Abstract
This study attempts to determine and assess appropriate lightweight materials for different railway vehicle components, taking into account elements like durability, strength, cost-effectiveness, and production viability. To compile pertinent data on lightweight materials, their characteristics, and their uses in the railway industry, a thorough assessment of the body of current literature and business practises was carried out. Introduction: Modern transport networks depend heavily on railway carriages to transfer people and commodities across large distances. The emphasis on enhancing the performance and lowering the environmental effect of railway vehicles is expanding as the need for effective and environmentally conscious transportation rises. The use of lightweight materials in their design is a viable strategy to meet these goals. For railway cars, using lightweight materials has a number of benefits. First of all, it can help people lose a lot of weight, which increases energy efficiency and lowers fuel usage. Less energy is needed by lighter cars to accelerate and maintain speed, which lowers operating costs and lowers greenhouse gas emissions. Reduced weight also makes it possible to carry more payloads and maybe travel at faster speeds. Research significance: The importance of choosing lightweight components for railway vehicles lies in its potential to increase payload capacity, decrease environmental impact, improve efficiency and safety, achieve cost-effectiveness, spur technological advancements, and guarantee regulatory compliance. For the railway sector to advance towards effective and sustainable transport systems that serve society as a whole, this study issue is essential. Method: A decision-making process called the Weighted Aggregated Sum Product Assessment (WASPAS) method is used to assess and rank a group of options based on several criteria. Without plagiarising, it uses a multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) technique to take both quantitative and qualitative aspects into account when making a choice. Alternate parameters: Dual Phase, DP600, Transformation Induced Plasticity, TRIP700, Twinning Induced Plasticity, TWIP, Aluminium, Al6005 T6, Aluminium, Al6082 T6, Porous Structure (Al—Closed cell). Evaluation parameters: Yield Strength, Tensile Strength, Young’s Modulus, Density, Price. TRIP700 got 1st rank, TWIP got 2nd rank, DP600 got 3rd rank, Al6082 T6 got 4th rank, Al6005 T6 got 5th rank and Porous Structure (Al—Closed cell) got 6th rank. TRIP700 is got the first rank with less compensation.