurostar 1.1 Not known Not known 70,000
Banverket 20 Not known 31,000‐62,000 Not
known
2.5 Wayside lubricator placement model

Wayside lubricator placement guidelines were developed in different rail networks in recent decades.
Most of them depend on arbitrary assumptions, and no specific model was developed. The first placement
model of wayside lubrication placement was developed by de Koker (1994), which was extended by Sroba
et al. (2001). SAR&H circular 10128 (1957‐11‐05) reports on bi‐directional line trackside lubricators being
spaced about 6 km on high rail, or between 300° and 360° of deflection angle of the curve. These values
came from th e addition of the length of curve or the accumulated deflection angle between the
tangents. Marich, Kerr and Fogarty (2001) recommendations about lubricator position on track are as
follows:
The ideal position within the transition of curves of 400–600 m radius is where the wheel
flanging just starts.
It is within the body of the curve for curves with a radius from 600–1000 m.
Lubricator should not be placed on the tangent track or curves greater than 1000 m
radius, as no flanging occurs.
If possible, lubricator should not be placed at curves with a radius less than 300 m.
In the transition, it should be placed at the beginning of the curve or end of the curve,
depending on traffic direction.
Modelling of wayside lubricator placement needs to consider factors related to location and position of
lubricator, lubricator type, applicator bar, lubricant, traffic a n d track, environment and human. In de
Koker’s (1994) and Sroba et al.’s ( 2 0 0 1 ) models, the placement interval is decided based on the
length of track being considered for lubrication, adjusted by a number of track- and traffic-related
factors.
For a complete placement model a hierarchical approach needs to be considered using cost–benefit
analysis. Data can be used to calculate the distance between lubricators, and consequently the position.
Field and lab tests are needed to estimate parameters.
Properties of curved and tangent track, locomotive axle loads and wheel configurations, train speed and
length, rail–wheel profile, rail–wheel temperature, weather conditions, a nd lubricator’s reliability have a
significant effect on the carry distance of grease. Carry distance determines the distance between
consequent trackside applicators. Carry distance is measured based on the coefficient of friction in the
gauge face. Sroba et al. (2001) suggests that the coefficient of friction is considered to be 0.25, and
measurement is taken by hand‐pushed tribometer.

For more effective spacing of lubricators, it is considered that more investigation is necessary to
determine the effect of other factors related to lubricators, lubricants, track, traffic, and environmental
and human factors.
The effect of rail–wheel temperature on rail lubrication

Rail–wheel temperature has a significant effect on rail–wheel lubrication. Frohling, de Koker and Amade
(2009) reported that the joint investigation of Companhia Vale do Doce (CVRD), Estrada de Ferro Vitoria
Minas (EFVM), the Transport Technology Centre Inc. (TTCI) and others recommends the improvement of
rail lubrication using high durability/retentivity grease. Over a 10-day period, monitoring of t h e
coefficient of friction and rail temperatures shows that a typical 15,800 tonne 160‐wagon ore train in a
160 m curve increased the temperature of a dry rail by 31.6 °C, whereas the temperature of a lubricated
rail increased it by only 7.9 °C, and the coefficient of friction μ on the gauge face exceeded the target value
of 0.35 between five to ten trains. Transnet Freight Rail (SA) conducted an investigation to establish any
possible relationships between temperature rise in the gauge corner and the coefficient of friction (μ),
mass, speed, wagon number, or the bogie type of train. Strong correlation was found between the
increases in temperature rise and the length of the trains; between the temperature rise and the
accumulating flange forces. Rail–wheel temperature could have a significant role on grease durability and
lubrication effectiveness.
According to Ertz and Knothe (2003), thermal stress caused by rail–wheel temperature plays a significant
role on elastic limit, and the shakedown limit as it is superimposed on the mechanical contact stresses.
They reduce the elastic limit of the wheel and rail, and yielding begins at lower mechanical loads. T h e
s hakedown limit of rail and wheel can be seen in figure‐2 (Appendix 1: Track and traffic factors).
There is a need for research on rail–wheel temperature and its effect on lubrication effectiveness
Effects of rail–wheel profile on lubrication carry distance

Rail–wheel profile plays an important role in lubrication effectiveness. According to Thelen and Lovette
(1996), the success of a lubrication strategy depends on the transport mechanism; and the wheel
flange and its contact with th e rail. Conformal flange contact is an optimum condition for a non‐steering
vehicle and supports lubrication (IHHA 2001). Contact in the rail–wheel interface needs to be considered in
detail for the evaluation of lubrication effectiveness.
2.6. Summary
A brief overview of wear, rail lubrication practice and placement modelling has been presented in this
chapter. Wear and rail lubrication best practice are crucial to the rail industry. A thorough study has been
conducted here to acquire the depth of knowledge and understanding of rail–wheel wear, and types of
lubricators, measurement of effectiveness, lubricants and placement practices.

3. Methodology in lubricator placement model

3.1 Overview
Lubrication of the wheel–rail interface is necessary to prolong the life of both the rail and wheels. It is
desirable to apply lubricant to the interface between the rail gauge face and the wheel flange to minimise
the wear of both. The application of lubricants to the wheel–rail interface is an accepted practice across
the rail industry. Lubricant is applied to the wheel flange which, in turn, distributes it along the rail. For
heavy haul railways, wayside applicators are commonly used in Australia and North America.
Australia and North America practices differ in the type and location of the applicator bars. The
Australian practice is to place one or two short bars (approximately 600 mm long) on one rail in the
transition of a curve. The North American practice is to use one or two long bars (approximately 1500 mm
long) on each rail on a tangent track. Both methods are the focus of this study. The CRC for Rail
Innovation includes project R3‐110 – Placement of Lubricators on Curves. Project R3‐110 is undertaking
research work to improve practices of wheel–rail friction modification. The project is also seeking to
contribute to performance-based standards, considering costs and risks for lubrication decisions, and
undertaking lubricator and lubricant trials. The first trial was to compare the effectiveness of the lubricant
application between the Australian short bar on curve method with the North American long bar on
tangent method. The test had to be expanded to include a test of the current lubricants available to the rail
industry, both locally and overseas. A study of current practices in curve lubrication has been carried out,
including a practical visit to railway organisations, and collation and analysis of current practices and data,
along with survey data from practitioners.
3.2 Test plan for the proposed model

Lubricator field tests have been conducted on the QR North Coast Line and Blackwater System. The test
plan has been designed to develop lubrication best practice for Australian heavy haul lines.
3.2.1 Scope of work

100% effective friction management targets on the high rail showing coefficients of friction on a wheel
template. Friction levels greater than 0.25 on the gauge area are considered poor lubrication. Good
lubrication area on rail can be seen in figure‐1 (Appendix 2: Lubricator trial plan).
3.2.2 Test objectives

1. To determine best practice in wayside gauge face lubrication for Australian heavy haul lines
by:
determining the best lubricant for use on heavy haul lines
determining the most efficient lubricator system and placement
determining the most efficient lubricant application rates
determining the most appropriate system
2. To do a comparative test on the effectiveness of various lubricants using long bar lubricator
technology in tangent track
3. To do a comparative test between the effectiveness of short lubricator bar technology used in
the spiral of curves and the long bar technology in tangent track, using the best grease from item
2 in above
4. To develop and document a scientific model and methodology for the placement of
lubricators on the QR coal lines
5. To investigate the benefits of remote condition monitoring technology on the lubricator units
6. To perform an economic analysis on the two systems — short bar technology and long bar
technology — compared to the current lubricators on the coal lines. This analysis will include:

the number of lubricators in place and required

the volume of grease dispensed by the total number of units required
the requirement of removal and re‐installation for the grinding program
the maintenance requirements
the labour required to maintain the units
the benefits of remote monitoring of unit’s health and call for help on failure
It is intended to undertake some follow-up trials based on the findings of this test.
3.2.3 Test location

The test location is on the QR North Coast Line (NCL) between Gladstone and Rockhampton. This section
of the NCL is shared with the Blackwater Coal System, and gets both the NCL mixed traffic and the
Blackwater Coal System coal trains. The proposed test location is between the 553 km and the 555.5 km
points on the up-track of the Yarwun Bank, between Callemondah Yard and Mt Larcom, as can be seen in
figure‐2 (Appendix 2: Lubricator trial plan). This section of track has two narrow gauge (1067 mm)
bidirectional tracks. Both tracks have 60 kg rail on concrete sleepers with resilient fastenings. The
maximum permissible axle load is 26.5 tonnes and the traffic includes:
Blackwater coal trains — distributed power 10 000 tonnes gross

NCL freight trains (intermodal, and unit trains — grain, livestock, molasses)
loco-hauled passenger trains
electric tilt trains
diesel tilt trains.
There are four operators on this section of track — QR National, ARG, Pacific National and QR Passenger,
and train control is via direct traffic control from Rockhampton.
There are three test sites — two on curves and one on tangent track:
A. 553.440 km — this site is on the leading transition (mine end of the curve) of a 595.7m
radius left-hand curve
B. 553.908 km — this site is on the leading transition (mine end of the curve) of a 595.7m
radius right-hand curve
C. 554.00 km — this site is in a long section of tangent track.
3.2.4 Equipment to be trialled

Lubricator units
The trial will compare short bar and long bar systems of two suppliers to the Australian market. Three
units will be supplied by each manufacturer:
2 x standard short bar units for installation on the curve transitions

1 x standard long bar unit for installation at the tangent test location
2 x standard long bar unit for installation at the tangent test location.
One supplier has made available units fitted with modern remote condition monitoring and telemetry
equipment.
Lubricant
The lubricant used for the test will be Rail Curve Grease S, currently in use. This grease is to be used
in the trial because it is the grease used by the lubricator attendant in this area.

3.2.5 Test procedure
Each test will be run in 11 stages, and the test will be run for each supplier.
Pre-test measurements
Mark out measurement sections through downstream curves that will be at least 50 m in length
on both rails in each curve.
Mark spot sample sites and photograph the gauge corner lubrication at these points.
Perform dye penetrant tests on the rail in the tangent and body of the test curves.
Measure the rail profile of both rails at the three installation sites with a MiniProf, which can be
seen in figure‐10 (Appendix 2: Lubricator trial plan).
Measure track gauge at the three installation sites.
Test stages
1. Shut off existing lubricators – 3 days
The existing gauge face lubricators will be shut down, both upstream and downstream.
Note must be taken of any crossovers that may permit a train into, or out of, the test section
within the measurement area.
Let traffic run the rail dry.
Run tribometer over measurement sections, as can be seen in figure‐9 (Appendix 2:
Lubricator trial plan)
If tribometer readings are less than 0.45 on the high rail gauge corner of the two test curves,
then there is another source of lubrication, and this must be determined and turned off.
2. Install units – 2 days

Install all three units, and test to ensure they are working correctly. Units must be installed
in accordance with the manufacturer’s instructions. The applicator bars on t h e tangent
track should be installed using a typical ‘ worn flange’ wheel profile template to set the
height of the bars (figure 3 Appendix 1).
Each supplier is to be invited to give technical assistance in the installation and testing of
their units.
Splash tests are to be undertaken to determine the optimum lubricant pump rate for each
location, as can be seen in figure 6 (Appendix 1: Lubricator trial plan).
When the correct height has been measured for the tangent units, these bars can be
removed from the track until they are to be tested.
This work needs to be undertaken under traffic (unless a suitable shutdown is available).
3. Turn on curve units – 3 days

Turn on the two trial units set up with short bars in the curves at the 553.179 km and
the 553.710 km points.
4. Measurement – 2 days
Run tribometer over measurement sections.
Photograph spot test sites.
5. Turn off curve units

Turn off the two trial units at the 553.179 km and the 553.710 km points.
Collect data from units.
6. Run the rail dry – 3 days

Let traffic run the rail dry.

8. Turn on tangent unit – 3 days

Install the tangent long bars at 555.5 km.
Turn on the trial unit.
10. Turn off tangent unit

Turn off the trial unit at the 555.500 km.
Collect data from units.
11. End of trial – 2 days

Turn on existing lubricators.
Remove trial units.
Tribometer runs.
Using QR’s hand push tribometer, coefficient of friction measurements are to be made along the track in
the up direction (decreasing kilometres, or towards Gladstone). The measurements are made at 34
degrees (subsequently modified to 60 degrees) to the gauge corner of the curve high rail and the top of
high and top of low rail. Special attention is needed for grinding facets left on the rail at this angle, as
grease can be trapped in a facet and produce false readings.
3.3 Results
Carry distance is to be documented up to the point where the coefficient of friction exceeds a value of
0.25µ from the wayside lubricator. The de Koker number for the test lubricator units is to be calculated at
the end of each seven-day test period. This number is based on a number of parameters, including lubricant
carry distance, lubricant type, track geometry and traffic. This number needs to be used to do a preliminary
lubrication design for the Blackwater System.
A brief report is to be produced containing:
results of the tribometer measurements

results of the de Koker calculation
proposed locations for setting out new lubricators for the Blackwater System
data from the condition monitoring telemetry system, and documentation of all benefits
of such a system. Match the telemetry data with events such as trains passing the site
advantages and disadvantages of each system
costs and benefits of implementing each lubrication technology
proposed extended trial and top of rail friction modification testing.
Research and model development

The proposed wayside lubricator placement model and cost–benefit analysis is to be developed based
on the simulation tool. In the proposed model, the de Koker number needs to be developed, considering
new factors based on track, traffic and lubricator technology, such as lubricator performance, rail–wheel
temperature, rail–wheel profile and gauge width. There is a need to reconsider existing factors such as
applicator bar, traffic type, bogie type, braking condition and grease performance.

3.4 Expected outcomes

Expected outcomes of the project are:
extensive literature review

proposed lubrication best practice for heavy haul lines
measurement of lubrication effectiveness in Australian heavy haul network
development of a framework for a standard on rail curve lubrication for heavy haul lines
development of a decision support tool for cost–benefit analysis of lubrication methods
development of a lubrication decision chart based on lubricators, long and short applicator bars and
lubricants.
3.5 Summary
Based on current practices and their limitations, a systematic way of evaluation for lubrication has been
presented. There is a need for best practice to be developed for Australian heavy haul lines. A
placement model has been proposed based on the significant influential factors.

4. Rail–wheel lubrication in the Australian rail industry

4.1 Introduction
Rail–wheel lubrication practice in Australia does not have any recommended standard guidelines.
Different rail operators implement lubrication strategies based on their own concept and understanding.
Responses about current practice show that wayside gauge face lubrication is predominantly used in
Australia. Hi‐rail lubrication is also applied on some networks. Lubrication needs to be effective,
irrespective of t h e method of application. Current practice and site investigations show that, although
lubricators are regularly filled with lubricant and lubricators are being regularly maintained, there is little
‘effective’ lubricant coverage on the gauge corner and gauge face. Site investigations have verified that
there was significantly less lubricant within a very short distance of each lubricator. Therefore, it can be
confirmed that the current practice in Australian rail lubrication is not effective.
4.2 Response to current practice

A comprehensive questionnaire has been developed by Central Queensland University (CQU) for the
purpose of ‘establishing recommended best practices for rail–wheel friction management and lubrication’.
It has been circulated to different rail operators for response, based on current lubrication practice in the
network. Responses were received from QR, RailCorp and WestNet. ARTC did not respond, as it believes
that its current practices have not yet been standardised.
The responses in Table 4.1 provided by rail operators don’t present a view of standard practice
throughout the Australian rail industry. A brief discussion on current practice follows.
Studies show that the current lubrication practices on Australian railways can be substantially improved
with improved lubricator technology, lubricator placement guidelines, better training of lubricator
maintainers and improved lubricant specifications. With these improvements, below rail and above rail
assets will be better protected, and substantial savings to the industry will be achieved.
4.3 Issues in current practice

Field investigation discovered that there are many problems with poor lubrication practice in heavy haul
lines. Therefore, the gauge corner of high rail and wheel flange remain unprotected from severe wear. A
few examples of common problems in wayside lubrication sites identified in the field study include:
clogging in pump assembly, hose joints and distribution blades

most of the grease volume ending up on the ballast at the lubricator bar site, with very little picked
up by wheels
hydraulic and mechanical units having most of the applicator ports clogged so that pressurised
grease leaks through joints and connections
the curves to be protected being poorly lubricated, with the gauge corner and gauge face
measured to be dry (>0.25 COF)
lubricator unit’s location and positioning of applicator bars with respect to top of rail not being
standardised
lubricator bars in the spiral of curves having to be removed each grinding cycle, which results in
non-removal or late reinstallation, causing rail surface fatigue of gauge face
plunger head on the actuator of hydraulic lubricators being broken, mushroomed or flattened
incorrect plunger height in many places
pumps being out of order or leaking grease from pump assembly
lubricator units being out of order for long periods of time until the lubricator maintainer returns
to the site

grease separation being common in the tank from poor grease distribution (clogging)
excessive grease loss, over lubrication, RCF and rail surface contamination, due to lack of precise
control of application rate.
Table 4.1: Summary of responses to lubrication survey by Australian rail operators
Parameters QR RailCorp WestNet Railway (EGR, Avon Vally,

South WestMain)
Narrow gauge coal lines, freight Heavy haul, freight,
Regional/shortline
Type of and high speed passenger, transit/passenger services
operator switching/ terminals,
metro/transits
Wayside specific — gauge face and Wayside Wayside specific — gauge face and
top of rail , hybrid top of rail units top of rail and hi‐ rail lubrication.
to test products, hand application Hi‐rail systems apply grease on the
Lubrication at specific location high rail. There are cameras on back
method of the hi‐rail system to monitor
application on a left or right curve.
Lubricate the whole curve and do not
use
No specific formula, but has some intermittent
Not been application
specified for wayside
Positioning should be in the
rules of installation, such as transition of curves 400 to 600 m application. Run hi‐rail lube system on
considering loaded/empty trains, radius or in the body of the curves lines every day. On the 14 and 20
Applied direction of trains, accessibility of 600 to 1000 m radius. Best strategy MGT lines, the hi‐rail units run three
formula or curves, curves radius (</= 500m > is to use moderate radius curves to times per week. Application time per
rules of 1MGT traffic), i.e. in spiral of set up lubricators. Lubricators at week based on trial and error basis to
installation shallow curve sharp curves tend to be ineffective. ensure grease on the rail at all times
Carry distance varies with sleeper
type
Gauge face — mechanical (PW37, Mechanical lubricators for For wayside application, Portec
P&Ns, RTE), hydraulic (Portec & flange lubrication hydraulic units with 40 kg tank. Also
Type of other), electric (Portec & Lincoln); used hi‐rail lube system
lubricator TOR — Portec hydraulic and Lincoln
electric, manual application in
problem areas
600 mm short bars in pairs or RTE clamp-on type lubricators are Familiar with short bars only
Type of single, do not use brush on used due to being easy to remove and
applicator bars Lincoln bars, electronic lubricator replace when required
set to 0.25 sec for 16 axles
Not specified Positioning should be in the Two bars on high rail only
transition of curves 400 to 600 m
radius or in the body of the curves
600 to 1000 m radius. Best strategy
Placement is to use moderate radius curves to
location set up lubricators. Lubricators at
sharp curves tend to be ineffective.
Carry distance varies with sleeper
type
Positioning of Not specified Not specified Not specified

bars
Clogged ports, empty tank, leaking Not specified Break down, need for spare parts,
fittings, blown hoses, grease clogging, leaking etc. Too much
Common clogging lines due to lumps in maintenance. Difficult to keep
problems grease working and need to remove prior to
grinding

Parameters QR RailCorp WestNet Railway (EGR, Avon Vally,

South WestMain)
Dedicated lubricator maintainer and Track maintenance staff fill and Filled up and maintained every
offsider inspect the unit, time-based service lubricators. Filled by pumping three weeks by high rail lube
Inspection, cycle for filling, use bulk filling or 20 from drum approx. 5 litres every operators or gang. Tried to increase
servicing and kg pots, lots of maintenance. In three weeks. Various scheduled track the reliability of wayside lubricators.
general, six to 12 units not working inspections find out problems, like Spot check by track inspectors and
maintenance
every two weeks lubricator servicing, track control, hi‐rail lube operators
annual inspection of rail condition
Rail–wheel wear rates, field Head to head assessment of Rail wear particles on the sleeper.
Parameters inspection of dry wear, no tonnage competing lubrication products, Collected rail wear data every six
of data for consumption rates gauge face friction value, carry months using Railmate
effectiveness distance, level of TOR
evaluation contamination, grease
pumpability and thermal stability
Method of Coefficient of friction measurement Monitor wear of passenger wheels Wear measurement in curves every
overall with tribometer, observation of rail and instance of flanging or six months using Railmate, observe
lubrication head contamination, rail wear, black lubricator failure flakes on ties off the rail
effectiveness line on gauge face
measurement
Different sections use different Rocol rail curve grease, same product Rocol #1 (thinner) for wayside
Type of greases, seasonal change of grease used for winter and summer based lubricators and Rocol
lubricant use type. Currently use Rocol #1 and on pump adjustment #2 (thicker) for hi‐rail lubrication
Rocol #2
Has a CETS standard. No overruling of Lubrication strategy provides Lubrication is decided by
standards guidelines for initial installations, but superintendents. Grease
Standard monitoring and adjustment for better and components are purchased by
policy performance is done by track staff them. Engineering
team can suggest for better practice
Lubricators are not turned off for Noticed differential wear on curves. Not happy with mechanical and
ultrasonic inspection, removed for The further into the curve, the hydraulic wayside systems because
grinding cycles and put back soon greater the wear in unidirectional of too much maintenance. Difficult
after grinding, removed for ballast track to keep working and need to remove
Other cleaning, do not remove for prior to grinding. Thus prepared to
concerns tamping, Cost–benefit may have trial electronic gauge face
been done. Electric lubricators are Units, which need less maintenance
preferred, which may reduce huge and are more reliable
amount of maintenance and
improve reliability
Problems observed during the field study include:
possible environmental hazard and probable groundwater contamination due to grease loss
into the ballast and grease splash from the wheel
cavitations in the pump unit due to air block or excessively viscous grease
broken or smashed blades due to wheel flange contact
poor lubrication within a short distance of a working lubricator
poor servicing and maintenance due to lack of training
high labour cost in filling and maintenance with no or little benefit in reducing rail wear.

Figure 4.1 shows the severe grease waste and ineffective lubrication on site.
Figure 4.1: Waste of grease and dry gauge
Figure 4.2 shows cavitation has occurred due to an airlock problem when lubricator is unattended for
long time.
Figure 4.2: Cavitation at the pump inlet
Examples of visits to lubricator sites and current problems

Solar power-operated electric unit with two short bars and positive displacement piston pump on hi‐rail
was operating at Mt Larcom, Aldoga Section. Problems included ports clogged, grease waste to ballast,
measured short carry distance, uneven grease bead size, and airlock in the pump. Track time and labour
was required to maintain the unit. Due to the airlock, the units had to be primed before grease was
pumped to the tank. The tank capacity of the unit was 37 kg and operating voltage was 24 volts.
Figure 4.3: Electric lubricator unit at Mt Larcom, Aldoga section – grease waste, clogging and leaking

RTE25 mechanical units with single short bar (eight ports) on hi‐rail were operating at 551.062 km, Mt
Larcom, Aldoga section. Investigation shows that there was no grease in the gauge corner, even at the
bottom of the gauge face, in the first curve from the lubricator unit. Grease was being delivered through
only one port. Grease clogging and a large amount of grease waste to the ballast required man‐hours of
maintenance. The plunger height is inconsistent due to wear, and therefore grease delivery to the bars is
inconsistent and provides little control. At lower train speeds, the plunger does not get enough impact from
the train wheel, so the grease quantity delivered is not reliable. There are eight RTE25 units within 30 km of
track (main, plus branch line) in the Mt Larcom to Callemondah track section, and 25 units in the district.
Figure 4.4: RTE25 Mechanical lubricator unit at Mt Larcom, Aldoga section – grease waste, dry curve
A PW37 hydraulic lubricator unit with MC‐3 bars (two bars on hi‐rail) was operating on the Mt Larcom,
Aldoga section, in the centre of a curve. The blade height relative to the top of the rail can be
adjusted up and down to allow installation on 47, 53 and 60 kg rail. This unit experiences airlocks in the
system. When the wheel hits the plunger, the hydraulic action activates the pump, and the pump delivers
grease through the ports. Grease delivery is not precisely controlled. Large quantities of grease are
wasted, there is grease leakage from the interface of the pump and hydraulic actuator and clogging of
ports, and large quantities of grease are seen on the ballast at the transition to the body of the curve.
Figure 4.5: PW37 m echanical lubricator unit at Mt Larcom, Aldoga section, leaking from plunger
connection and pump assembly, rainwater in the grease tan

Measurement of coefficient of friction in a currently operating hydraulic lubricator site (7 and 8

June 2010)
To investigate the current practice of friction management on the gauge corner, tribometer readings of
the coefficient of friction (μ) have been recorded at a typical working hydraulic unit. The site locations were
the Fry–Mt Rainbow section (79.4 km and 79.9 km) and Mt Larcom section (564.298 km and 562.576 km).
The average coefficient of friction for each curve is shown in Tables 4.2 and 4.3. The coefficient of friction
data shows that both gauge corner and TOR are >0.25 COF, which indicates that the rail is fairly dry. This
shows that grease doesn’t carry in the first curve. Even in the Fry–Mt Rainbow section, tribometer data
was collected within 5 metres of the lubricator unit. A finger test (Figure 4.7) shows that the rails are
totally dry. The grease ends up on the ballast around the lubricator site.
Table 4.2: Average coefficient of friction (μ) data within first two curves from currently operating
lubricator site (lubricator supplier A)
Average Average Average

Location
coefficient coefficient coefficient
(Fry–Mt Type of Rail
Date Suppliers Grease of of of
Rainbow applicator bars condition
friction(GF –friction(TOR –friction(TOR –
section)
high) at 60° high) low)
(km)
08.06.2010 79.4 2 short bar (MC3) PW37 Rocol Wet 0.32 0.36 0.37
08.06.2010 79.9 2 short bar (MC3) PW37 Rocol Wet 0.35 0.34 0.41
Table 4.3: Average coefficient of friction (μ) data within first two curves from currently operating
lubricator site (lubricator supplier B)
Average
Location Average
coefficient
(Mt Rail coefficient of
Date Type of applicator bars Suppliers Grease of
Larcom) condition friction(TOR –
friction(GF –
(km) low)
high) at 60°
07.06.2010 564.298 2 short bar on each rail B Rocol Wet 0.34 0.39
07.06.2010 564.576 2 short bar on each rail B Rocol Wet 0.31

At the 84.200 km location, a solar powered electric unit site observation showed that almost 50 per
cent of the ports in each bar were blocked. After cleaning with high pressure water gun (Figure 4.6), the
bars were still clogged. These will be removed and cleaned off track by the lubricator maintainer.
Figure 4.6: Hydraulic unit, clogged ports, leaking grease and cleaning efforts with high pressure water gun
Figure 4.7: Lubricator site curve dry (>0.25) close to the lubricator unit. The shiny dry gauge corner
remains unprotected throughout the downtime of the lubricator

Figure 4.8: Out of order lubricator unit and dry curve

5. Recommendations on wayside lubrication best practice

Implementation of optimum lubrication practices was supported by field and laboratory investigations
conducted by engineering staff from CQU.
Field trials were required to determine the suitability of the lubricant and the lubricator hardware for the
territory. New equipment technology has greatly improved wayside lubrication effectiveness. Overall, the
choice of the best lubricator system was determined using the following criteria:
installation into tangent track and simplicity of operation

reliability of performance and ease of maintenance
electronic controls to remotely monitor performance
availability of spare parts
high performance lubricant
economic considerations.
CQU undertook an extensive literature review of the current lubricator technology to determine the best
systems for industry to employ. The majority of wayside equipment in service today uses a mechanical
contact or hydraulic activation system, in which wheels impact a plunger that in turn drives a motor. The
experience of the field study shows that these systems have a history of high maintenance requirements,
and do not activate effectively at low train speeds. The newer technology lubricators employ a non‐contact
(i.e. low‐maintenance) rail‐mounted sensor, which detects the passing of wheels and signals the electric
motor to dispense lubricant. Control box settings can be adjusted to regulate the volume of lubricant
dispensed, based on the number of wheels travelling through the site, minimising lubricant waste
‘fling‐off’ from the wheels. The lubricator can also be turned on or off remotely using RPM systems to
facilitate ultrasonic inspection throughout the territory, without the operator having to leave the vehicle.
The objective is to minimise lubricant consumption and the number of lubricators necessary to achieve
the desired gauge face coefficient of friction through optimal placement of the hardware, and to ensure its
proper adjustment.
Laboratory wheel–rail simulations, using full‐sized and smaller scale test rigs, have proven effective in
evaluating the comparative performance of various lubricants at the wheel–rail interface. The CQU
research team is to test various commercially available lubricants from several manufacturers, with the
objective of determining the optimal lubricant for field conditions. These tests can eliminate the necessity
for expensive field testing of different lubricants.
QR has adopted best practice targets as part of a strategy to improve and better manage the lubrication
process. The coefficient of friction guidelines adopted by CPR for lubrication management are:
maintain top of rail friction coefficient differential, left to right < 0.1
top of rail friction > 0.3 < 0.40
gauge face of high rail coefficient ≤ 0.25.
CQU evaluated the optimal settings of the electronic lubricators by ‘splash’ testing for lubricant waste with
passing trains. The optimal setting was found to be 0.25 seconds of activation every 12 axles for the long
lubricator bars.

Summary
There is a great diversity in railway operations worldwide. Some of the differences include curve radii,
tangent lengths, track gradients, traffic type and wear state, train speed and braking requirements, axle
loads, rail types, rail grinding strategies and climate. All these factors influence the transport and
retentivity of the lubricant on the rail. CQU researched the latest information about optimal placement
of lubricators to help optimise lubrication management. Controlled in‐field testing by CQU is being
undertaken to establish the reliability and efficiency of wayside lubricators. Many factors are being
considered, including:
the waste associated with fling‐off and build‐up on the top‐of‐rail

the rate of lubricant burn‐off with the passage of trains
the length of track treated effectively by each lubricator
the pumpability of the lubricant at all temperature ranges
the vulnerability to lubricator port plugging
the rate of lubricant wash from the rail by rain and snow
the tendency of lubricants to slump from the gauge corner at high ambient temperatures
other factors, not directly related to the lubricant or the lubricator, such as:
‐ rail grinding surface‐finish at the gauge corner of the high rail — deep grinding facets should
be avoided as they prevent the transfer and spread of lubricant
‐ variations in track gauge — should be within 1/16 inch at the lubricator site
‐ t he lubricator location — should be in tangent track and not adjacent to curves
sharper than 3 degrees, away from in‐track obstructions such as crossings, switches and
detectors
‐ the tendency for truck hunting at the lubricator site — must be avoided
‐ availability of sunlight throughout the year — if needed to power solar panels of
electronic lubricators.
The optimal placement of lubricators is affected by numerous factors:
not going over the total de Koker number

locating it on a tangent of suitable length
locating it between curves of opposite direction
locating it between curves having mild or shallow curvature
locating it away from switches, crossings and other areas where alignment irregularities may exist.
Field and partial lab trials show consistent results. The standardised practice fo r measuring
effectiveness of lubrication is going to be part of best practice. The trials of long bar, effective lubricant
and RPM were an excellent outcome of this research. An extensive trial is proposed in coal lines for
validation of the initial findings, and for developing effective friction management practice for heavy haul
lines.

References
Akagaki, T & Kato, K 1987, ‘Plastic flow processes in flow wear under boundary lubricated conditions,’
WEAR, vol. 117, pp. 179–196.
Alp, A, Erdemir, A & Kumar, S 1996, ‘Energy and wear analysis in lubricated sliding contact,’ WEAR, vol. 191,
pp. 261–264.
Andersson, S & Salas‐ Russo, E 1994, ‘The influence of surface roughness and oil viscosity on the transition in
mixed lubricated sliding steel contacts,’ WEAR, vol. 174, pp. 71–79.
Archard, JF 1953, ‘Contact and rubbing of flat surfaces,’ J. Appl. Phys., vol. 24, pp. 981–988.
ASTM 1961, Annual book of ASTMs Standard, American Society for Testing Materials.
Bower, AF & Johnson, KL 1989, ‘The influence of strain hardening on cumulative plastic deformation in
rolling and sliding line contact,’ J. Mech. Phy. Solids, vol. 37, pp. 471–493.
Chattapadhyay, G, Reddy, V & Hargreaves, D 2004, ‘Assessment of risks and cost benefit analysis of various
lubrication strategies for rail tracks under different operating conditions,’ Tribologia, vol. 23, pp. 32–40.
Clayton, P 1995, ‘Predicting the wear of rails on curves from laboratory data,’ WEAR, vol. 181–183, pp. 11–
19.
Daniels, LE 2008, Track maintenance costs on rail transit properties, Transit Co‐operative Research Program,
Transport Research Board, Fair Oaks, CA.
Danks, D & Clayton, P 1987, ‘Comparison of the wear process for eutectoid rail steel field and laboratory
tests,’ WEAR, vol. 120, pp. 233–250.
De Koker, J 1994, ‘Development of a formulae to place rail lubricators,’ Fifth International Tribology
Conference, The South African Institute of Tribology.
de Koker, JJ 2004, ‘Rail lubrication on the Richards Bay coal line,’ from
http://www.ipet.co.za/news/2004raillube1.htm
Dodson, CTJ, A geometry view, from School of Mathematics + MIMS, University of Manchester, Manchester
M13 9PL, UK, from http://www.maths.manchester.ac.uk/~kd/geomview/geometry.html
Ertz, M & Knothe, K 2003, ‘Thermal stresses and shakedown in wheel/rail contact,’ Archive of Applied
Mechanics, vol. 72, pp. 715–729.
Esveld, C 2001, Modern railway track, MRT‐ Production, NL‐5300 AH Zaltbommel, The Netherlands.
Frohling, R, de Koker, J & Amade, M 2009, ‘Rail lubrication and its impact on the wheel/rail system,’ Proc.
IMechE, vol. 223 Part F: J. Rail and Rapid Transit.
Hamrock, B J 1991, Fundamentals of fluid film lubrication, NASA reference publication 1255, USA.
Hargreaves, DJ, Elastohydrodynamic lubrication in the design of machine elements, Queensland University of
Technology, Brisbane.

Harrison, H, McCanney, T & Cotter, J 2002, ‘Recent development in coefficient of friction measurements at
the rail/wheel interface’ WEAR, vol. 253, pp. 114–123.
Jones, N 1998, Transition curves, The Department of Geomatics, The University of Melbourne, Australia,
from http://www.sli.unimelb.edu.au/planesurvey/prot/topic/top12‐05.html
IHHA 2001, Guidelines to best practices for heavy haul railway operations: wheel and rail interface issues,
International Heavy Haul Association, 2808 Forest Hills Court Virginia Beach, Virginia.
Jendel, T 2002, ‘Prediction of wheel profile wear‐ comparisons with field measurements,’ WEAR, vol. 253,
pp. 89–99.
Johnson, KL 1995, ‘Contact mechanics and the wear of metals’ WEAR, vol. 190, pp. 162–170.
Kapoor, A 1994, ‘A re‐evaluation of the life to rupture of ductile metals by cyclic plastic strain,’ Fatigue Fract.
Eng.Mat. Struct,. vol. 17, pp. 201–219.
Kapoor, A 1997, ‘Wear by plastic ratchetting,’ WEAR, vol. 212, pp. 119–130.
Kapoor, A, Johnson, KL & Williams, JA 1996, ‘A model for the mild ratchetting wear of metals,’ WEAR, vol.
200, pp. 38–44.
Kato, K 2002, ‘Classification of wear mechanisms/models’, Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical

Engineers, Part J: Journal of Engineering Tribology, vol. 216, pp. 349–355.
Knothe, K & Liebelt, S 1995, ‘Determination of temperature for sliding contact with applications for
wheel‐rail systems,’ WEAR, vol. 189, pp.91‐99.
Lewis, R & Dwyer‐Joyce, RS 2006, ‘Wear at the wheel/rail interface when sanding is used to increase
adhesion,’ Proc. IMechE, vol. 220, pp. 29–41.
Lonsdale, C & Stone, D 2002, ‘Some possible alternatives for longer‐life locomotive wheels,’ Proceedings of
IMECE02, November 17–22, New Orleans, Louisiana.
Marich, S, Kerr, M & Fogarty, R 2001, ‘Optimizing trackside Lubrication for the wheel/rail system,’
Proceedings of RTAA Conference, November, Canberra.
Melly, Dr R & Wissner, P 1997, ‘The real costs of lubrication,’ 99th AGM‐CIM Technical Program, M/E
Division.
Meng, HC & Ludema, KC 1995, ‘Wear models and predictive equations: their form and content’ WEAR, vol.
181–183, pp. 443–457.
National Transport Commission (NTC) 2008, Rail productivity review issues paper, August, from:
www.ntc.gov.au/filemedia/reports/Rail ProductivityReviewAug08.pdf
Nielsen, JCO 2003, ‘Numerical prediction of rail roughness growth on tangent railway tracks, Journal of
Sound and Vibration, vol. 267(3), pp. 537–548.
Nilson, R 2002, Rail wear development – measurement and evaluation, Railway Technology Department of
Vehicle Engineering, Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm.

Okamoto, I 1998, ‘How bogies work,’ Railway Technology Today 5, K Wako, Japan Railway & Transport
Review, 18, pp. 51–61.
Olofsson, U & Telliskivi, T 2003, ‘Wear, plastic deformation and friction of two rail steels – a full scale test
and a laboratory study,’ WEAR, vol. 254, pp. 80–93.
Povilaitiene, I & Podagelis, I 2003, ‘Research into rail side wearing on curves,’ Transport, vol. 18, pp. 124–
129.
Povilaitiene, I, Podagelis, I & Kamaitis,IZ 2006, ‘Influence of gauge width on rail side wear on track curves,’
Journal of Civil Engineering and Management, vol. 12, pp. 255–260.
QR Civil Engineering Division 2002, Lubrication investigation Moura Line, Track Engineering Section, Civil
Engineering Division, Brisbane, May.
QR Engineering Services Division 1995, Standard Practice No. 3707 1995 – Rail and wheel flange lubrication,
Civil Engineering Section, Engineering Services Division, Corporate Services Group, Brisbane.
Reddy, V, Chatttopadhyay, G & Hargreaves, D 2006, ‘Analysis of rail wear data for evaluation of lubrication
performance,’ International Tribology Conference, Brisbane.
Reddy, V, Chatttopadhyay, G, Hargreaves, D & Larsson‐Kraik, PO 2006, ‘Techniques in developing economic

decision model combining above rail and below rail assets,’ 1st World Congress on Engineering Asset
Management (WCEAM 2006), Gold Coast.
Reiff, R 2006, ‘Best practices update for friction control including implementing top‐of‐rail friction control,’
AREMA Conference, Pueblo, Colorado, Transportation Technology Centre, Inc.
Sadeghi, J & Akbari, B 2006, ‘Field investigation on effects of railway track geometric parameters on rail
wear,’ Journal of Zhejiang University SCIENCE A, vol. 11, pp. 1846–1855.
Sid, D & Wolf, E 2002, ‘Transportation for the 21st century,’ Trac Glide Top‐of‐Rail Lubrication System,
Report from Department of Energy.
Sims, RD, Miller, KA & Schepmann, GF 1996, ‘Rail lubrication measurement,’ Proceedings of the 1996
ASME/IEEE Joint, Railroad Conference, 1996, Oakbrook, IL.
Spiryagin, M, Lee, KS, Yoo, HH, Kashura, O & Popov, S 2010, ‘Numerical calculation of temperature in the
wheel‐rail flange contact and implications for lubricant choice,’ WEAR, vol. 268, pp. 287–293.
Sroba, P, Roney, M, Dashko, R & Magel, E 2001, ‘Canadian Pacific Railway's 100% effective lubrication
initiative,’ AREMA 2001 Conference & Exhibition. Chicago, Illinois.
Sundh, J & Olofsson, U 2008, ‘Seizure mechanism of wheel‐rail contacts under lubricated conditions using a
transient ball‐on‐disc test method,’ Tribology International 41, pp. 867–874.
Swaley, K & Wu, H 2005, ‘The formation of hollow‐worn wheels and their effect on wheel/rail interaction,’
WEAR, vol. 258, pp. 1179–1186.
Thelen, G & Lovette, M 1996, ‘A parametric study of the lubrication transport mechanism at the rail‐wheel
interface,’ WEAR, vol. 191(1–2), pp. 113–120.

Tourney, HM & Mulder, JM 1996, ‘The transition from the wear to the stress regime,’ WEAR, vol. 191, pp.
107–12.
Turner, M 2008, ‘Rail grinding – the QR journey,’ Conference On Railway Engineering, Perth, 281–293, 7–10
September.
Waara, P 2001, 'Lubrication influence on flange wear in sharp railroad curves,' Industrial Lubrication
and Tribology, vol. 53, pp.161–168.
Zhang,Z, Zhang, L,& Mai,Y 1996,'The running-in wear of a steel/ SiCp-AI composite system,' WEAR, vol.
194, pp.38–43.

Appendix A: Field trial brief report
This is a brief report on the gauge face lubricator trial at Yarwun on the North Coast line.
Test objectives
1. To determine best practices in wayside gauge face lubrication for Australian heavy haul rail lines
by:
a. determining the best lubricant for the operating conditions
b. determining the most efficient lubricator system and placement
c. determining the most efficient lubricant application rates
d. determining the most appropriate system.
2. To do a comparative test on the effectiveness of short lubricator bar technology used in the
spiral of curves as compared to long bar technology in tangent track.
3. To develop and document a scientific formulae and methodology for the placement of
lubricators on the coal lines.
4. To investigate the benefits of remote condition monitoring technology on the lubricator units.
5. To perform an economic analysis on the two trial systems, short bar technology and long bar
technology, compared to the current number of lubricators on the coal lines.
This analysis is expected to include:

the number of lubricators in place and required
the volume of grease dispensed by the total number of units required
the requirement to remove and re‐install for the grinding program
the maintenance requirements
the labour required to maintain the units
the benefits of remote monitoring of unit health and call for help on failure.
Test duration with lubricator supplier X equipment: April to July 2010

Lubricator units: lubricator supplier X GF units with grease guides and with RPM unit – both long and
short bars
Grease tank capacity: 360 litres
Grease types tested: grease A, grease B, grease C, grease D
Test lubricators & site location:

Site 1: curve unit (2 short bars on hi‐rail) at 553.908 km
Site 2: curve unit (2 short bars on hi‐rail) at 553.440 km
Site 3: tangent unit (1 long bar on each rail) at 554 km
Friction levels greater than 0.25 on the gauge corner and mid-gauge area is considered poor lubrication.

Figure A1: 100% effective friction management targets on the high rail showing coefficients of friction on
a wheel template
Summary of typical test activities and outcomes

26 April
Installation of new units on 26 April — existing lubricators were turned off before the installation
of new units.
Placement of tank, hoses and two short bars in each curve unit site. Figures A2 and A3 show the
installation process of lubricator and bars.
Figure A2: Installation of curve unit shows short applicator grease guide bars

Placed tank on tangent unit site and 2 long bars were tested on the track on 1982 60kg worn rail.
Figure A3: Long bar height measurement and positioning
27 April
Dry t ribometer run — after three days dry down period, a dry t ribometer run was
conducted to measure the coefficient of friction and to confirm that the up track was
completely dry. Figure 4 shows coefficient of friction measurement with tribometer at gauge
face.
Figure A4: Coefficient of friction (μ) measurement with tribometer
Table A1: Average coefficient of friction at GF‐hi, TOR‐hi, and TOR‐low in different curves at dry condition
coefficient coefficient of coefficient of
Curve Curve From To (km) Length Bars Condition of friction friction (TOR friction (TOR
Date
direction number (km) (km) of rail (GF – hi) – hi) – low)
27.04.10 R 2 553.664 553.93 265 Short Dry 0.43 0.5 0.4
27.04.10 L 3 553.176 553.488 313 Short Dry 0.44 0.69 0.63
27.04.10 R 5 552.613 552.72 107 Short Dry 0.5 0.66 0.63
27.04.10 L 8 551.46 552.31 850 Short Dry 0.52 0.62 0.56
27.04.10 R 12 550.165 550.406 241 Short Dry 0.52 0.44 0.53

Figure A5: Variation of average coefficient of friction (COF)
at different curve in dry condition on up track
MiniProf measurement of rail profile was taken on the lubricator site and on few curves for rail–
wheel interaction evaluation.
Dye penetrant testing was conducted on different curves for RCF and crack evaluation.
Splash test on curve unit site 2 (two short bars on hi‐rail) at 553.440 km.
Figure A6: Splash test material set up, bar height measurement, TOR contamination & heavy splash before
optimal setting

Figure A7: Dispensed grease mass measurement with electronic scale
30 April 2010 – short bar test results

Wet tribometer run (coefficient of friction, μ measurement) was conducted at GF – hi rail (at
35°), TOR – hi rail and TOR – low rail on up track towards Gladstone.
Table A2: Average coefficient of friction at GF – hi, TOR – hi and TOR – low in different curves, wet
condition (grease A)
coefficient coefficient coefficient
Date Curve Curve From To (km) Length Bars Condition of friction of friction of friction
direction number (km) (km) of rail (GF – hi) (TOR – hi) (TOR – low)
30.04.10 R 2 553.664 553.93 265 Short Wet 0.19 0.26 0.52
30.04.10 L 3 553.176 553.488 313 Wet 0.26 0.3 0.27
30.04.10 R 5 552.613 552.72 107 Wet 0.26 0.33 0.32
30.04.10 R 6 552.5 552.613 113 Wet 0.34 0.37 0.38
30.04.10 L 8 551.46 552.31 850 Wet 0.33 .33 .35
Figure A8: Variation of average coefficient of friction at different curve in wet condition on up track

On curve number 6 (right-hand curve), between 552.5 km and 552.613 km, the average coefficient of
friction GF – hi rail was 0.34 and the gauge corner was dry.
With subsequent bar height changes, the COF could not be improved for significant rail coverage down the
track. The short bar test was abandoned until such time as the bar height could be reviewed by the
supplier.
On curve number 8 (left-hand curve), it looked like the gauge face was dry, and there was no grease up to
the bottom of the gauge face. Only dry graphite was present. Evidence of RCF was seen on the gauge
corner.
Figure A9: Dry graphite in gauge face and RCF on curve number 8
The following figure shows the completely dry gauge corner on hi‐rail in curve number 8.
Figure A10: Dry gauge corner on hi‐rail on curve number 8
4 May 2010 – long bar test results
A tangent unit with one long bar on each rail was installed and splash test materials were
installed on site at 554 km.
Figure A11: Two Long bars in tangent track at the 554 km
Figure A12: Long bar with grease beads. Uneven distribution

of bead sizes found to be due to a faulty gasket.
Both gaskets changed out
Figure A13: Gauge face of curve at 550.383 km with dry gauge corner

From 4 May, grease was dispensing at .25 sec per 12 axles through the single long bar on each rail at 554
km. There was site contamination around 20 m distance on the ballast and TOR. COF was being measured
using a tribometer on top of two rails and the gauge face at 35, 45, 50 degrees. Track was inspected from
554 to 550 km, rail gauge face and mid-gauge was considerably dry.
Grease carry evaluated to be 1.2 to 1.3 km for left and right curves.
Table A 3: Average c oefficient of f riction at GF – hi, TOR – hi and TOR – low in different curves wet
condition (grease A)

coefficient coefficient of coefficient of
Date Curve Curve From To (km) Length Bars Condition of friction friction (TOR friction (TOR
direction number (km) (km) of rail (GF – hi) – hi) – low)
Long
06.05.10 R 2 553.664 553.93 265 (1+1) Wet 0.19 0.29 0.31
L 3 553.176 553.488 313 Long Wet 0.21 0.32 0.29
06.05.10 (1+1)
Long
06.05.10 R 4 552.72 553.017 297 (1+1) Wet 0.23 0.29 0.32
Long
06.05.10 R 5 552.613 552.72 107 (1+1) Wet 0.25 0.32 0.32
Long
06.05.10 L 8 551.46 552.31 850 (1+1) Wet 0.3 0.32 0.33
Long
06.05.10 R 9 551.032 551.42 388 (1+1) Wet 0.28 0.33 0.36
Long
06.05.10 R 12 550.165 550.406 241 (1+1) Wet 0.26 0.32 0.32
Figure A14: Variation of average coefficient of friction at different curves in wet condition on up track
Test results for grease carry distance were considered unsatisfactory.

6 May 2010
RPM s ystem is capable of generating several features, reports and statistical data for the
performance monitoring of the units from remote monitoring station. A few examples are shown
below.
Figure A15: Pump volts and ambient temperature vs. time in dates
Figure A16: Product level in the tank vs. time in dates
Figure A17: Wheel count vs. time in dates

Figure A18: Typical report generated by the RPM system
Air lock discovered in the unit. This was shown on the RPM system as a change in amps
drawn by the motor.
Figure A19: Motor amps variation throughout the dates due to air lock in the unit
Curve 9 gauge face shows cleaned spot and dry graphite on surrounding gauge face, which
means very poor lubrication on the gauge corner and gauge face.

Figure A20: Cleaned spot and dry graphite on gauge face on curve 9
19 May 2010
Dry COF for several curves was measured with tribometer on TOR and gauge face. Rail was dry
on gauge corner at 45 degrees and at 60 degrees.
Four long bars were installed with short hoses and shut off valves for easy priming of each bar.
Bars now set at 5/8 inch below top of rail. Dura valve can control grease flow direction and
flow rate for each individual bars.
Figure A21: Valve (grease flow on for two bars)
Splash test materials were set up to optimise grease delivery rate based on grease splash and
top of rail contamination.

Figure A22: Splash test with four long bars
24 May 2010
After 42,627 axles, there was considerable splash on the white linoleum, and evidence of
lots of train sanding for 30 metres down the track. Lubricator supplier X advised to reduce
the pump activation seconds to reduce the bead size, and also to reduce the wheel count to
get more wheels covered (e.g. 0.2 secs and 8 wheels, or 0.15 sec and 4 wheels). A tangent
unit was operating with four long bars (two long bars on each rail) and grease A was being
used.
COF was measured on curves down the track in up line. Grease was evident on the worn
gauge corner of a curve 1.2 kms away. However, the COF was > 0.3 to 60 degrees. There was
dry graphite on the gauge face. Below the gauge face, there was residual wet grease being
pushed down the gauge corner. There was evidence of this excess grease being dropped to
the foot of the rail. This shows the grease is carrying on the wheels, but it is burning off very
quickly.
Table A4: Average coefficient of friction at GF – hi at 60°, TOR – hi and TOR – low in different curves at
wet condition (grease A)

Type of coefficient of coefficient coefficient of
Curve Curve From Length applicator Rail friction (GF – of friction friction
Date direction number (km) To (km) (m) Grease condition
bars hi) at 60° (TOR – hi) (TOR – low)
4 Long Grease
24.05.2010 R 2 553.664 553.93 265 Wet 0.19 0.34 0.41
bars (2+2) A
4 Long Grease
24.05.2010 L 3 553.176 553.488 313 Wet 0.30 0.38 0.33
bars (2+2) A
4 Long Grease
24.05.2010 R 4 552.72 553.017 297 Wet 0 .34
bars (2+2) A
4 Long Grease
24.05.2010 R 5 552.613 552.72 107 Wet 0.28 0.33 0.36
bars (2+2) A
4 Long Grease
24.05.2010 L 8 551.46 552.31 850 Wet 0.33 0.39 0.37
bars (2+2) A

Figure A23: Variation of average coefficient of friction at different curves in wet condition on up track
Bars were removed to dry down the track and make it ready for the next phase of the test.
The total wheel count was 174,159.
Figure A24: Splash after 42,627 wheel pass through the long bar site and abrasive wear due to sanding
Figure A25: Residual grease below gauge face and presence of dry graphite in the lower gauge corner

Test results for grease carry distance are unsatisfactory.
26 May 2010
After the 24 May wet tribometer reading for grease A, the track was dried down for two days, and
a dry tribometer reading was taken to confirm that the track was fairly dry. The coefficients of
friction at gauge face hi‐rail, TOR – low rail and TOR – hi rail were above 0.40.
Figure A26: Dry gauge face on hi‐rail at curve 5 and curve 8 on up track
After the dry tribometer run, grease A was replaced in the tank with grease B up to tank level 20%.
All the hoses and bars w e r e thoroughly cleaned to avoid contamination with grease A.
The system was primed with grease B, as there was only the last metre of hose and the bars
that had to be pumped through with grease B (completed in 3.5 hours under traffic). Prussian
Blue has been applied to distinguish between old grease and new grease in delivery through
ports.
Applicator bar damage and a train blocking the track restricted the access to collect data, and it is
planned to repeat the test for lubricant B after the field trial with lubricant C and D.
9 June 2010
Changed to Lubricant C.
15 June 2010
Wet tribometer data was collected. Carry distance was 4.5 km.

17 Jun 2010
Changed to Lubricant D. Wet tribometer data to be collected on 22 June 2010.

Appendix B: Summary of field trip to Callemondah and Mt Larcom
Callemondah site
Solar powered electronic lubricators were installed on Callemondah site in the transition of the
bidirectional track. The unit contains 90 kg of grease, and has two applicator bars on the each rail, which
deliver lubricant at 0.35 sec per 18 axles. Two units are also installed at Mt Rainbow. An electrical unit has
an advantage over RT 25 hydraulic units, which have lots of problem with grease flying, wheel rubbing,
plungers wearing out, blocking holes, bending, clogging and sand clogging. The RT 25 needed a pump
adjustment to adjust plunger position, and has less reliability and control in grease application. In this
district, summer and winter need different grease, depending on viscosity, which makes a big difference in
ports.
Rocol ‐1 is the grease used in winter rail curve and wheel flange lubrication. 180 kg drums are
available. It is softer and a lot easier to pump and operate. It is graphite-based with mineral oil.
Temperature range – 10 to 150 C. RT 25 gets very little blockage with this.
Rocol‐2 is used in summer, but it becomes thicker in winter and hard to pump.
In Rocol grease, graphite is used as a lubricating solid, clay as thickener and vegetable oil as base oil. NLGI
number is 1 and temperature range – 10 to 150 C. Weekly, 1.5 drums, or 270 kg, of lubricant are needed
for 60 lubricators for the whole district.
Due to impurities in the grease, clogging occurs. Old types of lubricator bars are hard to adjust. Problems
with Molybdenum-based grease are that it becomes harder in the hose and reservoir, and has an effect on
the environment.
The North Coast line has 10 to 50 trains a day, and sometimes no trains for four hrs. On this line, sanding
equipment is installed in front of the driving wheels on locomotives. Squeal in the network occurs due to
top of rail friction.
Mt Larcom site (Lincoln lubricator)
Temperatures rise in summer up to 56 C. The curve radius is 543.026 m. Lincoln lubricators with short bars
were active on the section.
Lincoln lubricators deliver grease with a progressive divider valve to both short bars at the same time, with
same number of delivery hoses (thin) so that precise application can be ensured instead of excessive grease
application. It has been installed in Mt Larcom. Delivery rate is 2 sec per every 32 axles when the wheel
sensor activates the pump, and is electronically controlled. Every bar has six ports. 30 loaded trains
containing 400 axles for wagons and also locomotives axles travel per day through this section.
Sited total axle number was 3,413,574. Axle set up was put at four for testing lubrication application rate
on the trip. The lubricator tank capacity is 37 kilo having tank level indicator & Operating pump pressure is
40 bars. Both bars deliver grease through the same number of bars at a time. The wheel sensor can sense
both directions of traffic.
It has no high maintenance issue except grease leakage at the end of the blade. There were some clogging
problems also. The wear rate difference before and after lubricator set up is important to know. This
Lincoln lubricator has a grease leak problem from the applicator bar. The applicator blades do not have any
barrier at both ends, so the grease continually builds up on the ballast. There is top of rail and ballast
contamination. The maintenance crews put Enratec on the grease, which is an absorbent material. It
absorbs grease like gel, and is then taken away with the waste grease.

Figure A27: Components of Lincoln lubricators with short bars (control panel – axle counter, wheel sensor,
progressive divider valve, applicator bar, reservoir &solar panel)

Curvature Lubrication

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Curvature Lubrication

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Curvature Lubrication

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

What are the different methods of rail-wheel lubrication discussed in the document?

What are the different methods of rail-wheel lubrication discussed in the document?

What are some of the challenges faced with wayside lubrication?

What are some of the challenges faced with wayside lubrication?

CRC for Rail

Established and supported under the Australian

REVISION DATE ACADEMIC REVIEW INDUSTRY REVIEW APPROVAL

Copyright © 2011 CRC for Rail Innovation

CRC for Rail Innovation 23 July 2010 Page i

Executive summary ....................................................................................................................... iii

CRC for Rail Innovation 23 July 2010 Page ii

Performance of wayside lubrication is generally indicated by carryover. There is a need to develop an

CRC for Rail Innovation 23 July 2010 Page iii

List of figures and tables

CRC for Rail Innovation 23 July 2010 Page iv

Abbreviations and acronyms

CQU Central Queensland University

MGT Million gross tons

RPM Remote performance monitoring

TOR Top of rail

CRC for Rail Innovation 23 July 2010 Page v

CRC for Rail Innovation 23 July 2010 Page 1

1.2. Scope of research

1.3. Aims and objectives of the research

CRC for Rail Innovation 23 July 2010 Page 2

The objectives of the project are to:

CRC for Rail Innovation 23 July 2010 Page 3

2. Rail–wheel wear and lubrication

2.2. Wear in rail–wheel interface

2.2.1 Wear zones on wheel and rail

Figure 2.1: Wear zones of wheel and rail

CRC for Rail Innovation 23 July 2010 Page 4

Figure 2.2: Condition of unlubricated worn rail in curves

comparing the difference in worn and new rail profiles

CRC for Rail Innovation 23 July 2010 Page 5

2.3. Methods of rail–wheel lubrication

Figure 2.3: Three methods of rail–wheel lubrication

(a) Wayside lubrication system

CRC for Rail Innovation 23 July 2010 Page 6

(b) Onboard lubrication system (c) Hi-rail lubrication system

2.4 Wayside lubrication

2.4.1 Wayside lubricators

Figure 2.4: Hydraulic lubricator (inset – hydraulic plunger)

CRC for Rail Innovation 23 July 2010 Page 7

Figure 2.5: Mechanical lubricator

CRC for Rail Innovation 23 July 2010 Page 8

Figure 2.7: Lubricators and applicator bars ( www.portecrail.com )

The most significant features of the electric lubricator are:

highly reliable and efficient operation

Electric lubricators rely on solar or electric power.

CRC for Rail Innovation 23 July 2010 Page 9

2.4.2 Lubricant applicator bars

Figure 2.9: Severe RCF and abrasive wear on

CRC for Rail Innovation 23 July 2010 Page 10

2.4.3 Lubrication transport mechanism

2.4.4 Factors influencing effective lubrication

location and placement, including positioning of applicator bar

2.4.5 Issues and recommendations for friction management guidelines

selection of most appropriate equipment for dispensing lubricant

ease of installation and simplicity of operation