Research Programme

Engineering
Wheel rolling contact fatigue
and rim defects investigation
Wheel Steels Handbook
 Wheel rolling contact fatigue (RCF) and rim defects
investigation to further knowledge of the causes of RCF and
to determine control measures

RSSB Wheel Steel Guide

Martin Clarke

Page 1 of 20
 CONTENTS

ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS ..................................................................3

1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY......................................................................................4
2 BACKGROUND....................................................................................................4
3 APPROACH .........................................................................................................5
4 WHEEL STEEL CHARACTERISTICS..................................................................6
5 WHEEL STEEL CHEMICAL ANALYSIS DISCUSSION: ....................................11
6 WHEEL STEEL MECHANICAL PROPERTIES DISCUSSION...........................13
7 SUMMARY .........................................................................................................16
8 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS...................................................................................16
9 RELATED DOCUMENTS AND SPECIFICATIONS............................................16
Appendix I – Wheel Chemistry Table .................................................................17
Appendix II – Wheel Mechanical Property Table................................................18
Appendix III – Old BR grades superseded Table ...............................................19
Appendix IV – Wheel grade applications ............................................................20

© Copyright 2008 Rail Safety and Standards Board.

This publication may be reproduced free of charge for research, private study or for
internal circulation within an organisation. This is subject to it being reproduced and
referenced accurately and not being used in a misleading context. The material must be
acknowledged as the copyright of Rail Safety and Standards Board and the title of the
publication specified accordingly. For any other use of the material please apply to
RSSB's Head of Research and Development for permission. Any additional queries can
be directed to research@rssb.co.uk. This publication can be accessed via the RSSB
website:

www.rssb.co.uk

Page 2 of 20
ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS
AAR Association of American Railroads
BS British Standard
BSEN European Standard with status of British Standard
IRSS Indian Railways Standard Specification
JIS Japanese Industrial Standard
RCF Rolling Contact Fatigue
RSSB Rail Safety and Standards Board
TOC Train Operating Company
V/T SIC Vehicle/Track System Interface Committee
WSP Wheel Slide Protection

Page 3 of 20
1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The request for a guide of wheel steels detailing their metallurgical properties was
identified by the Vehicle/Track System Interface Committee (V/T SIC) in their ongoing
study of wheel rail interaction.

This project was initiated to understand the effects of metallurgy, design and the
manufacturing process on the initiation and propagation rates of rolling contact fatigue
(RCF), and the development of a maintenance strategy to manage the RCF failure
mechanism.

This guide identifies the most commonly used and manufactured grades of railway
wheel steels, and categorises them into a format that can identify similar grades or
similar properties with an explanation of the relevant characteristics of each of the
grade types.

2 BACKGROUND
Train builders, maintainers, and operators are actively looking to improve total life
cycle costs and safety of their wheelsets. Maintenance intervals on older fleets have
increased, and on newer fleets with comparatively high primary suspension yaw
stiffness operating on routes with sweeping curves, RCF has become a major issue
on both wheels and rails. Current thinking suggests that RCF is associated with how
wheelsets negotiate curves, but increased wheel loads and increased periods
between reprofiling also have a significant effect.

New designs and modern equipment have culminated in a shift in the mechanisms of
wheel damage over the last 15 years. In 1992 when the last metallurgical survey was
carried out by BR Research, about 80% of wheels were reprofiled due to thermal
damage, largely as a result of inefficient wheel slide protection (WSP) systems. The
other causes of premature wheel turning were identified as wear, including flange
wear and thermal damage caused by wheel slide and tread braking. Today it is
estimated that up to 80% of wheels are reprofiled due to RCF, and although an
increase in total wheel life has been achieved, improvements are still sought.

The GB maintenance market for wheels is typically 30,000 wheels per annum which is
relatively small compared with the global market of approximately 5,000,000 wheels.
Hence difficulties in supply to British and even European standards have been found.
The current capacity of GB approved wheel suppliers or those seeking approval is as
follows:

• BVV - Germany 85,000 wheels per annum

• CAF - Spain 45,000 wheels per annum
• Lucchini – UK/Italy 120,000 wheels per annum
• Bonatrans – Czech Rep. 170,000 wheels per annum
• Maanshan - China 900,000 wheels per annum

Page 4 of 20
 • SMR - Romania 70,000 wheels per annum
• Standard Steel - USA 200,000 wheels per annum
• MWL - Brazil 50,000 wheels per annum
• Valdunes - France 130,000 wheels per annum
• Total 1,770,000 wheels per annum

On a cost and design basis, new wheel standards have been introduced over the last
10 years, particularly wheels to Association of American Railroads (AAR) standards.
These are more widely used in both quantity and geography, and therefore are more
readily available. More recently, due to the instances of severe and low mileage RCF,
new steels have emerged that contain higher levels of silicon and manganese.

The use of new steel grades to differing standards involves raising a deviation to the
Railway Group Standard. This process ensures that deviations to the standards will
not introduce risk to the railway. This can be a costly, arduous and time consuming
process for train operating companies (TOCs) to bring about wheel material change.

There are currently three deviations in force at this time covering materials change. It
is hoped this guide will assist in enabling deviations to be approved more efficiently
and at reduced cost.

3 APPROACH

The railway wheel steels have been categorised in three stages, and the bulk of the
technical information is contained in the Appendices where it is easier to see the
similarities between standards in tabular form.

The three stages are:

1. Chemical analysis verification

2. Heat treatment condition
3. Mechanical property verification
The first stage of categorisation is chemical analysis. The chemical composition of the
steel defines the level at which the mechanical properties can be achieved. The wheel
steel analyses’ for national, international and bespoke steels are shown in Appendix I.

The second stage defines how the chemical analysis will be utilised by heat treatment
to achieve the final mechanical properties. The most common processes for heat
treating wheels are normalising, fully immersion quenching, and tempering and rim
quenching (chilled), and tempering. Normalised wheels, although still acceptable, are
no longer manufactured for rolling stock operating on Network Rail controlled
infrastructure, and older designed class ‘C’ wheels were replaced by rim chilled and
tempered wheels (R8T) from about 1993. This change was implemented to
incorporate the material grades referenced in British Standard (BS) 5892 Part 3. This
standard is based on UIC812-3, and so in essence this change was to move towards

Page 5 of 20
adoption of European grades. The old BR supersession table from WOSS612-10 is
shown in Appendix III.

The rim properties of fully quenched and rim quenched wheels are similar. This guide
is intended to facilitate more effective management of wheel damage that occurs at
the wheel/rail interface and concentrates on the aspects relating to rim quenched
wheels, where more detailed information is more common and widely available.

The third stage is verification by mechanical properties. The mechanical properties

required by material specifications are achieved by a specific heat treatment
appropriate to the chemical composition and the desired properties required for the
finished wheel. The wheel steel mechanical properties for national, international and
bespoke steels are shown in Appendix II.

4 WHEEL STEEL CHARACTERISTICS

The following discussion is considered to be representative of the latest technical
information available on wheels for design, manufacture, stresses in wheel treads and
wheel failures.

The British Standard and European specifications for railway wheels describe classes
of heat treated wheels. The choice of the class of wheel to be used for any particular
type of rolling stock and service is based on the conditions to be met.
Wheel life depends largely on the resistance of the wheel to wear and its immunity to
tread failures caused by thermal cracking and shelling as a result of RCF.

Wear of wheels occurs on the wheel tread and flange. This can be minimized by
correct alignment of the wheels, flange lubrication, material of wheel and rail being
similar and equipment in proper mechanical condition. Every effort should be made to
avoid the abnormal loss of tread metal caused by thermal cracking and shelling. The
most effective form of flange wear reduction is by flange lubrication, which can reduce
wear by at least six times [9]. Where this is cost prohibitive or not practical, wear can
be improved by increasing the carbon content of the steel, and by promoting the
morphology of the pearlite microstructure by altering the quench rate. A typical wear
profile is shown in Figure 1.

Page 6 of 20
Figure 1 Example of flange and hollow wear (units in mm)

Tread Damage occurs from a number of mechanisms including severe tread braking
at high speeds or high speed slip, caused for example by faulty WSP systems or WSP
activity combined with low adhesion conditions, resulting in a heat input into the wheel
tread. The effect on the tread of the wheel is to produce a layer of martensite on the
surface of the wheel. Martensite is a phase of steel formed whilst wheels are in traffic,
created due to heating and then rapid cooling, and is very hard and brittle. Martensite
forms as a result of localised heating of the wheel tread surface up to 1000°C. This
locally heated metal then quenches rapidly due to the ‘colder’ bulk material of the
wheel, which acts a heat sink, and thus produces the ‘metastable’ phase martensite.
This phase is typically 20-30mm wide and 1mm deep. A typical example is shown in
Figure 2. Its volumetric size is larger than the pearlitic base of the wheel from which it
is formed, and therefore is in compression. The pearlitic material immediately below is
in tension and resists the expansion of the martensite which then becomes slightly
stressed. The continued rolling of the wheel initiates cracks in the martensite which
breaks away, and the cracks may propagate into the pearlite.

This damage on the wheel tread may develop into larger cracks through rolling contact
and thermal input and must be turned out. Resistance to thermal damage can be
improved by lowering the carbon content of the steel. There are also other tread
damage mechanisms such as thermal fatigue, which is associated with tread braking,
but would generally be worn away due to the action of scraping whilst braking on the
tread. Low speed slide can induce local heating below the transformation temperature
and at an increased depth. The temperature is high enough, however, to overload the
wheel due to loss of strength as the temperature increases which leads to mechanical
damage of the wheel tread in the form of a ‘flat’.

Page 7 of 20
Figure 2 Example of wheel slip/slide damage

Rolling Contact Fatigue is the failure of the wheel tread due to cyclic fatigue. In
Britain, there are two notions of rolling contact fatigue;
a) Generally fatigue of the tread contact area due to high loads leading to shelling of
the surface, an example is shown in Figure 3. This surface breakdown can be
greatly accelerated if abnormal conditions exist and may occur under relatively
light static loads.
b) Curving forces experience by the wheel will also cause rolling contact fatigue of
the wheel tread; it is generally seen off centre of the tread towards the field side.
This type of rolling contact fatigue is generally associated with the low of an axle in
a curve and leads to chevron type indications on the field side of the tread, as
shown in Figure 4. It can occasionally be seen towards the flange root on some
wheels and is attributed to the action of the high wheel in curves.

Figure 3 Example of shelling

Page 8 of 20
In Britain, another type of rolling contact fatigue is common, off centre from the rolling
contact region of the flange on the field side of the tread. This is thought to be initiated
during curving and is associated with the low wheel on the trailer axle of an axle in a
curve, and leads to chevron type indications on the centre/outside section of the tread.
This can be seen in Figure 4.

Figure 4 Example of chevron RCF damage

Resistance to fatigue is provided by increasing the strength of material in the tread.

Vacuum degassing benefits fatigue resistance by reducing hard inclusions which are
deleterious to fatigue life. In estimating the carrying capacity of a wheel, its diameter
as well as the load is considered. The larger the diameter, the greater is the area of
contact between wheel and rail and the lower the contact stresses for a given wheel
load. For this reason larger diameter wheels can withstand larger wheel loads.

Fatigue failures of wheels can be surface induced, where initiation is due to gross
plastic deformation of the wheel close to the running surface. This is normally due to
high loading and/or low material strength, and leads to cracks that grow some
millimetres into the wheel before deviating back to the surface and leading to small
sections falling away from the tread. This is a progression from the initial RCF crack
initiation shown in Figure 3 and 4. Sub surface fatigue failures occur below the running
surface and initiate on a macroscopic defect, although they can occur in a virtually
defect free material if the stresses are too high. These defects can typically grow to
30mm below the tread before deviating back to the surface, so larger sections of the
tread can break loose. This type of failure is therefore potentially very serious as can
be seen in Figure 5.

Page 9 of 20
Figure 5 Example of RCF wheel failure with typical beach marks clearly visible.

The following factors are found to be detrimental to wheel fatigue life:

• High wheel loads

• High impurity levels
• Small wheel diameters
• Small rail radius
• Tensile residual stresses

Other damage mechanisms related to premature wheel tread turning are local tread
collapse, indentation damage, rim face bulging, and tread roll over.

High strength and higher carbon content are required for maximum resistance to
shelling. On the other hand, thermal cracking is minimized by lowering the carbon
content. These two causes of failure, thermal cracking and shelling, call for remedies
which are the opposites of each other.

For this reason, it is not possible to precisely specify the appropriate class of wheel for
the severity of service which develops under various conditions. The following five
factors have an important influence on the wheel life:

• Static stress in the wheel tread

• Maximum train speed
• Braking requirements
• Track conditions
• Design and condition of equipment

Some guidelines on wheel materials used and applications on railway networks are
included in Appendix IV.

Page 10 of 20
5 WHEEL STEEL CHEMICAL ANALYSIS DISCUSSION:
Wheel steel chemical analyses are shown in Appendix I.
Steels used for the manufacture of railway wheels are classified as carbon steels.
Carbon steels can contain up to 1.65% manganese, 0.60% silicon and 0.60% copper
with all other elements at residual levels.
Railway wheel materials within the ‘carbon steel’ group are generally classed as
medium carbon steel with some wheel steels classed as high carbon. The
microstructure as manufactured is referred to as pearlitic. However the lower/medium
carbon steels also contain a ferrite phase which is more ductile, and adds a more
resilient, impact resistant and more ductile element to the hard pearlitic structure. Most
alternative wheel microstructures have been investigated, but in spite of this and lack
of alternatives it appears that pearlitic steels offer the best performance, are
inexpensive and are well understood.
Carbon steel classifications are illustrated in Table 1.

Carbon steel Carbon % Manganese %

Classification
Low <0.30 <1.50%
Medium 0.30-0.60 0.60-1.65
High 0.60-1.00 0.30-0.90

Table 1 Carbon Steel Classification

The choice of a particular grade of steel is dependent upon its application, design,
braking mechanism, and previous exposure of the grades within that operating
railway. The intended applications for some grades from various international railway
networks are quoted in Appendix IV.

Effect of Elements in wheel steels:

Carbon is the most important single element in wheel steels, as explained later. It is
so important that in carbon steels, most other significant elements in the steel can be
measured on their metallurgical effect they have in terms of a theoretical carbon level
termed the ‘carbon equivalent’ (Ceq). This is calculated using the following formula.

Ceq = %C + %Mn + %Si + %Ni + %Cu + %Cr + %Mo + %V

6 15 5

Increasing the carbon content raises the hardness of the wheel and makes it more
wear and RCF resistant. This is well demonstrated, and moving from grade B to C in
the AAR standard, for example, can reduce RCF failures by 35%. The susceptibility of
a wheel to RCF and shelling depends largely on the wheel hardness, so that
increasing the carbon content also reduces the chances of shelling. Unfortunately,
high carbon content makes the wheel much more susceptible to the thermal effects of

Page 11 of 20
braking and slip, because it is easier to produce brittle martensite in high carbon steel,
and this phase of a railway steel is more liable to thermal cracking when the wheel is
braked on the tread. The resistance of the wheel to brittle fracture is reduced as the
carbon content increases, and it is therefore undesirable to use a high carbon wheel in
a service where tread braking or slip is at its most severe. The effect of carbon on the
susceptibility of a wheel to thermal damage is complex and is difficult to predict.

Lower carbon wheel steels are prevalent in continental Europe, where the focus has
been to avoid catastrophic failure on tread braked wheels during heavy braking such
as that experienced in mountainous regions. It is the experience in Europe that lower
carbon wheel steels have a higher martensite formation temperature and decreased
brittleness. This factor assists in the reduction of martensite formation, and its effect
once formed, and therefore leads to reduced thermal damage on wheel treads. There
is evidence that lower carbon steels reduce the quench sensitivity and therefore
further reduce the amount of martensite formed. This experience has meant that for
similar applications, the Europeans have adopted lower carbon grade steels R6 or R7,
whereas UK and other railway bodies have kept higher grades such as R8. This is
represented in Appendix IV.

Manganese has a similar effect to carbon in increasing the strength. Manganese also
improves toughness, but it also makes the wheel more prone to thermal cracking.
Differing from carbon, however, it does not have such a detrimental effect on the
resistance to brittle fracture. Manganese also improves the depth of hardening,
important in wheels throughout their service life, through many reprofilings.
Manganese also increases high temperature strength.

Silicon is normally added during steel making, acting as a deoxidant to the steel to
reduce the oxygen level by reacting to form silicate inclusions, which are preferred to
the iron oxide (FeO/Fe2O3/Fe3O4) inclusions. Increased silicon reduces ductility and
impact values. It increases tensile and yield strengths. Silicon increases strength
through solid solution strengthening in ferrite and by increasing the temper resistance.
It also increases hardenability, much the same as manganese. Silicon also increases
high temperature strength.

Sulphur is controlled or added during steelmaking to help control hydrogen cracking

in mainly non-vacuum degassed steels, and also to assist in machining where it allows
swarf to break more easily. Historically at the start of the 1990’s the sulphur levels
were 0.030/0.047%. The levels today are typically 0.005/0.015%, with some steel
manufacturers making steel with 0.005% or less sulphur. These levels are required to
achieve the BSEN13262 specification levels, and are also required to achieve the
benefits of clean steels, which improve cleanliness, ductility and fracture toughness.

Aluminium is added to wheel steels to develop an inherently fine grained structure

and this is generally found to be advantageous. Fine grained steels have improved
strength, toughness and fatigue resistance. The typical range of aluminium is
0.018/0.050%, but can be controlled to tighter limits if required. The lower limit 0.018%
is the guide taken from BS970, and the higher limit based upon economical
steelmaking practice, and the need to ensure alumina inclusions are not an issue in
the end product. The aluminium content is not a requirement of any of the national
specifications, but is quoted by manufacturers and steelmakers alike to ensure fine

Page 12 of 20
grained steel. Fine grained wheels to the same analysis and strength as coarse
grained wheels are much more resistant to thermal cracking and have better
mechanical properties. Aluminium can also have a slight effect on the hardening of the
wheel during heat treatment, which is not always beneficial, and as mentioned earlier,
may also give rise to undesirable alumina inclusions.

Chromium and Molybdenum are added to improve wear resistance and form very
hard wear resistant stable carbides in the steel. Wheels with chromium >0.30% and
molybdenum >0.08% would not normally be used in services where they would be
likely to encounter a combination of very severe loading and abnormal braking
conditions as these alloying elements, combined with the carbon level, would render
them somewhat susceptible to thermal cracking. They would be suitable for use in
stock equipped with disc brakes, where tread braking is avoided. Chromium and
molybdenum both increase high temperature strength.

Vanadium promotes the formation of stable carbides, fine grained structure,

toughness, ductility and mechanical strength.

Most specifications limit the residual elements (nickel, copper, tin, chromium,
molybdenum and vanadium), but if not, these are controlled by the steelmaker to
ensure that they are not so high as to detrimentally affect the properties of the steel.
Some residual elements are added deliberately in carbon steels, as explained, to
confer certain improved properties on the wheel, but their use as alloys adds to the
cost of the steel, especially nickel. Copper and tin are usually regarded as undesirable
due to their influence on the manufacturing process with regards to hot cracking.

6 WHEEL STEEL MECHANICAL PROPERTIES DISCUSSION

The mechanical properties of wheel steels are shown in Appendix II.

The ability to achieve the mechanical properties of each wheel grade is only
achievable with a controlled chemical analysis which is not quoted in national
standards, but each manufacturer has its own internal specification. This is generally a
controlled amount of carbon, manganese and possibly chromium.
Wheels that are rim chilled contain compressive residual stress, which further
enhances the tensile properties. This effect can be as much as 300 N/mm2. The
residual stress also has an effect of safeguarding crack growth, especially from
wheels with thermally initiated cracks in tread braked wheels. Rim chilling is a process
whereby jets of water are directed onto the tread during heat treatment, and the
section of wheel close to the tread of the forged wheel is effectively water quenched.
The cooling rate at the tread is very high and slows towards the centre section of the
rim, and towards the rim/web transition and web where the wheel is effectively
normalised (a high temperature anneal).The cooling rate and therefore hardness
reduces through the section of the rim. A representation of the wheel tread is shown in
Figure 6. This means that the tread of the wheel is quite hard, at the 5mm position,
and can be as hard as 285BHN. Hardness reduces towards the last wear groove at
the 35mm position, and can typically be as low as 255BHN. Wheels will therefore be
more resistant to RCF when new, than when they are reprofiled, or close to their last
reprofiling.

Page 13 of 20
Figure 6 Representation of hardness difference in rim chilled wheels

Page 14 of 20
The effect of tempering, which in railway wheel materials is effectively a stress relieve,
is shown in Figure 7.

Figure 7 Effect of tempering temperature on residual stress in wheel rim

It can be seen that the higher the tempering temperature, the less residual stress
remains in the wheel. A balance, however, must be achieved in selection of the
tempering temperature to achieve the required tensile properties versus leaving too
much residual stress in the wheel and leaving the wheel prone to either distortion or
cracking. Note that the compressive residual stresses created in service, at the
contact patch, are significant and are believed to be higher than the manufactured
compressive stresses.

Wheels with web mounted disc brakes can develop large hoop tensile stresses in the
web. These form as a result of the compressive yielding during braking due to
restrained thermal expansion. These stresses can approach the yield point, and cause
small fatigue cracks at the bolt holes with the possibility of growth and failure. High
wheel web strengths should be avoided to reduce the residual stress levels.

Page 15 of 20
7 SUMMARY
To categorise wheel steels to resist certain forms of damage, a broad summary is as
follows:
• To resist RCF, high tensile steels are preferred, which invariably incorporates
increased carbon steels.
• To resist thermal damage, lower carbon steel is preferred.
• To resist wear, including flange wear, an increase in carbon is preferred, and
an improved quench during manufacture. Changes in steel, however, are not
as significant as effective lubrication.

Wheel steels specific to RCF resistance, thermal damage, or wear whilst improving
one problem may exacerbate other problems. It is therefore necessary to prove by trial
that the demonstrated improvements outweigh any deterioration in other properties.

8 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The author would like to acknowledge the particular assistance of the following in the
drafting of this wheel guide:

Bombardier Transportation UK Ltd.

Lucchini UK Ltd.
Valdunes

9 RELATED DOCUMENTS AND SPECIFICATIONS

1) BS5892: Part 3:1992

2) BSEN13262:2004
3) AAR M107/M208:2004
4) IRSS R19:1993
5) IRSS R34:1999
6) JIS E5402-1:2005
7) American Iron and Steel Institute Wrought steel wheels Product Manual.
8) British Steel Research Report PROD/ENG/6701/-/73/A Residual Stresses in
Railway wheels – Effect of Tempering.
9) The Development of Improved Pearlitic Wheel Steels (EC) K.J Sawley March
1992.
10) Rolling contact fatigue of railway wheels - Anders Ekberg – Chalmers
University of Technology 2000.
11) Railway Wheel Flats - Johan Jergeus – Chalmers University of Technology
1998.

Page 16 of 20
 Appendix I – Wheel Chemistry Table
WHEEL STEEL CHEMICAL ANALYSIS LEVELS
STANDARD COUNTRY GRADE CARBON SILICON MANG. PHOS. SULP. CHROME COPPER MOLYB. NICKEL VAN. CR+MO+NI HYDROGEN
% % %
OF ORIGIN % (MAX) % (MAX) % (MAX) (MAX) % (MAX) % (MAX) % (MAX) (MAX) (MAX) % (MAX) % (MAX) PPM (MAX)
CAT1 CAT2
JIS E5402 JAPAN C44 0.46 0.40 0.90 0.040 0.040 0.30 0.30 0.08 0.30 0.05 N/S N/S N/S
AAR M107* N.AMERICA L 0.47 0.15/1.00 0.60/0.90 0.030 0.005/0.040 0.25 0.35 0.10 0.25 0.04 N/S N/S N/S
BS5892:PT3 UK R6T 0.48 0.40 0.75 0.040 0.040 0.30 0.30 0.08 0.30 0.05 0.60 2.0# 2.0#
EN13262 EUROPE ER6 0.48 0.40 0.75 0.020 0.015 0.30 0.30 0.08 0.30 0.06 0.50 2.0 2.5
JIS E5402 JAPAN C48 0.50 0.40 0.90 0.040 0.040 0.30 0.30 0.08 0.30 0.05 N/S N/S N/S
GOST
10791 RUSSIA GRADE 1 0.44/0.52 0.40/0.65 0.80/1.20 0.035 0.030 0.30 0.30 0.08 0.30 0.08/0.15 N/S 2.0 2.0
BS5892:PT3 UK R7T 0.52 0.40 0.80 0.040 0.040 0.30 0.30 0.08 0.30 0.05 0.60 2.0# 2.0#
EN13262 EUROPE ER7 0.52 0.40 0.80 0.020 0.015 0.30 0.30 0.08 0.30 0.06 0.50 2.0 2.5
IRSS INDIA R19 0.52 0.15/0.40 0.60/0.80 0.030 0.030 0.25 0.28 0.06 0.25 0.05 0.50 3.0 3.0
JIS E5402 JAPAN C51 0.54 0.40 0.90 0.040 0.040 0.30 0.30 0.08 0.30 0.05 N/S N/S N/S
VALDUNES FRANCE R8TUCS 0.54 0.30/1.10 0.60/1.10 0.020 0.005/0.020 0.30/0.50 0.30 0.08 0.30 0.06 0.65 2.0 2.5
FSR FINLAND ER8MOD 0.52/0.56 0.90/1.10 0.90/1.10 0.015 0.006 0.30 0.10 0.08 0.30 0.08 0.05 2.0 2.0
LUCCHINI ITALY SUPERLOS 0.49/0.56 0.60/1.10 0.60/1.10 0.015 0.020 0.30 0.30 0.08 0.30 0.08 0.05 1.8 1.8
BS5892:PT3 UK R8T 0.56 0.40 0.80 0.040 0.040 0.30 0.30 0.08 0.30 0.05 0.60 2.0# 2.0#
EN13262 EUROPE ER8 0.56 0.40 0.80 0.020 0.015 0.30 0.30 0.08 0.30 0.06 0.50 2.0 2.5
AAR M107* N.AMERICA A 0.47/0.57 0.15/1.00 0.60/0.90 0.030 0.005/0.040 0.25 0.35 0.10 0.25 0.04 N/S N/S N/S
JIS E5402 JAPAN C55 0.58 0.40 0.90 0.040 0.040 0.30 0.30 0.08 0.30 0.05 N/S N/S N/S
BS5892:PT3 UK R9T 0.60 0.40 0.80 0.040 0.040 0.30 0.30 0.08 0.30 0.05 0.60 2.0# 2.0#
EN13262 EUROPE ER9 0.60 0.40 0.80 0.020 0.015 0.30 0.30 0.08 0.30 0.06 0.50 2.0 2.5
GOST
10791 RUSSIA GRADE 2 0.55/0.65 0.22/0.45 0.50/0.90 0.035 0.030 0.30 0.30 0.08 0.30 0.10 N/S 2.0 2.0
TB/T 2708 CHINA CL60 0.55/0.65 0.17/0.37 0.50/0.80 0.040 0.040 0.25 0.25 N/S 0.25 N/S 0.50 N/S N/S
GOST
10791 RUSSIA GRADE 3 0.58/0.67 0.22/0.45 0.50/0.90 0.035 0.030 0.30 0.30 0.08 0.30 0.08/0.15 N/S 2.0 2.0
JIS E5402 JAPAN C64 0.67 0.40 0.90 0.040 0.040 0.30 0.30 0.08 0.30 0.05 N/S N/S N/S
AAR M107* N.AMERICA B 0.57/0.67 0.15/1.00 0.60/0.90 0.030 0.005/0.040 0.25 0.35 0.10 0.25 0.04 N/S N/S N/S
IRSS INDIA R34 0.57/0.67 0.15 MIN 0.60/0.90 0.030 0.030 0.25 0.28 0.06 0.25 0.05 0.50 2.5 2.5
AAR M107* N.AMERICA C 0.67/0.77 0.15/1.00 0.60/0.90 0.030 0.005/0.040 0.25 0.35 0.10 0.25 0.04 N/S N/S N/S
JIS E5402 JAPAN C74 0.77 0.40 0.90 0.040 0.040 0.30 0.30 0.08 0.30 0.05 N/S N/S N/S
LIMITS SPECIFIED ARE MAXIMUM UNLESS SPECIFIED OTHERWISE
# 2PPM LEVEL AS REQUIRED BY RAILWAY GROUP STANDARD GM/RT2466
* AAR SPECIFICATION ALSO HAS AL 0.060 MAX, TITANIUM 0.03 MAX AND NIOBIUM 0.05 MAX.

Page 17 of 20
Appendix II – Wheel Mechanical Property Table
WHEEL STEEL MECHANICAL PROPERTY LEVELS
STANDARD COUNTRY GRADE YIELD UTS A Z CHARPY U CHARPY V CHARPY V FRACTURE CLEANLINESS ULTRASONIC BRINELL HARDNESS
OF ORIGIN N/MM2 N/MM2 % (MIN) % (MIN) 20°C J. (AV) -20°C J. (AV) -40°C J. (AV) TOUGHNESS REQUIREMENT STANDARD DEFECT LEVEL HB
* (MIN) (MIN) (MIN) N/MM2√M CAT1 CAT2 CAT1 CAT2
JIS E5402 JAPAN C44 N/S 770-890 15 N/S 15 N/S N/S N/S NO N/S 197-277
AAR M107 N.AMERICA L N/S N/S N/S N/S N/S N/S N/S N/S YES 1.6MM 197-277
BS5892:PT3 UK R6T N/S 770-890 15 N/S 15 N/S N/S N/S NO 2MM# 229-262
EN13262 EUROPE ER6 500 MIN 780-900 15 N/S 17 12 N/S 100 MIN YES 1MM 2 OR 3MM$ 225 MIN
JIS E5402 JAPAN C48 N/S 820-940 14 N/S 15 10 N/S N/S NO N/S 235-285
BS5892:PT3 UK R7T N/S 820-940 14 N/S 15 N/S N/S N/S NO 2MM# 241-277
EN13262 EUROPE ER7 520 MIN 820-940 14 N/S 17 10 N/S 80 MIN YES 1MM 2 OR 3MM$ 245 MIN 235 MIN
IRSS INDIA R19 410 MIN 820-940 14 N/S 15 N/S N/S N/S NO 3.2MM 241-277
JIS E5402 JAPAN C51 N/S 860-980 13 N/S 15 N/S N/S N/S NO N/S 248-302
BS5892:PT3 UK R8T N/S 860-980 13 N/S 15 N/S N/S N/S NO 2MM# 255-285
EN13262 EUROPE ER8 540 MIN 860-980 13 N/S 17 10 N/S N/S YES 1MM 2 OR 3MM$ 245 MIN
GOST 10791 RUSSIA GRADE 1 N/S 880-1080 12 21 30 N/S N/S N/S YES YES 248 MIN
FSR FINLAND ER8MOD 530 MIN 860-980 13 50 MIN 15 10 N/S N/S YES 2MM 250 MIN
VALDUNES FRANCE R8TUCS 600 MIN 920-1000 13 40 MIN 17 10 N/S N/S YES 1MM 2 OR 3MM$ 265 MIN
IT MET R103 ITALY SUPERLOS 600 MIN 900-1000 16 45 MIN 22 12 10 85 MIN YES 1MM 2 MM 265 MIN
AAR M107 N.AMERICA A N/S N/S N/S N/S N/S N/S N/S N/S YES 1.6MM 255-321
JIS E5402 JAPAN C55 N/S 900-1050 12 N/S 12 N/S N/S N/S NO N/S 255-311
BS5892:PT3 UK R9T N/S 900-1050 12 N/S 10 N/S N/S N/S NO 2MM# 262-311
EN13262 EUROPE ER9 580 MIN 900-1050 12 N/S 13 8 N/S N/S YES 1MM 2 OR 3MM$ 255 MIN
GOST 10791 RUSSIA GRADE 2 N/S 910-1110 8 14 20 N/S N/S N/S YES YES 255 MIN
TB/T 2708 CHINA CL60 N/S 910 MIN 10 14 16 N/S N/S N/S YES YES 265-320
GOST 10791 RUSSIA GRADE 3 N/S 980-1130 8 14 16 N/S N/S N/S YES YES 285 MIN
JIS E5402 JAPAN C64 N/S 940-1140 11 N/S 10 N/S N/S N/S NO N/S 277-341
AAR M107 N.AMERICA B N/S N/S N/S N/S N/S N/S N/S N/S YES 1.6MM 300-341
IRSS INDIA R34 N/S N/S N/S N/S 8 N/S N/S N/S NO 3.2MM 300-341
AAR M107 N.AMERICA C N/S N/S N/S N/S N/S N/S N/S N/S YES 1.6MM 321-363
JIS E5402 JAPAN C74 N/S 1040-1240 9 N/S 8 N/S N/S N/S NO N/S 293-363
N/S = NOT SPECIFIED * WHEN NO DISTINCT YIELD IS OBSERVED THE 0.2% PROOF STRESS IS REPORTED
UTS = ULTIMATE TENSILE STRENGTH # 2MM LEVEL AS REQUIRED BY RAILWAY GROUP STANDARD GM/RT2466
A = ELONGATION Z = REDUCTION OF AREA $ ACTUAL STANDARD DEFECT LEVEL REQUIRED DEPENDENT UPON DESIGN APPLICATION
MECHANICAL PROPERTIES OF RIM QUOTED ONLY CAT1 IS PREFERRED OPTION FOR TRAINS WITH SPEED ABOVE 125MPH (200KM/H)
Page 18 of 20
Appendix III – Old BR grades superseded Table
WOSS 612/10

SUPERSESSION OF BR SPECIFICATION MATERIALS BY BS 5892 MATERIALS

The BR Specifications relating to wheelsets are superseded by BS 5892. Where drawings have not yet been amended to show the requirements, the
following limits shall apply:-

BS 5892 MATERIAL COMPONENT SUPERSEDED BR

SPECIFICATION TO BE USED SPECIFICATION

BS 5892, Part 1, Grade A1T Axles BR 109

BS 5892, Part 2, Grade U Wheel Centres BR 107

BS 5892, Part 3, Grade R7E Monobloc wheels BR 108, Grade B

BS 5892, Part 3, Grade R8T Monobloc wheels BR 108, Grades C (Normalised)

and D (Rim Sprayed) and BR 167,
Section 4.

BS 5892, Part 3, Grade R8E Monobloc wheels BR 108, Grade D (Oil Quenched &
Tempered)

BS 5892, Part 4, Grade B6E Tyres BR 100, Grade E

BS 5892, Part 4, Grade B5E Tyres BR 100, all Grades except E

BS 5892, Part 5 Tyre Retaining Rings -

BS 5892, Part 6 Wheelset Assembly BR 163 & 167

Page 19 of 20
Appendix IV – Wheel grade applications

RECOMMENDED GRADES PER RAILWAY NETWORK

USA UK EUROPE INDIA CHINA RUSSIA
APPLICATION SPEED BRAKING WHEEL (AAR) (BS) (EN) (IRSS) (TB/T) (GOST)
LOAD
FREIGHT GRADE 2 OR
CARS TREAD B OR C R8T ER7 R19 3
FREIGHT WEB- GRADE 2 OR
CARS INTEGRAL N/A R7E N/A N/A 3
FREIGHT GRADE 2 OR
CARS D/B WHEEL N/A R8E N/A N/A 3
GRADE 2 OR
LOCOMOTIVES TREAD B OR C R8T ER7 R34 3
GRADE 2 OR
LOCOMOTIVES HEAVY C OR B R8T ER8 R34 3
HIGH TREAD-
PASSENGER SPEED SEVERE LIGHT L R8T ER6 OR ER7 R19 CL60 GRADE 1
HIGH TREAD-
PASSENGER SPEED SEVERE MODERATE A R8T ER6 OR ER7 R19 CL60 GRADE 1
HIGH TREAD-
PASSENGER SPEED SEVERE HEAVY B R8T ER6 OR ER7 R19 CL60 GRADE 1
PASSENGER TREAD-LIGHT HEAVY C R8T ER6 OR ER7 R19 CL60 GRADE 1
PASSENGER DISC N/A R8T ER7 R19 CL60 GRADE 1
PASSENGER DISC-HEAVY C R8T ER7 R19 CL60 GRADE 1

D/B = DISC BRAKE

Page 20 of 20
 Rail Safety and Standards Board Evergreen House 160 Euston Road London NW1 2DX
Reception Telephone +44 (0)20 7904 7777 Facsimile +44 (0)20 7904 7791
www.rssb.co.uk

Rail Safety & Standards Board Registered Office: Evergreen House 160 Euston Road London NW1 2DX. Registered in England and Wales No. 04655675.

Rail Safety & Standards Board is a not-for-profit company limited by guarantee.