Questions related to specific topics and research asks
Last updated: 2 June 2026
G1. Will there be an Expression of Interest phase?
Following feedback and suggestions received at the UKRRIN Inspire event, we have included an optional expression of interest phase. This will provide an opportunity to receive early feedback on your ideas and an indication of how well proposals match the research asks.
G2. Where can I find more information on past research and relevant standards?
RSSB have a research catalogue (Research Catalogue) where you can find completed project reports. Relevant projects are mentioned in the research asks. A wider range of research projects can be found on SPARK (SPARK).
RSSB standards are publicly available (Standards Catalogue).
G3. I have carried out research that is relevant to one of the research asks. How should I include this in my proposal?
Your track record is relevant and important. Please include links to relevant past research in your proposal, alongside the details of the consortium.
G4. Are the indicative budgets approved? What is the risk that funding will not be ultimately made available?
The overall budgets have been ring-fenced by both RSSB and Network Rail, and senior leadership are fully committed to the process.
To ensure that the budgets are released in a timely manner, both RSSB and Network Rail are in the process of gaining full budget approval in advance of receiving high quality proposals.
G5. Who will be involved in the selection of the proposals against each ask?
RSSB and Network Rail will review proposals and select successful projects for funding. If necessary and valuable, and if there are no conflicts of interest, industry experts will be invited to support the selection process. Please see the proposal guidance for the selection criteria.
G6. What role and visibility do cross-industry groups like System Interface Committees have?
Relevant cross-industry groups have provided feedback on the research asks. These groups will not be directly involved in the selection process but will have a role in supporting the successful projects.
G7. In the context of the pilot, what is the difference between industrial partners and funders?
Funders are organisations that actively contribute to the UKRRIN² pilot. This contribution could be via:
- Co-funding the asks put forward by Network Rail and RSSB in cash or in-kind (e.g. provision of data, provision of test bed, production of prototypes)
- The funding of other academic work in the topic areas that is made visible (at least in terms of high-level scope and expected outcomes) to the other funders within the topic
All funders are ‘industrial partners’.
G8. Can an organisation be involved in the pilot if it is not funding and / or contributing to relevant work?
Providing co-funding to the pilot (as covered in G7) is essential for private and public organisations to be considered industrial partners.
Private and public organisations can be a ‘pilot supporter’ if they are involved in the delivery of the research within the pilot (e.g. providing modest support to one ask).
Public organisations can also be a ‘pilot supporter’ if they are interested in applying the outcomes from the pilot and / or provide future funds for academic research in one of the topic areas.
G9. Could you please advise where to submit the EoI and main application?
Submissions should be made via email to: ukrrin@rssb.co.uk
G10.When is the deadline of signing the UKRRIN2 Pilot framework agreement?
End of September – the final deadline is to be confirmed when the framework agreement template is released.
G11. Is costing required at EoI stage?
No this is not required at EoI stage.
G12. Can you assist in finding relevant industrial contacts?
We can provide support with contacts if specific queries are raised.
G13. The Proposal Guidance notes that the draft UKRRIN 2 Pilot framework agreement will be available by the end of May. Could you indicate the expected publication date, and provide any high-level guidance on how the framework agreement will treat industrial partners’ pre-existing background IP (e.g. existing software tools, algorithms and methodologies) versus project IP?
The draft agreement is still being finalised and will be released in two weeks.
Questions related to research asks
Vehicle/Track
VT1. For methods of extending crossing life: is this for in-situ or ex-situ repairs, or both?
The focus is in-situ repairs.
VT2. For the optimisation of rail profile treatment and efficient deployment of rail grinding and milling systems: Is this more about profiles than physical grinding approaches and rail surface quality resulting from the two processes?
Correct, this is focused on profiles rather than the rail surface quality.
VT3. Clarification re Ask 4 Technology for detection and analytics to identify flaws in rail: The challenge description is focused on squats – can you confirm this project is entirely focused on squats and note other type of rail surface defect or rail material / manufacturing flaws?
Yes, this project is entirely focused on squat defects.
VT4. Clarification re Ask 4 Technology for detection and analytics to identify flaws in rail: The ‘what outputs are expected’ section starts with ‘Modelling of vehicle dynamics to assess vertical rail damage, will help improve our understanding…’ Is this a steer to focus on the influence of vertical forces on squat development or just a hint to consider vertical forces as one of the considerations?
Response pending
VT5. Clarification re Ask 4 Technology for detection and analytics to identify flaws in rail: The ‘what is needed from a good proposal’ section starts with ‘Propose and develop methods and technology that can reliably detect tell tail signs of fatigue and ways to identify rails at risk of failure due to squat type defects’. Can we infer development of these methods and technologies should be included as one of the project outputs, or should we focus mainly on the outputs listed in the ‘what outputs are expected’?
The proposals should lead to the expected outcomes. The methodologies developed, as requested in the ‘what is needed from a good proposal section’, should demonstrate how this work will lead to the expected outcomes.
VT6. Clarification re Ask 4: Technology for detection and analytics to identify flaws in rail: The ‘useful links and background info’ section mentions that a previous research and development paper is available, can you share that paper please?
Response pending
VT7. Clarification re Ask 8: Mechanics and root causes of ballast settlement leading to track quality degradation: Is there an existing NR data sharing framework through UKRRIN that would facilitate access to tamping records and track geometry data for a defined pilot corridor, or would this need to be negotiated directly with NR? The proposals uses the West of England Main Line as a pilot corridor. Are there any constraints on route selection, or is the choice of pilot corridor left to proposers?
There is no issue with using a particular area in the proposal, especially if you have access to data already and relevant support at route level. Network Rail are investigating access to track geometry and tamping records to support successful projects.
VT8. Are you asking for two separate proposals, one for each scope point?
Separate proposals are sought for each scope (‘Assessment of the performance, benefits and costs of stick and spray trainborne lubrication systems, supported by lab testing and track testing as needed’ and ‘Improved understanding of product carry down to enhance trackside and trainborne friction management system efficiency. Supported by lab testing and track testing’); consortiums are invited to submit separate proposals for each scope.
VT9. Will each project be worth up to £500k or is the £500k to be spread across two projects?
The £500k budget will cover two proposals (one for ‘Assessment of the performance, benefits and costs…’ and the other for ‘Improved understanding of product carry down…’).
VT10. Are proposals to consider all types of Friction Management, i.e. Gauge Corner Lubrication (GCL) and Top-of-Rail Friction Modifiers (ToRFM) Or is there a focus on “lubricants”, the only type explicitly referred to (as part of Scope 1).
The ‘Assessment of the performance, benefits and costs…’ proposal can incorporate both gauge corner lubrication and Top of Rail (TOR) friction; for clarity low adhesion management is not an area of focus.
The ‘Improved understanding of product carry down…’ proposal is expected to cover both TOR friction management systems and materials; and gauge corner lubricant management systems and materials; low adhesion management is not an area of focus.
VT11. Will a train be made available for track tests or do we need to supply this? We note that only test track access is being negotiated.
Consortiums are expected to engage with industry stakeholders to get access to a train for on-track testing.
VT12. (In regard to Scope ‘Assessment of the performance, benefits and costs of stick and spray trainborne lubrication systems, supported by lab testing and track testing as needed’) – Is this just focussing on Gauge Corner / Flange “lubricants” and not the full suite of friction management products?
This proposal can incorporate both gauge corner lubrication and Top of Rail (TOR) friction ; for clarity low adhesion management is not an area of focus.
VT13. (In regard to Scope ‘Assessment of the performance, benefits and costs of stick and spray trainborne lubrication systems, supported by lab testing and track testing as needed’) – Is the intention to assess the performance, benefits and costs of a variety of trainborne GCL products from a variety of suppliers? As opposed to assessing the benefits of the performance, benefits and costs of trainborne GCL relative to wayside GCL or trainborne/wayside ToRFMs?
The intention of this proposal is to assess the performance, benefits and costs of a minimum of one trainborne stick lubrication system against a minimum of one trainborne lubrication system. Ideally, where possible, products from a variety of suppliers will be assessed for both stick and spray systems.
Where possible, it would be beneficial for the proposal to then compare the performance of trainborne (stick and spray) lubrication systems against trackside systems. As this could potentially support the business case for fitment of trainborne systems.
For emphasis, an evaluation of the benefits and costs of FM systems is considered a critical aspect of this proposal. Therefore any proposal should not be solely on performance.
VT14. (In regard to Scope ‘Assessment of the performance, benefits and costs of stick and spray trainborne lubrication systems, supported by lab testing and track testing as needed’) – Is performance of products to be assessed based on a common application method (i.e. the same for all products of a similar type), or applied as directed by the supplier? Bearing in mind available products are likely to have very different properties and will therefore need to be applied through different application methods and dosages. Similarly, suppliers would typically optimise application of their products for the characteristics and priorities of the system they are protecting, further increasing the subjectivity of any comparative assessment.
It is recommended that products are to be applied as directed by the supplier, as applying different methods could potentially result in inefficient product application.
The application method should be considered part of the assessment, particularly around benefits and costs.
VT15. (In regard to Scope ‘Assessment of the performance, benefits and costs of stick and spray trainborne lubrication systems, supported by lab testing and track testing as needed’) – If a train is made available, will it have the equipment required to apply all types of products from all manufacturers? For an appropriate comparison all the equipment ideally needs to be on the same vehicle.
Consortia are expected to engage with industry stakeholders to get access to a train for on-track testing. Consortia are also expected to engage with friction management suppliers to acquire access to friction management products and materials.
VT16. (In regard to Scope ‘Assessment of the performance, benefits and costs of stick and spray trainborne lubrication systems, supported by lab testing and track testing as needed’) – The costing aspect will be very contentious. Will it be a problem if an approach that looks at the pros and cons of each for particular operational scenarios is taken?
It has been assumed that this question relates to the cost of friction management systems and materials.
Given that costs and benefits are a critical aspect of the proposal, consortiums will be expected to acquire costing information from friction management suppliers and anonymise this within their reports. It is acknowledged that it may be challenging to acquire some costing information for some products due to commercial sensitivities.
Considering particular operational scenarios may be acceptable, but this should be detailed in a consortium’s proposal.
VT 17. (In regard to Scope ‘Improved understanding of product carry down to enhance trackside and trainborne friction management system efficiency. Supported by lab testing and track testing’) – Which types of Friction Management products are to be considered? Gauge Corner Lubrication (GCL) and Top-of-Rail Friction Modifiers (ToRFM) The carry-down mechanism of GCL is likely to be very different to that of products applied to the top-of-rail. Each product type would also have very different assessment criteria.
This proposal shall consider both Top of Rail (TOR) friction management systems and materials and flange lubricant management systems and materials. It is proposed that the proposal focus on ToR products; and that this should consider the differences between drying and non-drying products.
For clarity, low adhesion management is not an area of focus for this proposal.
VT 18. (In regard to Scope ‘Improved understanding of product carry down to enhance trackside and trainborne friction management system efficiency. Supported by lab testing and track testing’) – Considering trainborne (presumably spray) systems, are we investigating the carry down of products after the spray has been deactivated? I.e. the effect on areas not treated directly.
In specific regard to trainborne spray lubrication systems, this is expected to consider the carry down after the spray has been deactivated. This is to inform how long the protection is maintained on the train that is spraying the rail, but also how protected this may be for following trains. This could also inform the application strategy, for example, location-based versus time-or distance-based application.
VT19. (In regard to Scope ‘Improved understanding of product carry down to enhance trackside and trainborne friction management system efficiency. Supported by lap testing and track testing) – If a train is made available, will it have the equipment required to apply onboard ToRFMs/GCLs/TEs (whichever is applicable)?
Consortiums are expected to engage with industry stakeholders to get access to a train for on-track testing. Consortiums are also expected to engage with friction management suppliers to acquire access to friction management products and materials.
VT20. (In regard to Scope ‘Improved understanding of product carry down to enhance trackside and trainborne friction management system efficiency. Supported by lab testing and track testing’) – If a test track is made available, will it have the equipment required for the wayside application of ToRFMs/GCLs/TEs (whichever is applicable)?
RSSB is engaging with Network Rail to explore access to test tracks at a reduced rate or in-kind contribution. As this has yet to be secured, we are currently unable to clarify which trackside equipment is included.
As such, consortiums should assume for planning purposes that equipment will not be provided.
VT21. Could you please clarify whether the £50 – 150k funding range state for this Ask refers to the grant contribution (i.e. 80% FEC) or the full economic cost (FEC) itself?
The stated range refers to the grant contribution. The budget indicates the amount of funding available for the university once the FEC discounts have been applied.
Electric traction power