by rail engineers for rail engineers
JAN-FEB 2024 – ISSUE 206
PHOTO: NETWORK RAIL
PG.10
Responding to
SCOTLAND’S
WEATHER
Facing the
Challenge GENERAL FEATURE
ROLLING STOCK & DEPOTS
STATIONS & PASSENGER
BARMOUTH
UNPLANNED ROLLING
IMPROVING
VIADUCT
STOCK PROCUREMENT
ACCESSIBILITY AT STATIONS
The four-year restoration of this iconic structure was completed in December.
‘Boom and bust’ train procurement has resulted in factory closures and downsized train upgrade capability.
Designers face particular challenges when making stations accessible for customers with specific needs.
PG.24
PG.30
PG.64
www.railengineer.co.uk
TECHNOLOGIES
R A I LW AY T E C H N O L O G Y
State of the Art
S yn t h e tic Sleeper Simply working & sustainable Since 1985 we have installed more than 1,850 km of track 1.7 billion load tonnes | equivalent of 50 years use Application: Ballast, Slab Track, Steel Construction and Direct Fastening Can carry Axle loads of up to 65 tons Use on High Speed Rail up to 300 km/h Maintains long term track geometry Contact with ballast similar to timber sleepers Workable properties like timber sleepers
SEKISUI CHEMICAL GmbH Patrick Childs | T: +44-(0)796-6598055 E-Mail: childs@sekisui.de www.sekisui-rail.com
PHOTO: THE HRE GROUP
20 CONTENTS 10|
Responding to Scotland’s weather
16|
TriLink - the intelligent renewal of West Coast Main Line north
3
David Shirres spoke to Scotland’s Railway to discuss how it responds to today’s severe weather events.
The TriLink programme will ‘intelligently’ renew this route and provide a more reliable timetable for passengers and freight.
20|
Bridge infilling: Its rise and fall
Graeme Bickerdike looks back on the efforts of campaigners to ensure the value of legacy railway structures is recognised.
PHOTO: MULHOLLANDMEDIA
60
74 24 PHOTO: NETWORK RAIL PHOTO: NETWORK RAIL
24| 30| 34| 40| 46| 50| 54|
Complex and innovative construction techniques at Barmouth Viaduct
Bob Wright reports on the £30 million, four-year restoration of this iconic structure, completed in December last year.
Unplanned rolling stock procurement
Rail Engineer surveys today’s environment in rolling stock procurement and the prospects for the future.
Whole life cost optimisation: main line passenger and freight
The whole-life cost of trains can far exceed the initial expense of buying them, as a recent IMechE seminar discussed.
TfL’s work on rolling stock cost optimisation
The second of this two-part article examines TFL’s asset planning processes and the challenging environment in which it works.
Freight train derailment at London Gateway, Essex Malcolm Dobell discusses this RAIB investigation and the parallels it drew from previous derailments and collisions.
iWagon - what’s not to like?
Developed by VTG with the support of Knorr-Bremse, iWagon can detect wagon faults to prevent freight train derailment.
Traction Power Innovation & Safety
Safety concerns and the need for a rolling programme of electrification were the main themes of this RIA conference.
60| 64| 68| 72| 74| 78| 80|
Electrifying Scotland
The Scottish Government is committed to the removal of diesel passenger trains by 2035 and a 1,616 stk electrification programme.
Improving accessibility at stations
Rail travel can be daunting for customers with specific needs. Paul Darlington discusses the challenges and opportunities for station designers.
Scotland’s latest new station
East Linton station is served by ScotRail and TransPennine Express and offers services to Edinburgh, Dunbar, and Newcastle.
HS2 station control
The same integrated information management and control system will be in use at HS2’s four new stations.
Christmas Works 2023
Rail Engineer examines the complex programme of works delivered by Network Rail over Christmas and New Year.
Pre Metro Operations
The escalating costs of light rail projects are proving problematic. Leveraging existing heavy rail infrastructure may provide an answer.
SIGEX 2023
David Fenner reports from RIA SIGEX 2023, a conference dedicated to encouraging innovation in signalling and control technology.
Rail Engineer | Issue 206 | Jan-Feb 2024
4
EDITORIAL DAVID DAVID SHIRRES SHIRRES RAIL ENGINEER EDITOR
Our editorial recently posed the question “Where’s the plan?” in respect of train procurement. Five thousand vehicles were ordered between 2014 and 2019 though since then there has been no substantial mainline train orders except for HS2. As a result, Alstom’s Derby factory has run out of work and over 1,300 employees face redundancy. As this plant supports 15,000 jobs in the wider supply chain, many more jobs will be lost. As our feature ‘Unplanned Rolling Stock procurement’ explains, Derby is the UK’s only integrated train manufacturing facility. When new trains are eventually ordered, this is likely to have become a plant assembling imported components. Hence, funding for future trains will be largely spent outside the UK. As new trains are procured with private finance, the only reason for the current train order hiatus is Government inaction. Such ‘boom and bust’ procurement increases costs due to reduced productivity and the loss of a skilled workforce. It also increases railway costs as increasingly elderly trains become more expensive to maintain. The Rail Network Enhancement Pipeline (RNEP) was set up in 2018. It was to be updated annually to show enhancement projects approved for Development, Design, or Delivery. Yet despite Government commitments, RNEP was
Rail Engineer | Issue 206 | Jan-Feb 2024
There is no
plan
only updated once in 2019. Instead of providing the supply chain with clarity, the resultant uncertainty makes it difficult for businesses to invest for the future, particularly in their people. The plan for HS2 enjoyed strategic cross-party support for over a decade. Indeed, on a visit to Japan, its benefits were extolled by Transport Secretary Mark Harper only three months before HS2 phase 2 was abruptly cancelled. As our HS2 update shows, the competence of those making this decision is questionable as it resulted in significant abortive costs, loss of benefits, and leaves the capacity problem that HS2 phase 2 was to solve unresolved. There was certainly no consultation with key stakeholders, in particular the National Infrastructure Commission (NIC), which is a government body set up to provide impartial, expert infrastructure advice. Abruptly cancelling a major strategic project in this way also negates years of planning by city regions and undermines the confidence of international investors in future UK projects. NIC noted that there is now a major gap in the UK’s rail strategy as Network North offers little clarity about its proposed new rail schemes. There is now no plan to address West Coast Main Line (WCML) capacity constraints south of Crewe for which the Government response includes
an unrealistic claim that HS2 phase 1 will provide 250,000 seats per day (i.e. 18 x Pendolino trains per hour, 24 hours a day). Few in the industry would agree with the Department for Transport’s claim there won’t be a WCML capacity problem until the mid-2030s. Despite the decarbonisation imperative, the Westminster government still has no overall plan to electrify intensively used unelectrified lines. Yet as our ‘Electrifying Scotland’ feature describes, there is a plan north of the border where it is recognised that electrification is a profitable investment that offers cheaper, higher performing, and more reliable trains, as well as decarbonising the railway. Although it is good to see a 75% target to increase freight growth by 2050, this is only a 2.1% annual increase. There is no supporting capacity enhancement plan to support this target which was announced two months after HS2 phase 2’s cancellation which eliminated opportunities to increase paths on Britain’s busiest freight route. In May 2021, the Williams-Shapps report recommended the creation of Great British Railways (GBR). This also committed to the production of a 30year ‘Whole Industry Strategy Plan’ in 2022. There is as yet no such plan and the GBR transition team is unable to advise when it will be produced.
5
THE TEAM
Editor David Shirres editor@railengineer.co.uk
Production Editor Matt Atkins matt@rail-media.com
Production and design PHOTO: DFT
Lauren Palin lauren@rail-media.com Adam O’Connor adam@rail-media.com
Engineering writers
There are thus no (Westminster) Government strategic plans for the nation to get the best from its railways. With nothing likely to change before the election, it is to be hoped that a new Government will take a more enlightened approach. Yet this needs the industry to advise a prospective new Government how the railway can best contribute to economic growth and transport decarbonisation. This must surely include the elimination of ‘boom and bust’ procurement of trains, projects, and electrification for which a rolling programme is required. The ill-informed decision to cancel HS2 phase 2a should also be reversed. As this already has an Act of Parliament, any credible alternative will take five years longer to deliver at significant additional cost. In contrast to Government inaction, the industry is doing much to resolve the problems it faces. In two features, Malcolm Dobell describes initiatives on the mainline railway and Transport for London to reduce train fleet whole-life cost. We also explain how the innovative iWagon was developed without any innovation funding. This could significantly reduce wagon maintenance costs and freight train derailments. However, it could not have prevented the unusual freight train derailment at London Gateway on which we report. Paul Darlington has been finding out about the Trilink programme, the large-scale multi-discipline WCML North renewals programme. He explains how this is taking a cross functional, innovative approach to provide an efficient railway, tailored to the needs of the customers.
The four-year programme to renew the iconic Barmouth Viaduct also required an innovative approach. Bob Wright describes the complex logistics and novel techniques required. Far less complex structures are the legacy railway bridges that are the topic of Graeme Bickerdike’s feature. In this, he explains his concern that National Highways might demolish or infill these structures instead of finding alternative uses for them. We also feature stations in this issue. An article on improving their accessibility includes initiatives for British Sign Language travel announcements. Scotland’s station re-opening record is also covered as is the complex integrated information management and control system to be provided at HS2’s stations. David Fenner was at SIGEX, the recent Railway Industry Association’s signalling innovation event, and reports on the initiatives that support the target to reduce signalling costs by 40% by 2029. Much signalling and other work was done over the festive season as Matt Atkins describes. We should be grateful to those who work in all weathers to make this happen. How Network Rail Scotland determines the required mitigation during severe weather is described in another feature. This includes the role of the professional meteorologists employed in its control room. Finally, all at Rail Engineer were saddened to learn of the passing of our founder, Tom O’Connor whose life we describe. He was a fervent supporter of both the UK railway and its people. Tom’s vision was of a quality railway engineering magazine, “written by rail engineers for rail engineers.” I, and my fellow writers, are proud to be a part of his legacy.
bob.hazell@railengineer.co.uk bob.wright@railengineer.co.uk clive.kessell@railengineer.co.uk david.fenner@railengineer.co.uk graeme.bickerdike@railengineer.co.uk malcolm.dobell@railengineer.co.uk mark.phillips@railengineer.co.uk paul.darlington@railengineer.co.uk peter.stanton@railengineer.co.uk
Advertising Asif Ahmed Craig Smith David King
asif@rail-media.com craig@rail-media.com david.king@rail-media.com
Rail Engineer Rail Media House, Samson Road, Coalville Leicestershire, LE67 3FP, UK. Switchboard: 01530 816 444 Website: www.railengineer.co.uk
Rail Engineer Videos http://rail.media/REYouTube
Editorial copy to Email: news@rail-media.com
Free controlled circulation Email: subscribe@rail-media.com
The small print Rail Engineer is published by RailStaff Publications Limited and printed by PCP Ltd. © All rights reserved. No part of this magazine may be reproduced in any form without the prior written permission of the copyright owners. Part of:
www.rail-media.com
Rail Engineer | Issue 206 | Jan-Feb 2024
6
OBITUARY
Remembering Tom O’Connor, Visionary founder of Rail Media
1948 - 2024
Rail Engineer | Issue 206 | Jan-Feb 2024
OBITUARY
R
ail Engineer is saddened to hear of the passing of Tom O’Connor, founder and owner of Rail Media, which publishes the RailStaff and Rail Engineer magazines.
Tom was a fervent supporter of both the UK railway and its people. Hailing from Clones, County Monaghan in Ireland, Tom moved to Derby in the late 1960s. Tom’s professional journey began with a career in a laboratory, working with chemicals, but a chance encounter with a newspaper advertisement offering a sports car for a computer salesman altered the course of his life. His success in sales led him to form lasting friendships, and form international businesses producing publishing software. The first, LaserMaker was followed by NTG2000 a company that became iStudio Publisher which is still producing desktop publishing software for Apple Macs.
A rail industry trailblazer In the mid-1990s, through his railway contacts in Derby, Tom became increasingly aware that the railway unfairly suffered from a bad press. He felt the need to do something about this and, ever the entrepreneur, saw the creation of a new magazine as a business opportunity. Hence 1997 saw the launch of RailStaff Select magazine to keep managers and staff up to date with developments on the then newly fragmented railway, to report everything that was good and to make sure that best practice, particularly in terms of safety, was reported fairly and promptly. With the success of RailStaff an opportunity arose to partner in the creation of the recruitment website railwaypeople.com in 2001, just before widespread use of the internet. In 2004, Tom attended a Permanent Way Institution (PWI) seminar in Austria with Colin Wheeler, who produced RailStaff’s monthly safety feature. He joined the PWI to attend this event. Around this time, Tom decided that another magazine was needed to highlight and explain railway engineering achievements. He felt that this
should be written by rail engineers for rail engineers, and so suitably experienced engineers were persuaded to become engineering writers. Thus, Rail Engineer was launched at Railtex in November 2004 with Colin Wheeler as its first editor. Tom’s vision was that Rail Engineer should be a free magazine with high quality content that would attract advertisers. Rail Media was founded around this time to bring together both its magazines, RailwayPeople.com, and other initiatives and give them a common brand.
created Rail Media which does much to support the industry for which he was always a positive and passionate advocate. One writer remembers an occasion when Tom took a prominent rail figure to task. “I remember Tom as someone who was always positive and passionate about the rail industry. Indeed, soon after I first met him after joining the Rail Engineer ranks, I was at the CPC table at a YRP dinner. A senior rail executive had just delivered a speech which included a section about media types constantly complaining about the rail industry. Tom enquired if I knew the individual and if I could make an introduction. I replied that I did and that I would make the introduction. Upon meeting this person, Tom proceeded to give the senior rail executive a telling-off – in his own awfully nice way – explaining that not all rail commentators are like that! I will always remember that interaction with Tom, someone who was always warm and positive.” Tom will be sadly missed. Rail Engineer, “written by rail engineers for rail engineers” is Tom’s legacy. I, and my fellow writers, are proud to be a part of this. Readers who may wish to do something to remember Tom are invited to make a donation to Alzheimer’s Research UK.
A positive force for good The industry also has Tom to thank for the RailStaff Awards which started in 2007. This event showcases and recognises the great work of the people who deliver the railway – from drivers to cleaners, and engineers to station staff – whose stories are not often heard. It is still the only awards evening in the industry that recognises people, not companies. In 2017, Tom was diagnosed with Alzheimer’s disease. When he gave this devasting news to a meeting of Rail Engineer’s writers he did so in a matter-offact manner. He fought the disease bravely and continued to support the magazine for as long as he could. I was invited to become an engineering writer for Rail Engineer in 2010 and can well remember my first visit to the Rail Media office when Tom spent the whole day with me offering much useful advice. After that he frequently contacted me with ideas and suggestions as he did for other writers. Tom’s warm and caring nature made him many friends. He was always ready to help someone in need, sometimes going to extreme lengths to do so. He inspired all who were fortunate to work with him. His innovative spirit and relentless passion
DAVID SHIRRES
Rail Engineer | Issue 206 | Jan-Feb 2024
7
NOTICES
HS2 update Three months on from the decision to cancel HS2, three parliamentary committee hearings provided further information on how this decision was taken, along with its implications.
LIAISON COMMITTEE 19 DECEMBER
DAVID SHIRRES
The liaison gives the chairs of the various parliamentary select committee the opportunity to question Prime Minister Rishi Sunak. At this hearing, Sunak answered 108 questions. This included one from transport select committee chair, Iain Stewart who asked what the Government is doing to address the long-term capacity on the West Coast Main Line (WCML) north of Birmingham, which will soon be at capacity. Sunak responded that HS2 phase 1 will provide space for about a quarter of a million passengers which will handle triple the current demand. He accepted there are options to focus on pinch points which the Government will look at though, some of those are being addressed by HS2 phase 1.
As can be seen, his response did not answer the question asked about capacity north of Birmingham. It also repeated an oftquoted figure that HS2 phase 1 will provide a daily capacity of 250,000 WCML. As this is equivalent to 18 Pendolino trains running 24 hours per day, it is difficult to see how this claim can be true. Its credibility is further diminished by the refusal of the Department for Transport (DfT) to provide Rail Engineer with the assumptions and calculations from which this claim is derived.
TRANSPORT SELECT COMMITTEE 30 NOVEMBER This committee heard evidence from Huw Merriman, Minister for Rail and HS2, and Alan Over, DfT’s Director General, High Speed Rail Group. At this hearing, Merriman also mentioned the dubious claim that HS2 phase 1 would provide 250,000 seats a day. With the cancellation of HS2 phase 2, Manchester will not have a station that can accept the previously planned 2 x 200-metre
PHOTO: HS2
8
An HS2 ‘green tunnel’ under construction. The five such tunnels total 8.2 km and are three times the cost of a conventional cutting
Rail Engineer | Issue 206 | Jan-Feb 2024
NOTICES
PHOTO: RAILTRACK
HS2 trains. The city will now get single 200-metrelong trains which provide less capacity than the current 265-metre Pendolinos. To make best use of scarce WCML train paths north of Birmingham, Merriman advised that the DfT was considering 2 x 200-metre trains potentially splitting at Crewe with one then going to Manchester and the other to Liverpool. He also advised that the DfT is looking at the digital signalling being provided on the East Coast Main Line. He felt that: “digitisation allows us to put more trains on without delivering more track.” Railtrack thought the same 20 years ago and, as a result, the company went into administration. Our feature ‘Digital Delusion’ published in issue 167 (September 2018) explains why. This also showed that on a mixed traffic railway such as the WCML, infrastructure is the main capacity constraint.
Table from 1999 WCML report shows that whilst digital signalling offers capacity improvements for Metros, on a mixed traffic railway like the WCML the main capacity constraint is infrastructure configuration
In response to concerns that WCML capacity was very constricted north of Birmingham, Alan Over advised that modelling had shown that: “even a return to previous trend growth would leave sufficient capacity such that there wasn’t a problem until the mid to late 2030s.” Yet the line is already at capacity, and HS2 was the result of serious concerns about WCML capacity in 2010, after which traffic increased at a far greater rate than expected. Over also advised that to make the best use of capacity, the DfT, HS2, and Network Rail were looking at infrastructure interventions, rolling stock, and train service specifications. He considered that we should have some preliminary views in the coming months.
TRANSPORT SELECT COMMITTEE 10 JANUARY This hearing heard evidence from Sir Jon Thompson, HS2’s executive chair and was a continuation of its meeting on 30 November. He advised the committee that HS2 had not been party to the decision to cancel phase 2 and that the level of detail provided by those developing policy to cancel phase 2 “lacked some specificity”. Hence the DfT has asked for detailed analysis on six areas: Handsacre junction, rolling stock, Euston tunnelling, Old Oak Common, Curzon Street, and the phase 2a eastern stub. In respect of costs, he noted that construction inflation over the past three years has been 27% (e.g. steel 47%, rebar 53%, and concrete 48%). In current prices this has added between £8 billion and £10 billion to the 2019 estimate. He also advised that the cost of a green tunnel (a cutting covered by concrete sections and earth) is three times that of the cutting. Thompson also noted that a key learning from Crossrail was the need for system integration of the track, signals, power, trains, and other systems. Hence HS2 has appointed a chief railway officer whose role is to integrate these together. To do so it is important that this role has significant power and authority across the whole of the organisation. He said that HS2 was advising the DfT that the rolling stock contract should not be changed. However, he recognised that the views of Network Rail and others needed to be considered. Rail Engineer has learnt from other sources that the order for HS2 trains was based on HS2 phase 2a services. With the cancellation of this phase, these trains will now be slower north of Birmingham. Hence this may result in more trains being required rather than fewer trains, as seemed to the case when the phase 2 cancellation was announced. He provided an interesting explanation of what closing down phase 2a involves. It requires: (i) closing down, making safe, and restoring 41 early works sites and 1,184 boreholes; (ii) ensuring compliance with the 1,500 undertakings and assurances in the Act; (iii) closing down and transferring to Network Rail their HS2 work at Crewe which will become their responsibility; and (iv) finalising data and records of what HS2 has done on the land. He noted that HS2 has spent £728 million on phase 2a early works and that: “Now we need to clean up and reverse what we’ve done.” With the additional cost that entails, the abortive cost of cancelling phase 2a will be well over £1 billion. These Parliamentary committees are a rich source of information about the Government’s HS2 decision. They show that this decision was not thought through, is supported by dubious information, that the WCML capacity problem is ignored or downplayed, and the significant abortive costs are associated with this decision. The MPs on these committees who ask the right questions are to be commended.
Rail Engineer | Issue 206 | Jan-Feb 2024
9
10
SURVEYING & ASSET MANAGEMENT
Responding to
Scotland’s weather PHOTO: NETWORK RAIL
Flooding at Bowling station on 7th October
DAVID SHIRRES
S
cotland’s railway gets a lot of weather. Although it is only 10% of the UK network, the region is 32% of the UK mainland and has the majority of its mountainous terrain. The challenge of responding to severe weather events was tragically highlighted by the August 2020 Carmont derailment. As part of its response to this derailment, Network Rail set up weather advisory and management of earthworks task forces which were respectively led by Dame Julia Slingo and Lord Robert Mair. The reports from these task forces were summarised in issue 190 (May-June 2021). The weather report considered how Network Rail could obtain the best possible weather forecasts and make best use of them. It noted that due to the chaotic nature of climate systems, best practice is to produce an ensemble of forecasts to assess the probabilities of a range of outcomes which are continually reviewed to provide increasingly narrower spread closer to the time of the forecast. Both the earthworks and weather reports considered how weather forecasts need to be translated into infrastructure hazards to enable timely operational decisions to be taken. At the time of the Carmont derailment, Network Rail’s weather advice used a 10km weather model
Rail Engineer | Issue 206 | Jan-Feb 2024
that could not capture local extremes. Since then, there has been a rapid development of the company’s weather services. Dame Slingo’s report considered that, prior to the Carmont derailment, Network Rail’s Extreme Weather Action Teleconferences (EWAT) were a static process, with limited capability to adjust alerts in an evolving weather situation. Furthermore, the weather thresholds for operational decisions, needed a major overhaul to reflect variations in exposure across the network. Her report recommended that Network Rail should have access to a full range of weather forecasts and respond to them within the company’s existing (pre-Carmont) ‘Awareness – Preparedness – Response – Recover’ weather management framework which is shown below: » Awareness - possible regional red weather alerts are recognised four to five days out. » Preparedness - route controls assign red weather alerts two days out using kilometre-scale forecasts and begins to take preparatory action. » Response - monitoring and alerting by nowcasting during extreme weather events. » Recover - establish priorities and provide weather forecasts for recovery. Implementing this framework requires both competent personnel and effective systems that clearly present relevant data to support effective decision making. The weather task force found that there was a gulf in expertise between those creating weather information and those receiving it. Hence it recommended that Network Rail should have a ‘weather academy’ to ensure its staff are well-informed users of weather services. Dame Slingo’s report noted that, after Carmont, Network Rail has acted swiftly to improve preparedness for extreme weather events and their impact on earthworks, with the development of a Convective Alert Tool.
11
SCOTLAND’S WEATHER DESK
THE WEATHER PLAN
To find out how weather response works in practice, Rail Engineer was glad of the opportunity to visit Scotland’s control to speak to Karl Grewar, head of integrated control for Scotland’s railway, and Weather Operations Delivery Manager (WODM) Camilla Taylor. Karl explained how Scotland has an integrated control with both Network Rail and ScotRail’s control teams reporting to him. Caledonian Sleeper and British Transport Police also have personnel in the control room. He advised that Scotland is the first Network Rail control to have an embedded weather desk staffed by professional meteorologists such as Camilla. This was originally set up in August 2021 and has been gradually established, partly because meteorologists are generally not available in Glasgow. The first meteorologists arrived in February 2022. To date, six have been recruited out of the full establishment of seven. The importance of having weather professionals as part of the control has proved useful in enabling Scotland to have a targeted, rather than a blanket approach to weather mitigation. Karl explained that this had been done by moving away from number thresholds to take a more nuanced view of the mitigation required. In the event of severe weather Karl advises that a system wide approach is needed that considers the ability to rescue trains and the risk to personnel called out to rescue trains. Lines will always be closed in the event of a Met Office red warning.
The extreme weather response specified in Scotland’s Adverse and Integrated Weather Plan (AIWP) follows the process recommended in Dame Slingo’s report (i.e. Awareness, Preparation, Response, Recovery and Review). Awareness requires key stakeholders to be advised if the five-day forecast may warrant the issue of a red alert status when extreme weather thresholds are breached. These include: rainfall – daily above 40mm or hourly above 20mm; wind gusting over 60 mph; temperature exceeding 29°C; or snowfall exceeding 15cm. The required mitigation is finalised 24 hours beforehand and communicated to all concerned. This is the minimum period needed for the required mitigation to be put in place.
AIWP has plans for specific areas such as this regular flooded are at Dalguise PHOTO: NETWORK RAIL
PHOTO: DAVID SHIRRES
SURVEYING & ASSET MANAGEMENT
Weather desk in Scotland’s control
Rail Engineer | Issue 206 | Jan-Feb 2024
12
SURVEYING & ASSET MANAGEMENT PHOTO: NETWORK RAIL FROM ‘X’
Customers also need to be given sufficient advice of the impact on their planned journey. Preparation happens when a red alert may be warranted three days out on the five-day forecast or if the Control Manager has assigned a red alert two days out. This requires the convening of an Extreme Weather Action Teleconference (EWAT) to consider, amongst other things, the required mitigation. Infrastructure maintenance delivery managers are also required to convene a conference to review the potential weather impact and allocate resources accordingly. Response requires the service and weather conditions to be monitored, the communication of developments to all concerned and action to be taken as required. If necessary, this includes further EWAT conferences if the weather deteriorates or affects unexpected areas. Recover requires the control manager to convene recovery conferences to determine priorities and establish robust timescales for recovery of the network. Review is done at a conference convened by the control manager to learn lessons from the response to the weather event and identify good practice. The AIWP considers the risks and mitigations for all types of extreme weather as well as seasonal arrangements for summer, autumn, and winter. It specifies weather precautions at specific locations which include structures at risk of scour and coastal defences. A section on tree management requires that, during extreme weather, the WODM shall review the impact of wind speed and direction on known hazardous trees recorded on the lineside tree survey.
Rail Engineer | Issue 206 | Jan-Feb 2024
PHOTO: NETWORK RAIL
Blown down tree blocks the line to Oban
TM
The Senceive InfraguardTM responsive monitoring solution is built specifically to mitigate slope failure risk on railways
Proven: 30,000 tilt sensors integrated with cameras and wireless communications in use on >50 km of Network Rail’s most vulnerable earthworks.
Responsive: Unique smart sensors respond to shallow ground movement, automatically switching from long-life scheduled reporting to near real-time reporting. Multiple alert levels allow trains to be warned or stopped.
Photo validation: Cameras send images in all light conditions on scheduled basis, or within moments of being triggered by ground movement. Avoid false alerts, get eyes on the site before you can get boots on the ballast.
Flexible: Easy to install and maintain. Can be integrated with piezometers and other instruments for deeper geotechnical insight.
info@senceive.com
Learn more
Watch video
14
SURVEYING & ASSET MANAGEMENT
PHOTO: NETWORK RAIL
A key aspect of the weather response is the use of Operational Route Sections (ORS). These are small route sections that are deemed to be at risk in severe weather which start and finish at clearly distinguishable points for drivers and signallers. During extreme weather, Blanket Emergency Speed Restrictions (BESR) are imposed on the affected ORSs. There are generally 40mph or 50mph restrictions which is the speed at which a train is most likely to remain upright if it strikes an obstruction. They can be as low as 20mph in the most challenging railway terrain areas.
Rail Engineer | Issue 206 | Jan-Feb 2024
A WET WEEKEND The weekend of 6-8 October was Scotland’s wettest two-day period since 1891, with an average rainfall of 64mm. This caused major rail disruption. It is understood that this was the first time that Scottish rail lines were pre-emptively closed due to forecast rainfall. In all such cases the resultant flooding would have closed these lines with the risk of trains being stranded.
Met office report shows up to 200 mm fell in the Scottish western highlands over the weekend
PHOTO: NETWORK RAIL
Camilla Tayler became an operational meteorologist in 2012 and had spent some years working in the aviation sector. She joined Network Rail Scotland as a WODM in October 2022. In our discussion it became clear that there is a significant distinction between assessing weather impacts on trains and planes. Whereas aviation meteorology is primarily concerned with the direct impact of the weather on aircraft, for rail the requirement is to assess how the infrastructure will be affected to assess the mitigation required to safely run trains. For example, she notes how the impact of wind on trees has to consider wind direction and the season. In summer, when they have leaves, trees are more vulnerable at the same wind speeds that would be considered ‘normal’ at other times of year. This might, for example require a 40mph BESR when national thresholds don’t require any action. The risk of floods
At the time of our discussion Camilla was updating the forecast and likely operational impacts for the weekend of 1617 December for which the Met Office had issued a Yellow rain warning for north west Scotland. This presented a significant risk of flooding, potential for earthworks failures with risk of winds gusting over 50 mph on the West Highland line, Highland Mainline, Kyle, and Far North lines.
PHOTO: MET OFFICE
THE WODM
is related to run off which is depends on previous weather as run off is generally less when the soil is dry. However, after a period of hot weather when soils are baked dry, runoff can be very high particularly during intense rainfall when the rain doesn’t have time to sink in. Camilla advises she uses her experience as a meteorologist to produce a forecast from Network Rail’s weather services together with various open source weather forecasts. At times of extreme weather, the WODMs are kept busy, frequently reviewing the forecast, and supporting EWATs. When there are no alerts the WODMs review previous extreme weather responses and help develop various mitigation measures. One such is a snow melt rate of flow model to predict flooding. Another is reviewing the risk from tunnel icicles. Another aspect of the WODM’s role is monitoring the 80 earthwork sites where tilt monitoring has been installed. These transmit an alarm when there is a five degree movement though this may be due to disturbance by animals. If there is an alarm from two sensors, the line is closed pending an inspection. There are about 300 high-risk earthworks in Scotland. She also mentioned Network Rail’s Weather Academy, the creation of which was one of the recommendations in Dame Slingo’s report. This has been established to provide operators and engineers with core skills for weather-based risk management and ensure that practitioners and meteorologists can understand each other. It has hosted a number of workshops and has its own homepage.
Weather forecast for 16-17 December prepared at 0300 on 15 December
15
PHOTO: MET OFFICE
SURVEYING & ASSET MANAGEMENT A
Weather related earthworks failures at Auldgirth, near Dumfries (A) and Loch Eilt, near Mallaig (B)
A sharp frontal boundary stalled over Scotland on the 6-7 October, with moist subtropical air feeding in from the west giving increasingly heavy rain over the weekend. This phenomenon is known as an atmospheric river with a narrow column of water vapour transported from the tropics northwards
This weather event was first forecast on Monday 1 October, and by Tuesday the weather model was forecasting widespread rainfalls of over 50 mm with some local rainfall of over 100 mm. On Wednesday, the WODM issued provisional BESR recommendations. With increased confidence in this forecast, following the EWAT conference on 5 October, key stakeholders were advised of the likelihood of pre-emptive line closures and widespread blanket speed restrictions. The plan for these closures and BESRs were finalised by 11:15 on Friday 6 October. Network Rail Scotland and ScotRail social media desks then used this information to pass on the ‘don’t travel’ message where lines were closed and ‘only travel if absolutely necessary’ on other lines. The lines closed were the West Highland Line to Oban and Mallaig, the Highland Mainline between Perth and Inverness, and the North Clyde line between Dalmuir and Helensburgh. During the weekend, these lines were flooded and there was significant flooding in Glasgow and the central belt. The weather was closely monitored by the WODMs who issued three-hourly updates. During the weekend, the most severe impacts were not necessarily at locations with the highest rainfall but were related to river basin flooding in the Perth and the Fife areas due to high rainfall in their mountainous catchment areas. In the West Highlands, where 100mm of rain fell during the day, the trunk road network was affected by seven landslips. The railway, which shares the same corridor, was pre-emptively closed due to the risk of landslips and was relatively unscathed. By late Saturday it became clear that it would not be possible to open some of the closed lines on Sunday 8 October as planned, as more rain than forecast had fallen in eastern Scotland. This led to further BESRs being required and resulted in a landslip near Cupar and washaway between Stirling and Perth where the line was blocked until Wednesday 11 October.
CHANGING CLIMATE The Slingo report makes it clear there is no doubt that the UK is affected by climate change with increasing frequency of high-impact weather events. Records show that the earth is continuing to warm, with the decade to 2020 being the warmest on record. As warmer air holds more moisture (7% per 1°C change) there has been an increase in rainfall. In Scotland there has been an 8% increase in rainfall over the past decade compared with the long-term average. Storm Henk in early January was the UK’s eighth since the start of the storm season in August. Furthermore, these storms are not the only extreme weather events. For example, the extreme rainfall experienced in Scotland on the weekend of 6-8 October was not the result of a storm. Neither was the high rainfall on the weekend of 15-17 December when the widespread BESRs were imposed.
Hence, infrastructure that had shown itself to be resilient to the UK’s past weather may now no longer be so. While much is being done to improve the UK rail network’s weather resilience, with much of its infrastructure being over 150-years old it is not possible to ensure that there will be no failures. Hence pro-active extreme weather mitigation such as line closures and BESRs is essential. Network Rail Scotland has shown how the effectiveness of this mitigation is enhanced by having embedded weather professionals in its control room.
POSTSCRIPT During storm Gerrit on 27 December, a ScotRail HST hit a tree at Broughty Ferry, north of Dundee on the line to Aberdeen. Fortunately, the driver was unharmed. Photographs on social media show this was a pine tree about 30 metres tall and around 15 metres outside Network Rail’s boundary. It was located on the esplanade and so was directly exposed to Gerrit’s southerly winds off the Firth of Tay which were gusting at up to 60mph. As the tree fell, it pivoted around its root system and was supported by the ground around it which was slightly above rail level so that its trunk lay across the track suspended at cab height. In this particularly unfortunate circumstance, it was not surprising that the cab sustained significant damage when it hit this tall tree. The driver is reported to have escaped injury as he had time to leave his seat and move to the back of the cab. Preventing vulnerable trees that are well outside Network Rail’s infrastructure from falling onto the railway during extreme weather events is a significant challenge which, ideally, requires the adjacent landowner’s co-operation. This incident shows the importance of minimising this risk by imposing BESRs. At the time, a Network Rail press release advised that speed restrictions were planned for some sections of the line between Dundee and Aberdeen. Network Rail is formally investigating the incident with its industry partners. The Rail Accident Investigation Board have also announced that they are to investigate this accident which occurred when the train was travelling at 84mph.
Rail Engineer would like to thank Karl Grewar and Camilla Tayler for their support with the production of this feature.
Rail Engineer | Issue 206 | Jan-Feb 2024
PHOTOS: NETWORK RAIL
B
16
SURVEYING & ASSET MANAGEMENT PHOTO: TRILINK
TriLink -
the intelligent renewal of West Coast Main Line north
T
he West Coast Main Line (WMCL) is arguably the most important PAUL long-distance railway trunk route DARLINGTON in Britain. The line was developed in the mid-1800s, to connect London and Glasgow with connections to the cities of Birmingham, Manchester, Liverpool, and Edinburgh. It does not just connect north and south of the country though, as it also serves key towns and cities along the route - and not just for passenger traffic, as the WCML carries a significant amount of freight. The Government has set a target to grow rail freight by at least 75% by 2050 to boost economic growth and deliver environmental benefits by taking lorries off roads. The route from Preston Brook tunnel south of Warrington to Gretna, located to the north of Carlisle, was last significantly renewed 50 years ago when overhead electrification was provided. Dozens of absolute block mechanical signal boxes with semaphore signalling were also replaced with colour light track circuit signalling, controlled from Warrington, Preston, and Carlisle power signal boxes. Carlisle power signal box alone replaced over 40 mechanical signal boxes. Now, 50 years later, TriLink is the name of the programme to ‘intelligently’ renew the route and to provide a more reliable timetable for passengers and freight services. The objective is to renew the assets so they are safer, easier to
Rail Engineer | Issue 206 | Jan-Feb 2024
maintain, and more reliable, to keep passengers and freight moving while reducing the volume of costly signalling work. The WCML of today is a different railway to that of the 1970s. Passenger trains are no longer locomotive hauled, freight trains are longer, and trains have far better acceleration and braking capabilities. European Train Control System (ETCS) is finally being rolled out, which will remove the restrictions of fixed signalling, and provide features such as bidirectional working and with far better train protection. The route north of Preston is essentially a two-track railway with passing loops, and trains need to be able to leave and join the main line as quickly as possible - something the existing layouts do not facilitate. The loops also need to be long enough to accommodate modern longer intermodal (container) freight trains. So, if loops cannot be extended and made faster, they ideally need to be recovered, subject to the formal network change process.
INTELLIGENT RENEWAL Rail Engineer was delighted to be invited by Network Rail’s principal programme sponsor, David Gordon, to learn more about the TriLink programme and the intelligent renewal of WCML north. David explained that the programme involves a scale of investment of multi-discipline renewals that doesn’t often take place.
engineering trains, and to provide infrastructure that can be managed and maintained far more efficiently. Renewing all the major assets in a single programme, and intelligently, creates the opportunity to really make a difference and to make carbon friendly rail travel even more appealing. To do that means looking for areas of the network that can be improved and to create efficiencies, not just for today
but also for future generations. The key is to identify how assets can be replaced differently and to maximise the opportunities to rationalise the infrastructure and deliver a more capable railway. The programme is committed to providing the right things in the right place to allow trains to go at the right speed at the right time, and evaluating the need to renew assets that were designed for a different era.
PHOTO: TRILINK
Traditionally, the default approach of a renewals project is to replace an old asset ‘like for like’ with a new and, at best, modern equivalent with the same functionality. These renewals are sponsored and specified by the discipline asset owner and generally there is little scope to improve the overall train network service. Intelligent renewal takes a more cross functional, pragmatic approach with the objective of finding ways to provide an efficient modern railway, tailored to the needs of the customers. A key element with the development of TriLink and its intelligent renewal objective is to seek a wide, diverse range of views from the network’s customers, and to achieve and maintain a cross-industry, collaborative, industry partnership approach. The TriLink name, for example, represents the Department of Transport, Network Rail as the infrastructure manager, and all the train operators. The development of the programme looked at the ability to operate the railway far better in the future, balancing freight and passenger services requirements with access for
PHOTO: JON VEITCH
SURVEYING & ASSET MANAGEMENT
David Gordon explains intelligent renewals to stakeholders
Rail Engineer | Issue 206 | Jan-Feb 2024
17
18
SURVEYING & ASSET MANAGEMENT
Edinburgh Waverley
2000+
Glasgow Central
Signalling Equivalent Units
120+
Switches & Crossing Units
250km+
Overhead Line Equipment re-wiring
250km+
Along route track, civils and drainage works
Dumfries
Carlisle
Penrith
Oxenholme
To some this may sound like enhancement rather than a renewals project, but David explained how the programme has identified how it can deliver better functionality with fewer assets by placing them in the optimum location. Another factor in the intelligent renewal objective is to future proof the changes and to ensure that, so far as reasonably possible, any additional enhancements or changes to the network can be considered and will not be frustrated by the TriLink works. Cross rail industry communication and collaboration are key. The rail industry has a habit of working in silos and not looking at the bigger picture. A railway is a system of systems, which must all work together seamlessly and like clockwork. TriLink therefore invited a diverse mix of railway people with vast local and industry experience to be involved with the planning of the programme. This included those operating every type of train, the people planning the timetable, and those managing and maintaining every type of asset. The scope of the TriLink renewals is fundamentally track, signalling and telecoms (with ETCS), and overhead line electrification assets. However, there are likely to be track blockades required which will allow other work, such as for structures and station works, to also be undertaken.
TRAFFIC FLOWS
Lancaster
Preston
Trilink Focus Area
Wigan
Warrington Bank Quay Manchester Piccadilly Liverpool Lime Street Crewe
PHOTO: TRILINK
Chester
Rail Engineer | Issue 206 | Jan-Feb 2024
Every part of the TriLink programme has been subject to a ‘clean sheet’ intelligent renewal analysis and proposals drawn up and costed, such as the changes at Warrington. There are several such locations on the route where currently the traffic flow must cross the WCML from east to west / west to east on flat crossovers. Traffic from Morecombe to Lancaster currently crosses the WCML ‘at grade’ twice within two miles. At one of the project’s optimisation workshops, an operator suggested that the proposed layout could be further improved if the Down Line was made fully bidirectional between Lancaster and Morecombe South Curve alleviating existing timetable constraints. Other similar examples exist elsewhere along the length of the project. To the north of Preston, the loops will be adjusted and occasionally extended to accommodate long intermodal freight trains. Layout alterations throughout the length of the project will result in a net saving of Signalling Equivalent Units (SEUs). An SEU is defined as a single trackside output function controlled by an interlocking and is a way of simplifying the complexity of signalling so that planning and budgeting can be expressed at a simple common level. In total, the TriLink programme believes it can save over 300 SEUs and provide a better more flexible and cost-effective railway.
SURVEYING & ASSET MANAGEMENT
Faster ‘turn outs’ in and out of loops is another area which will benefit from intelligent renewal to reduce journey times. Trains normally have to slow down to enter a turnout and loop, whereas they can continue at the same speed on the main track. Turnouts are always a critical point, and they very often condition the speed of trains. There are loops on the route which have an entrance speed of 25mph, a track speed of 20mph, and an exit speed of 10mph. The route is busy, so it’s important that trains can get off and back onto the main line as soon as possible; therefore, TriLink is looking to harmonise loop entry/exit and line speed to typically 50mph if possible. A major benefit of ETCS is that it is a cost-effective bi-directional signalling system, as no expensive signal structures and signals are required, and intelligent deployment of ETCS and track renewals will allow simpler and more efficient train paths. So, for example, simplified bi-directional working could be deployed for the whole route using pre-existing crossover pairs for planned single line working to allow maintenance activities to take place more easily. At Carnforth, a potential option subject to enhancement funding could be to provide a cord to allow local trains to access the station via the line to Barrow-in-Furness and return to the WCML to travel north. This would not only provide a passing loop at Carnforth, but also the ability for main line trains to stop at Carnforth station once again. These are only a few examples of the intelligent renewals that the TriLink programme is planning in order to provide a more efficient railway.
IMPLEMENTATION A programme of works such as TriLink is likely to require a series of blockades. There are those who may question why Network Rail cannot deliver schemes “like we used to” with fewer ‘no train’ periods. Since the route was last renewed 50 years ago, safety requirements have vastly improved and there are now several items of legislation to manage safety risk. These include The Work at Height Regulations 2005, Electricity at Work Regulations 1989, and The Health and Safety at Work Act 1974; so things cannot be implemented as they once were and the priority has to be ‘Everyone Home Safe Every Day’.
The rail industry wants everyone to get home safely, including colleagues, passengers, suppliers, lineside neighbours, communities, and anyone who lives, works, or goes near a railway. However, the key to good implementation is to maximise the work content of every ‘no train’ period and manage the work programme efficiently, and to do as much work as possible in the shortest period of time. Customers soon get very upset if a railway is not available and no work is taking place, and, just as important, train diversions and bus replacement services must be very well organised and efficient. The work must also be done properly, so that the railway is not disrupted to the same extent for at least another 50 years. There are a huge number of factors that could determine where the best location is to start implementing a programme such as TriLink, and these will differ depending on the asset type. However, with ETCS deployment the fixed infrastructure is relatively easy to provide compared to ETCS train fitment, training, route familiarisation, and system configuration (making sure that everything works together). Therefore, when taking ETCS train fitment and training into account, the best place to start will be in the north and in the Carlisle area, with fewer drivers to train, trains to fit, and less system testing compared to other parts of the route.
TRILINK LEGACY The result of TriLink for the WCML will be a more reliable timetable for passengers, longer freight services to improve economic growth and the environment, and to provide a solution that will be easier to maintain, while reducing the volume of costly signalling and track work. This ‘intelligent renewal’ approach should be applied to any future route-wide projects, and is very relevant as the ETCS plan moves forward and re-signalling happens nationally over the next 20 years. The overall TriLink programme renewal scope is not-optional for a lot of the assets – they are, or soon will be, life expired so something has to happen. So why not make a better railway, intelligently, at the same time?
TBF offers a wide range of health, welfare and financial benefits to support members during times of need, hardship and distress for less than 20p per day.
1923 TO 2023: ONE HUNDRED YEARS OF SUPPORT FOR PUBLIC TRANSPORT WORKERS DURING TIMES OF NEED.
£1.25 a week covers you, your live-in partner and dependent children. Join online today www.tbf.org.uk
Registered charity; England and Wales,1160901, and Scotland SC047016
TBF_CentAdvert_185x50.indd 1
09/12/2022 16:10
Rail Engineer | Issue 206 | Jan-Feb 2024
19
20
SURVEYING & ASSET MANAGEMENT
BRIDGE INFILLING:
ITS RISE & FALL GRAEME BICKERDIKE
PHOTO: THE HRE GROUP
G
raeme Bickerdike offers his personal reflections on the efforts of campaigners to ensure the social value of legacy railway structures is recognised in asset management decision-making.
When I joined a group of like-minded folk to highlight and challenge the impending loss of 130-plus legacy railway structures to National Highways’ (NH) infilling and demolition programme, we could not have imagined that then Prime Minister Boris Johnson would intervene to save them. But that’s what he did – if you believe the Daily Mail – in late July 2021. Since then, infilling has been paused whilst priority schemes were put through a newlydeveloped process involving stakeholder review, Ministerial approval, and planning permission. As we transition to greener forms of transport, the corridors vacated by the not-so-permanent way in the 1950s and 60s are becoming ever more valuable for active travel or restoration of their railways. Many have already been reclaimed by nature for wildlife transit and foraging. However, the selling-off and redevelopment of trackbeds post-closure has diminished their repurposing potential, and further blockages serve only to increase the cost and difficulty of piecing them back together. The imperative of maintaining alignment continuity is clear to anyone with an eye on a positive future.
THE ROAD TO INTERVENTION National Highways, the state-owned roads company, assumed responsibility for the Department for Transport’s Historical Railways Estate (HRE) in September 2013 following the loss of British Railways Board (Residuary) to the
Rail Engineer | Issue 206 | Jan-Feb 2024
Conservatives’ ‘quango cull’. More than 3,000 structures feature in total, with 152 tunnels, 101 viaducts and aqueducts, and 1,906 bridges. Each one of these historical assets stands as a monument to the tenacity and ambition of those who created them – mostly in the 19th century – in conditions we can’t begin to imagine. Custodianship comes with the moral responsibility to respect those endeavours and the sacrifices that came with them. By the time of the Government’s pause, at least 52 structures had been subject to infilling over eight years, including sections of West Yorkshire’s 1.4-mile-long Queensbury Tunnel which connects two of the county’s largest conurbations. It remains the centrepiece of plans for a Bradford-Halifax Greenway despite National Highways blocking it beneath two ventilation shafts as £7.2 Million was spent on localised strengthening works whilst the contractor fought to overcome flooding difficulties caused by NH’s failure to pay the £50 annual rent on a pumping station. To no avail, Bradford Council issued a Planning Contravention Notice to stop one phase of the work; meanwhile, over 8,000 people have objected to NH’s undetermined planning application for a larger-scale abandonment scheme. In late 2020, plans were revealed to expand the infilling programme from an average of seven bridges per year to 23. National Highways (then named Highways England (HE)) claimed that: “Around 200 of the public road bridges managed
SURVEYING & ASSET MANAGEMENT
PHOTO: QUEENSBURY TUNNEL SOCIETY
Queensbury Tunnel has been blocked in two places despite proposals for it to be repurposed as part of a Bradford-Halifax Greenway
Cumbria’s Great Musgrave bridge presented “no significant risk” when it was infilled under emergency permitted development rights
A BRIDGE TOO FAR
PHOTO: THE HRE GROUP
1,600 tonnes of stone and concrete were removed from Great Musgrave bridge after councillors rejected a retrospective planning application to retain it
A QUESTION OF STRENGTH If support from the stone and concrete beneath its arch was withdrawn, NH made clear that Great Musgrave bridge would require strengthening. It continued to do so until Week 10 of the infill removal project when a post on its website revealed that: “despite the bridge’s capacity being previously limited, our refurbishment work and resurfacing of the deck will remove the need for a weight restriction, restoring the bridge to full capacity.”
Rail Engineer | Issue 206 | Jan-Feb 2024
PHOTO: THE HRE GROUP
As a result of open joints, the bridge at Great Musgrave had been assessed as having a capacity of just 17 tonnes in 1998, but repointing works 14 years later restored full live loading capacity (40/44 tonnes). Although some mortar loss occurred from 2017, an inspection in 2020 found only modest defects and National Highways’ engineer recorded the bridge as presenting “no significant risk” to public safety. Despite this, the bridge was infilled 16 months later, a different engineer having invoked Class Q permitted development rights - which only apply to temporary works in emergency situations – claiming: “the bridge was being overloaded and that works were required to prevent the failure of the bridge and avert a collapse.” A subsequent review of the available engineering evidence by Bill Harvey Associates (BHA), a firm of masonry arch bridge specialists, condemned this claim as “preposterous”. As, by default, Class Q rights required removal of the infill within 12 months, Eden District Council (EDC) asked NH to submit a retrospective planning application for retention of the 1,600 tonnes of stone and concrete. This was unanimously rejected by the Council’s planning committee on 16 June 2022 due to conflicts with local and national heritage and landscape policies, after which Helene Rossiter, NH’s head of the HRE Programme, asserted that NH would: “no longer consider the infilling of any structures as part of our future plans, unless there is absolutely no alternative.” An enforcement notice was issued, requiring removal of the infill by 11 October 2023. A 13-week closure of the road – which caused great inconvenience to the local community – was lifted on 13 October.
PHOTO: THE HRE GROUP
by HE/HRE have failed their most recent structural assessment but haven’t had any restrictions implemented. Therefore, our planned infilling is the safest and most appropriate option and will maintain access across the structure.” But some of the bridges had passed or never been subject to a capacity assessment, and there had been no meaningful consideration of their heritage or landscape value; little dialogue had taken place with community stakeholder groups whilst a Sustrans study from January 2022 found that two-thirds of the 75 affected structures within its scope had the potential to be incorporated in future walking and cycling routes. The final straw came when Great Musgrave bridge in Cumbria was infilled without any consultation with the two heritage railways who needed it for their longstanding reconnection plans and despite a request from the local planning authority for works not to start. An outpouring of frustration from engineers and members of the public accompanied the masonry arch’s loss. Meanwhile, politicians voiced their concerns about the impact on active travel opportunities and accused NH of “cultural vandalism” during a House of Lords debate.
21
22
SURVEYING & ASSET MANAGEMENT
No strengthening had been installed, just localised repointing and modest repairs to stonework damaged when the concrete was broken out. A new assessment had found the bridge to have a capacity 3.4 times greater than that needed for 40/44 tonne HGVs and, as BHA indicated in its report, it almost certainly had similar reserves of strength prior to infilling. This further undermined the credibility of an organisation that had previously claimed it was needed “to avert a collapse”. At the time of writing, the cost of the removal scheme has still not been revealed; the original infilling set back the taxpayer £124,000. Photos published by NH in Weeks 2 & 4 of the project suggested that settlement of the infill had caused a gap of perhaps 10mm to open between the concrete and the arch. As BHA said, “Lack of contact is an extreme case of lack of stiffness. If there is no contact, there is nothing to stop the movement of the existing structure.” National Highways denied the campaigners’ assertion that the gap prevented load being transferred into the infill – thus making it ineffective – and instead pointed out that uncertainty over retention of the material meant that the contractor had not undertaken investigative coring and ‘topup’ grouting after 12 months, as it normally would. However, the company has not said what the minimum gap size is for such grouting or what would happen if settlement occurred afterwards.
National Highways has lodged an appeal against the local council’s decision to reject retention of the Congham bridge infill
St Andrew’s Lane bridge at Congham, Norfolk, spanned the former King’s Lynn to Fakenham railway and was rebuilt in 1926 using a system of modular concrete products and blockwork first introduced by the eminent engineer William Marriott. It was the only surviving complete example of its kind, substantially comprising concrete brick and more elaborate in plan than two others in the county. In 2019, the structure was assessed as having a capacity of 7.5 tonnes due to its edge girders carrying the parapets; the carriageway-supporting girders could bear 40 tonnes. An inspection recorded 14 structural elements to be in ‘Fair’ condition, with only the east abutment – which was cracked at its ends – described as ‘Poor’. Spalling to the bridge’s seven concrete-encased girders affected approximately 3.6% of their visible surface area, although cracking was more extensive. Two patch mortar repairs had been completed. The lane is narrow, with encroaching trees and foliage. The bridge ‘hump’ and a bend at its west end restrict visibility and hence speeds. A vehicle typically crosses every 10 minutes. There is no apparent collision damage to the parapets or flattened vegetation on the verges. Against this picture of modest risk, NH told the Borough Council of King’s Lynn & West Norfolk that it intended to infill the bridge under Class Q permitted development rights in October 2019. Planners expressed no objection, given the implied emergency and temporary nature of the works. A contractor was mobilised 17 months later, and the bridge was buried in spring 2021. National Highways’ failure to remove the infill within 12 months – as required under Class Q – prompted the Council to ask for a retrospective planning application if retention of the material was intended. A committee of 14 councillors unanimously rejected it due to conflicts with heritage and landscape policies on 2 October 2023. One of them, Vivienne Spikings, protested that there was no need to “obliterate our past with this cheap infill”, bemoaning the loss of “a shining example of architecture”. The bridge, asserted NH, was in “very poor condition” – contradicting its own evidence – and repairs to it would have been difficult. Infilling was the most cost-effective option, it said, although no costs for any other options were ever provided for comparison. Helene Rossiter insisted: “This work was essential to ensure the bridge can carry traffic safely. We do not feel the Council’s decision adequately reflects the safety concerns raised, which is why we are lodging an appeal with the Planning Inspectorate.” An enforcement notice for removal of the infill was issued by the Council, with a compliance deadline of 10 April 2024. However, at the time of writing, it is understood that an appeal has been submitted and the notice has not therefore taken effect. PHOTO: M&GN TRUST
The elegant bridge at Congham in Norfolk was rebuilt in 1926 using a system of modular concrete products and blockwork first introduced by engineer William Marriott
HERITAGE LOSS
PHOTO: THE HRE GROUP
Rail Engineer | Issue 206 | Jan-Feb 2024
SURVEYING & ASSET MANAGEMENT
National Highways won the National Railway Heritage Structures Award for its £2 million refurbishment of Westfield Viaduct near Bathgate
PHOTO: THE HRE GROUP
So where do we go from here? In October 2023, permission to move ahead with the infilling of six structures and demolition of a seventh was granted by Ministers, with a range of options having previously been considered by NH’ Stakeholder Advisory Forum which has been set up to review the wider social value of any such affected structures. Work is expected to begin in Summer 2024, subject to the relevant planning consents being obtained. Infilling of the handsome bridge accommodating Limekiln Road in Ayr is already on pause as the local council has identified its potential value for a future active travel route. This highlights a point made by Sustrans in its study, that: “An argument could be made for all the structures that, one day, they may be useful”. While events at Great Musgrave demonstrate that infilling is reversible, the costs of removal are unsustainable for heritage railways and charities building cycling infrastructure on a shoestring. So, isn’t it time to view viable legacy structures as assets by default? To counter negative perceptions, NH has launched a PR campaign, promoting its positive interventions at many HRE structures. In December, it won the National Railway Heritage Structures Award for its £2 million refurbishment of Westfield Viaduct near Bathgate, delivered by Balfour Beatty. And there’s some proactive engagement with those seeking to repurpose structures for social benefit, notably greenway developers in the south-west. There remains uncertainty, however, as to whether the Department for Transport will allow this to happen under licence, rather than insisting on ownership transfers to other cash-strapped bodies. What remains unclear are NH’s long-term intentions regarding the 130-plus structures that were facing “the most appropriate option” of infilling or demolition when the Government stepped in to halt the programme, and to what extent the company’s outward enthusiasm for the Historical Railways Estate is percolating inwards to those making asset management decisions. Safeguards should prevent any repetitions of Great Musgrave and Congham – high-value losses where the risks were respectively invented and over-egged. But what about the culture that drove those schemes? Has the inclination to infill been tamed?
PHOTO: FORGOTTEN RELICS
A BETTER WAY
Ministerial authority has been granted to infill Limekiln Road bridge in Ayr, but the scheme is paused as the structure may be useful for an active travel route
EDITOR’S COMMENT To seek NH’s response to this article I spoke to its head of Historical Railways Estate, Helene Rossiter. She advised that, although she did not agree with some of it, NH completely supports its main message that alternative uses should be considered for these old structures. She emphasised that alongside NH’s primary priority of safety, the social value potential of structures, including possible reuse for active travel, is now fully considered when making decisions. National Highways also works closely with its Stakeholder Advisory Forum which Graeme Bickerdike attends as the representative of The HRE Group, to help inform the company’s plans. Over the last 10 years NH has invested over £50 million to ensure tunnels, bridges, and viaducts can be used safely and enjoyed by future generations. The Department for Transport’s protocol for the management of these structures is also being updated to reflect government policies on active travel. Helene says she looks forward to sharing this more widely in due course.
Structural Precast for Railways
Rail Engineer | Issue 206 | Jan-Feb 2024
23
24
FEATURE
Complex and innovative construction techniques at
Barmouth Viaduct PHOTO: BARBARA FULLER
BOB WRIGHT
T
he completion of the £30 million restoration of North Wales’ iconic Barmouth Viaduct was celebrated on 8 December, marking the end of a four-year programme that has fully restored the 156-year-old, grade II* listed structure, and maintained its historic appearance, including a complete replacement of the metallic superstructure. Barmouth Viaduct is a single-track viaduct across the estuary of the Afon Mawddach near Barmouth. It was constructed by the Aberystwyth and Welsh Coast Railway between 1864 and 1867. It is 770 metres long and carries the Cambrian Line between Morfa Mawddach and Barmouth stations. Its 113 spans of 5.8 to 6.2 metres make it the longest timber viaduct in Wales and one of the oldest in regular use in Britain. When built, the bridge included a lift span to pass tall ships. In 1906, three fixed and swinging metallic spans were installed, carried on cast iron cylinders. As well as the railway, the spans support a path, used by pedestrians and cyclists as part of National Cycle Route 8. To the people of Barmouth and Meirionnydd it is a vital link between communities, taking children to school, and people to work, shopping, and the doctors. The now completed restoration works will ensure that this link continues for generations to come. The project was split across several years to reduce the impact on rail services, the community, and local economy. In Rail Engineer 192 (Sept-Oct 2021) the repairs to the timber viaduct were described, and these works were delivered between 2020 into 2022 during two long blockades. 2023 saw the complete
Rail Engineer | Issue 206 | Jan-Feb 2024
replacement of the metallic spans, undertaken during a 13-week blockade of the coastal route north of Machynlleth. With the use of a jack-up barge impractical here, the logistics of installing the new 160-tonne spans were extremely complex, requiring a multitude of temporary works and innovative construction techniques to slide the new bridge into place, and at the same time demolish the old structure. Network Rail’s route director for Wales and Borders Nick Millington said: “It’s a fantastic achievement for the teams who have worked tirelessly in all weathers to complete the job, which will enable the viaduct to safely carry rail services for many years to come.” The contract for the project was awarded to Alun Griffiths Ltd, which is locally based and is proud to be delivering a project which brings economic, social, and transport benefits to the area. Network Rail’s Gareth Yates and Steve Richardson of Alun Griffiths explained the logic, design, and delivery of this epic project to Rail Engineer.
DESIGN Network Rail worked closely with Transport for Wales, Cadw, Gwynedd County Council, and other stakeholders over several years to develop and agree the scope of this project. The requirement was to replace and restore the metallic elements of this listed structure on a like-for-like basis, maintaining the historic aesthetic of the 156-year-old bridge. A further, and significant, challenge was to devise an installation methodology in conjunction with Alun Griffith’s team. The structural design was undertaken by Tony Gee and Partners, supported by Cass
FEATURE
Hayward. The approved design visually replicates the original bridges, although reflecting current design codes. The long-disused swing span of Br 41 was not required to be movable but, with the agreement of Cadw and Gwynedd County Council, it retains the existing slew path and other equipment on the centre pier to reflect its previous form. Dummy rivet heads are included on top flanges of the hogback trusses to reflect the old structure’s appearance. The two northern approach spans of Br 42 were designed to match the original Warren trusses. The hogback trusses and overhead bracings for the fixed and two halves of the swing span of Br 41 are of conventional design. However, for installation much temporary steelwork was added to these. A runway beam, for gantries, was added above each truss. Substantial end connections were added between the ends of the two pairs of trusses. These would enable the two spans to be connected endto-end, forming a single rigid structure that would allow complex temporary loading situations required during installation.
FABRICATION AND DELIVERY The contract for the new steelwork was to have been undertaken by Cleveland Bridge, which had also built the existing 1906 structure. However, following its closure during 2021 the works were instead delivered by Doncaster-based Carver Engineering Services. The new trusses were trial assembled and painted at its works, but split into thirds for transportation, carried vertically on road vehicles. These were delivered in July to the compound at Morfa, south of the river, for assembly and trial moves, before rail transport across the estuary. Steelwork for the short land end spans were delivered to a smaller compound on Marine Parade in Barmouth and transported to site by pontoon.
The new steelwork would arrive by rail, but the existing structure was to be removed from site by pontoons on the river. Graveyard Beach, beside Barmouth’s harbour, was the unloading point for the dismantled bridge and a safe access to this was created from Marine Parade. ScaffFloat assembled four 12-metre x 8-metre 63-tonne capacity pontoons and, to push/tow these, two ScaffFloat Workboats with 1.5-tonne bollard pull capacity. Lifts were carried out at slack tide, but anchors were installed either side of the bridge. Deck winches attached to these, and to the bridge piers, were used to hold the pontoons in position to a tolerance of 100mm. To avoid any conflict with normal river and harbour traffic, the installation of temporary moorings and the intensive movement of boats and pontoons between bridge and beach was agreed with the Barmouth Harbourmaster and covered by a Marine Licence from Cyfoeth Naturiol Cymru (Natural Resources Wales). On the bridge itself, the existing overhead bracing was raised to allow the new bridge beams on rail trailers to pass through.
COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT The importance of the bridge to the life of the local community meant that this project had already attracted a huge amount of interest during the previous years’ works. Local social media was very active and supportive of this final element of the project. In advance of the works, a drop-in event was held on Barmouth Quay and was well attended. The regional significance of the works was
reflected by the coverage it received on regional and national news programmes. Local students enthusiastically followed the project and were visited by project engineers to explain the works and to try the ‘Griffith’s Bridge to schools’ bridge building challenge.
STEELWORK ERECTION AND TEST MOVE As the truss steelwork was delivered it was erected on 12 short trestles on a concrete pad at the Morfa compound, adjacent to the Cambrian line. Onto these were placed extensive temporary steelwork, for the overhead runway beam (seen blue in images) and for temporary end connections. At this stage, and for the move, the new trusses were set about 1.8 metres closer than their final position. This would enable them to pass along and through the existing bridge. The operation to transfer the assembled spans across the timber viaduct, and to position these onto the substructures, was going be both unique and extremely complex. To verify the transportation methodology a practice move was carried out on a purpose-built 92.5-metre track between the trestles and steelwork. This used longitudinal timbers and rails retained from the timber works in 2021. The first span was successfully moved along the test track onto a second set of trestles leaving the first set available to erect the second span. Additionally, the planned horizontal sliding of the beams was trialled here together with the cantilevering of the swing span, described below. This ensured that all key blockade activities had been successfully trialled, with lessons learnt incorporated into the methodology and temporary works design.
ADVANCE WORKS All of the construction works were to be delivered over tidal water and, unlike the previous timber works, had no low-tide mudflat access to the site. Works access was from the old bridge itself or from floating platforms. Attridge Scaffolding erected hanging scaffolding around each pier to give access for repair and painting works above low tide level. Scaffolding was also erected to the trusses at the future demolition cut lines and was clad to ensure no pollution of the river below.
The three sections of each hogback truss were erected onto steel trestles either side of a temporary track later used for test movement to prove the transportation methodology
Rail Engineer | Issue 206 | Jan-Feb 2024
25
26
FEATURE
The less-than walking pace move from the compound and across the timber viaduct was carefully monitored with constant adjustment of supporting jacks to ensure stability at all times
MOVING THE TRUSSES Once the blockade began on 2 September, Ekki timber mats and packings were installed on each cess of the Cambrian line. The rail trailers were positioned between these, and a Mabey bridge truss installed along them. This acted as support to the trusses during the delivery, served as bracing between the two during the demolition and slide out operations, and provided access across the bridge during the demolition and reconstruction works. A 400-tonne crane then lifted each 63-tonne hogback truss onto the timbers and, after fine adjustments, attached to the Mabey truss for stability. The second truss was then placed and the overhead bracings between the runway beams installed, forming a rigid structure ready for transportation. Once assembled, the 200-tonnes of the spans and temporary works were jacked off the packings from their train of six rail trailers and set at 722mm above rail level to clear the viaduct handrailing. The train was propelled by a Unimog road/rail tractor, which had accessed the track at Fairbourne. The compound test had proved that the transport methodology was sound, but it was recognised that stopping the spans in a millimetre perfect position would not be possible using the Unimog alone. A tow bar was therefore constructed that included a Macalloy hollow ram jack that could be used to pull/push the train for the last 100mm. The steelwork was supported on the trailers by 20 jacks that were monitored throughout the less-than walking pace move across the timber viaduct. In practice, the West side remained static and adjustments were made to the East side to reflect any minor cross level variations of the track. The cross level was monitored by a fixed spirit level viewed by Mabey’s jack operator using a GoPro camera. A maximum safe wind speed of 12m/s (26mph) had been set, but the weather was calm during the two moves. The two new structures now stood within the old bridge in their correct locations above Piers 2, 3, 4, and 5 (piers numbered from northern abutment). The supporting trailers were locked in position and the
Rail Engineer | Issue 206 | Jan-Feb 2024
Unimog returned to the compound. At this stage the site was very complex, the Mabey truss on the trailers was surrounded by the new bridge trusses which were in turn surrounded by the old structure.
The northern span passing though the fixed span of Br 41 beneath the temporarily raised overhead bracings. The white painted temporary end connections between trusses can be seen atop the new hogback truss
INSTALLATION AND DEMOLITION Prior to their removal from the trailers, for stability, the new and old bridges were connected together using timber blocks and ratchet straps. The new steelwork was then supported on temporary steel stools on the pier support beams, the trailers withdrawn, and the trusses lowered from their travelling height of 722mm above rail to 325mm, and re-strapped to the old bridge. Once both spans were lowered, the temporary end connections were made above Pier 4, forming a continuous rigid structure. Most of the lifting and handling of the demolition works and installation of new crossbeams and deck works was carried out using travelling gantries that gripped beneath and above the top flange of the runway beams above the new trusses with 4 x 10-tonne hoists. These were named Henry and Benjamin, for Henry Conybeare and Benjamin Piercy who jointly designed the original bridge. The installation of these was carried out from the north end by a SK200 Monster road/rail crane standing on Span 42.
FEATURE
27
During the demolition of the existing structure, its weight was suspended from the new steelwork. The underslung cross girders beneath the runway beams (seen grey on images) had hinged extension pieces that were swung out into position above the top boom of the existing trusses. From these, Macalloy suspension bars were attached to the old metalwork to support this while the vertical cuts were carried out by the Pennys Group demolition team.
Each section was taken to the nearby Graveyard Beach for breaking up using hydraulic shears
The travelling hoist lowered sections of the old bridge onto the carefully positioned pontoons below
Then, using the gantries, the sections of around 23 tonnes each were attached with straps and hooks. These were quick to release and had no chains to rub or snag. Once the hoists had taken the load, the suspension bars were released, and the bridge sections lowered onto one of the pontoons, which were then taken by a workboat to Graveyard Beach. Pontoon movements were restricted to slack water and so the demolition programme reflected the varying tide times. At the beach the metalwork was cut up using hydraulic shears, avoiding the potential environmental contamination of flame cutting. The demolition of the two approach spans of Br 42 was more straightforward and were dismantled sequentially from Pier 2 back to the abutment using the SK200 crane. Following the removal of the ring beam, an H frame was installed, bearing on the four cylinders of Pier 3 forming the crossbeam support to the centre of the new ‘swing’ span trusses. Once this had been installed then the new trusses were jacked down to 125mm above final level. In order to replace the crossbeams on Pier 2, the whole new truss structure was lifted by jacks at Pier 3 to provide airspace at Pier 2, with the whole of the temporarily joined trusses now cantilevering out beyond Pier 3.
The final section of the old bridge to be removed was the ring beam. The clearance between the pier top and underside of the new steelwork was only 40mm and the team were relieved when this tricky move was completed
Capabilities KGJ Price Rail Limited is a Permanent Way and Lineside Civils Contractor who continuously deliver for and alongside the larger Tier 1 Principal Contractors. We are recognised as a business that goes that extra mile for our clients to make things happen whilst still maintaining a robust safety culture.
Our Expertise Our expert team provides a wide range of Professional On and Off-Track Management Services which extend across a multitude of disciplines aligned to current Network Rail Standards.
Contact us
Call: 0333 772 2421 | Email: RailEnquiries@kgjpricerail.co.uk
KGJ Price Half page v2.indd 2
KGJPRICERAIL.CO.UK 06/02/2024 11:32 Rail Engineer | Issue 206 | Jan-Feb 2024
28
FEATURE The temporarily joined trusses cantilevering beyond Pier 3 to permit the removal and replacement of the crossbeams on Pier 2. The runway beams extended beyond the trusses to allow the gantry to be used for this operation
The new plate decking was fabricated in four-metre-long sections each with slave running rails installed on each. These were hoisted into place from delivery pontoons and secured to the truss lower booms and to adjacent sections
To fall within the crane’s capacity at maximum radius, six bracings to Br42’s Span 1 trusses were omitted to reduce weight and replaced with two light sections
The new running rails in direct fastened baseplates
With all new crossbeams now in place on each pier, the trusses were jacked down onto slide paths on each beam. Now at last the trusses could be jacked outwards by 963mm into their final positions and secured. The travelling hoist structures and overhead bracings both included telescopic members that allowed them to adjust to the increased width between trusses. The complex works to get the new trusses into place were now complete. Works to the main spans had the use of the travelling gantries for most operations, however for the works to the approach spans, particularly for Span 1 of Br 42, cranage was severely limited. The limited standage at the abutment meant that the SK200 crane, the largest that could be used, would not be adequate for all lifts. Temporary gallows brackets were installed to each side of Pier 1. The existing crossbeam was then horizontally jacked across onto these. This small but significant reduction in lift radius brought it within the capacity of the crane. Once removed, the reverse operation was used to land and place the new cross beam. The weight of the new Warren trusses for Br 42 Span 1 were in excess of the crane’s capacity and so, at this stage, six bracings were omitted and replaced with two light sections. Once placed, the bracings were installed followed by crossbeams and decking. Span 2 being much closer to the crane, was installed with trusses complete. Slave rails were then installed on both spans for future crane and trolley access. The permanent 56kg/metre FB running rails and BH guardrails were delivered by rail, running along the temporary track. KGJ Price Rail, using the SK200 Monster crane, removed the slave rails and placed new 60 foot lengths into combined baseplates directly fastened to the deck plates. With the structure substantially complete, the internal temporary Mabey bridge truss was dismantled from the north end, using trailers and RRV working from the slave rails. Finally, after the PW works, the temporary runway beams, hoists, and bracings were dismantled and the permanent overhead bracings installed by the RRV running on the permanent rails. With localised painting works, the new structure was then complete.
RETURN TO RAIL TRAFFIC Before the bridge was returned to traffic on 2 December, Network Rail and Colas Rail replaced around 300 metres of track from the viaduct towards Barmouth. A formal opening on 8 December was attended by Network Rail, Wales Office minister Fay Jones, and representatives of the community, rail industry, and local council. A plaque marking this project milestone was unveiled. Future rail travellers, pedestrians, and cyclists will see and appreciate the smart new structure that has replaced the rather tired original. What they will not see is the huge amount of thought, ingenuity, and planning that went into delivering this project. It is one that our industry can be rightly proud of and a credit to the many contractors and individuals involved in its success. All photos ©Mulhollandmedia unless stated otherwise.
Rail Engineer | Issue 206 | Jan-Feb 2024
BRIDGE SPECIALISTS & CONSULTING ENGINEERS
Solutions We pride ourselves on the quality and innovative solutions we provide for: Railway underline & overline bridges Highway bridges Pedestrian bridges Cycleway bridges Moveable bridges RO/RO link spans
Specialist
We have extensive experience and specialist expertise in: Rail bridges for High Speed lines Dynamic response analysis Temporary works design for bridges Bridge construction engineering Bridge erection methodology
CONTACT US? Website : www.casshayward.com Twitter : @casshaywardLLP LinkedIn : Cass Hayward LLP
Phone: 01291 626 994
ROLLING STOCK & DEPOTS
PHOTO: DAVID SHIRRES
30
rolling stock procurement Class 8xx units being produced at Hitachi’s Newton Aycliffe plant
MALCOLM DOBELL
PHOTO: RIA
DAVID SHIRRES
©Credit
I
n July, the Railway Industry Association (RIA) published its report ‘The UK Rolling Stock Industry – making 2023 the year of opportunity not crisis’. This showed how ‘boom and bust’ train procurement resulted in factory closures and downsized the UK’s train upgrade capability. Furthermore, as in any industry, such large variations in demand leads to inefficiency, and higher cost. In 2011, the UK had one new-build factory. Following a glut of 7,300 vehicles ordered between 2012 and 2017, there are now four. These factories, and thousands of jobs, are now at risk as the only train orders placed since 2019 are those for HS2 and 10 x 10-car tri-mode trains for LNER. The latter ended the four-year hiatus in rolling stock orders (excluding HS2). By 2030, around 2,600 vehicles will be over 35 years old. New trains are needed, not only to reduce costs, but to improve passenger services and meet decarbonisation commitments. From, say, 2027-2028 onwards, the UK market for rolling stock is predicted to be the second largest in Europe. The question is whether UK rolling stock plants can survive their current shortfall of work until then. On 6 December, the Parliamentary Transport Select Committee (PTSC) 2023 heard evidence about rolling stock procurement. The witnesses included David Clarke, technical director of the Railway Industry Association (RIA), Nick Crossfield, Alstom’s managing director UK and Ireland and Malcolm Brown, chief executive officer of Angel Trains.
Rail Engineer | Issue 206 | Jan-Feb 2024
The PTSC heard of the costs and inefficiencies associated with ‘boom and bust’ procurement which during the recent glut peaked at nearly 2,000 vehicles per year. David Clarke advised that if it was possible to even out demand, around 600 vehicles per year would be required. Malcolm Brown and others also considered the need to consider the railway as a system, likely future train orders, and how the current hiatus in orders threatens rolling stock plants. Alstom’s Nick Crossfield gave evidence highlighting a very worrying situation. Alstom’s plant at Derby is to run out of work at the end of January 2024. Hitachi has also reported that it has written down £60 million of value on its Newton Aycliffe plant because of lack of orders. What’s going on? Rail Engineer surveys what’s currently in production, what capacity exists, the likely prospects, and why this situation has arisen.
BACKGROUND Cheap finance and the introduction of quality measures into train operating franchise competitions about 11-12 ago years incentivised franchises to buy new trains. Together with the Inter-city express and Thameslink programmes, some 8,000 new vehicles had been ordered in a five-to-sevenyear period by 2019. This was described in the 2004 to 2023 rolling stock retrospective in issue 200 (Jan/Feb 2023). The updated table from that article is included here to reflect continued delays to some of the more recent orders.
PHOTO: DAVID SHIRRES
Unplanned
ROLLING STOCK & DEPOTS New UK trains ordered 2012 to 2023 - Source: RDG press release of 7.11.16 with updated information. Excluding HS2 Order
Vehicles
Train Operator
Class
Distance
Manufacturer
First
ORDERS AND DELIVERY
service
Since Rail Engineer last reported on rolling stock procurement, Covid and other issues have Nov-12 170 377 EMU Middle Bombardier 2013 delayed train introduction. Hence between 1,500 Jun-13 116 387/1 EMU Middle Bombardier 2015 and 2,000 vehicles await completion and/or entry Jun-13 1140 700 EMU Middle Siemens 2016 into service on West Midlands Railway, London Jul-13 167 800 Bi-mode Long Hitachi 2018 NorthWestern Railway, East Midlands Railway, Avanti West Coast, Transport for Wales, MerseyTravel, and Jul-13 330 801 EMU Long Hitachi 2018 Feb-14 630 345 EMU Short Bombardier 2017 SouthWestern Railway. Sep-14 150 707 EMU Short Siemens 2017 For Metros, the first of Glasgow subway’s new trains, delivered in 2019, finally entered service in Nov-14 108 387/2 EMU Middle Bombardier 2016 December 2023. London Underground’s Piccadilly Feb-15 75 Mk 5 coach Long CAF 2019 line and Newcastle’s new trains are due to enter Mar-15 32 387/3 EMU Middle Bombardier 2016 service in 2025 and 2024 respectively. Mar-15 234 385 EMU Middle Hitachi 2017 Capacity and work in progress (in order of date of Jul-15 222 710 EMU Short Bombardier 2018 establishment of the factory) is described below. Alstom. Although some may disagree, the Alstom Jul-15 299 802 EMU Long Hitachi 2018 plant probably manufactures the highest value of its Dec-15 150 717 EMU Short Siemens 2018 product in the UK than any of the other suppliers. Jan-16 149 195 DMU Middle CAF 2018 However, at the PTSC meeting Nick Crossfield said Jan-16 141 331 EMU Middle CAF 2018 that it was just weeks away from this ending, with Mar-16 95 802 Bi-mode Long Hitachi 2019 the last of the current orders for Aventra EMUs May-16 60 397 EMU Long CAF 2019 due to roll out of the factory in early 2024. The only May-16 66 Mk 5 coach Middle CAF 2018 work on the order book is the work arising from the Jun-16 148 387/1 EMU Middle Bombardier 2017 joint Hitachi/Alstom contract for the HS2 fleet, but Jun-16 24 387/3 EMU Middle Bombardier 2016 this work is not due for another couple of years. As Aug-16 665 720 EMU Middle Bombardier 2019 described below there was a risk that manufacture at Aug-16 240 Greater Anglia 745 EMU Middle Stadler 2018 Derby may be reduced to an assembly operation for Aug-16 138 Greater Anglia 755 Bi-mode Middle Stadler 2018 Nov-16 25 Hull Trains 802 Bi-mode Long Hitachi 2019 parts made elsewhere. Dec-16 212 Merseyrail 777 EMU Short Stadler 2023 Hitachi. The Newton Aycliffe plant was established South Western Jun-17 750 701 EMU Middle Alstom (2) 2024 Railway to assemble Hitachi’s AT300 EMUs and bi-mode West Midlands Dec-17 144 730 EMU Short Alstom (2) 2023 Railway units for inter-city operation (Class 8XX) and AT200 London Dec-17 225 730 EMU Long Alstom (2) 2024 outer suburban EMUs (Class 385). Later facilities Northwestern Rlwy West Midlands were installed to manufacture car bodies using Dec-17 80 196 DMU Middle CAF 2022 Railway Dec-17 60 c2c 720/6 EMU Middle Alstom (2) 2023 friction stir welding techniques which are in use Oct-18 180 TfW 197 DMU Middle CAF 2022 for current production of Classes 805 and 807 for Oct-18 15 TfW 230 DMU Short Vivarail 2023 London Avanti West Coast, and Class 810 for East Midlands Dec-18 6 230 DMU Short Vivarail 2019 Northwestern Rlwy Railway. Once these orders are complete by Mar-19 25 Lumo 803 electric Long Hitachi 2021 Mar-19 44 TfW 231 DEMU Middle Stadler 2024 approximately the end of 2024, there is the order for Mar-19 108 TfW 398 Tram Train Short Stadler 2024 the HS2 rolling stock. However, recent changes to Mar-19 89 TfW 756 TMMU Middle Stadler 2024 East Midland HS2 make changes to that order likely, meaning that Jul-19 165 810 Bi-mode Long Hitachi 2024 Railway there will probably be a delay. SWR trains island Sep-19 10 484 EMU Short Vivarail 2021 line CAF Newport. The Class 197 continues to be Dec-19 70 Avanti 807 electric Long Hitachi 2024 assembled although introduction into service of Dec-19 65 Avanti 805 bi-mode Long Hitachi 2024 Nov-23 100 LNER 8XX tri-mode Long CAF TBA these and West Midlands’ Class 196 is much slower 1. Speculative ROSCO order 80 vehicles: 24 went to c2c and 56 added to a GWR order Total 8291 than originally expected. It is understood that the 2. Order was placed with Bombardier who were aquired by Alstom in 2021 LNER tri-mode trains will be based on TransPennine As the Covid pandemic made train franchises financially Express’ Class 397, and these will be assembled at Newport. unsustainable, the Department for Transport (DfT) now directly Siemens. The Goole plant has been set up to assemble tube manages franchise companies and has taken over the responsibility trains for London Underground. As reported in issue 205 (Nov/ for rolling stock procurement. Dec 2023), Siemens expects to assemble at least half the 94 Building on David Clarke’s remarks above, the UK fleet – main line x 9-car Piccadilly line trains at Goole (an announcement in and metro – amounts to about 21,000 vehicles, with a nominal life December 2023 paves the way for even more to be built there) of 36 to 40 years. This represents a build rate of about 600 vehicles and there is an option for another 36 trains for the Bakerloo line. per year in the unlikely event that steady state could be achieved. Siemens also has a component overhaul facility on site with plans The 2010’s bulge, which peaked at nearly 2,000 vehicles a year, was for further expansion. a distortion, added to by a number of modern fleets being sidelined Though these prospective orders are good news in the medium (30 x 4- car Class 379) or slated for sidelining (37 x 4-car Class 350/2) term, they will not save threatened factories as it takes around to which can now be added the 14, class 68 locomotive/Mark three years for an invitation to tender to become work on the 5-carriage fleet. The cost of the resultant wasteful surplus of trains is shop floor. This is a year for procurement and around 18 months likely to be hundreds of millions of pounds and is another downside to mobilise production. It is also possible that orders might go to of boom and bust train procurement. suppliers outside the UK. Jul-12
369
Great Western Railway Southern Southern Govia Thameslink Railway Virgin Trains East Coast Virgin Trains East Coast Crossrail South West Trains Govia Thameslink Railway Caledonian Sleeper Great Western Railway ScotRail London Overground Great Western Railway Govia Thameslink Railway Northern Rail Northern Rail First Trans Pennine Express First Trans Pennine Express First Trans Pennine Express Great Western Railway (1) c2c (1) Greater Anglia
800 Bi-mode
Long
Hitachi
2017
Rail Engineer | Issue 206 | Jan-Feb 2024
31
32
ROLLING STOCK & DEPOTS
PHOTO: TRANSPORT FOR WALES
WHAT FUTURE FOR DERBY?
CAF built Class 197 for Transport for Wales
PHOTO: SIEMENS MOBILITY
New Piccadilly line trains at Siemens Wildenrath test track
PROSPECTIVE ORDERS Prospects for orders totalling between 2,500 and 3,000 vehicles based on announcements from TOCs or government agencies are as follows: Transport for London (TfL). The closest prospect is an additional five Class 345 9-car Elizabeth line trains to serve HS2’s terminus (temporary or permanent) at Old Oak Common. For commonality, this would be placed with Alstom, and discussions with the DfT continue. TfL also has costed options for additional Siemens trains for the Bakerloo, Central, and Waterloo & City lines. As TfL is currently re-engineering the existing Central line trains, Rail Engineer expects only the Bakerloo option to be taken up and only then if there is funding available. The only other possible TfL order is approximately 25 new trams for its South London network. SouthEastern Trains. New trains to replace the Networker units which date from the early 1990s are being considered. A notice seeking between 350 and 570 vehicles (DC EMUs with range extending battery power) was issued in November 2022. SouthEastern Trains updated this in October 2023 to indicate ongoing work leading to an ITT. Great Western Railway. It was reported in November 2023 that options to either replace its diesel multiple unit fleet or give them a 10-year life extension are being considered.
Chiltern Railways. The possible replacement of its existing diesel fleet with new, environmentally friendly trains by 2030 was announced in July 2023. Chiltern Railways has also called for expressions of interest in supplying a number of existing vehicles which may replace the locomotive hauled trains such as displaced TPE class 68/mark 5 sets. First TransPennine Express. In December 2023, the DfT announced an extra £3.9 million for the TransPennine Route Upgrade including 29 new trains to replace the existing fleet. Rail Engineer assumes that these will be bimodes. Northern Trains. In August 2023, it was announced that a framework is being sought to procure “across multiple call offs up to 450 units comprising multiple vehicles”. SouthWestern Railway. In October 2022, it was announced that the replacement of the SWR Class 158/159 fleet with an “innovative self-powered solution” by 2030 is being explored. Scotland’s Railway. A programme to replace all but the most modern trains in the Scottish fleet has been announced, starting with up to 550 suburban EMU or BEMU vehicles. It is understood that this order is delayed due to lack of finance. These prospective orders are summarised in the table to the right.
Rail Engineer | Issue 206 | Jan-Feb 2024
At the December PTSC, Nick Crossfield advised that Alstom’s Derby plant was about to complete its big Aventra Programme that has supplied 2,500 vehicles to the Elizabeth line, Greater Anglia, South West, West Midlands, and c2c. Manufacturing of these trains finishes at the end of January when the Derby plant will go from an annual output of 650 cars, employing 3,000 people, to zero. This work also supports 15,000 in the local supply chain and spends £1.4 billion per annum. Nick advised that the paint contractor has gone into insolvency and that an on-site wiring loom supplier employing several hundred people has declared redundancies. Alstom is in discussion with Government to find work for the Derby plant which could possibly be train refurbishment work. He considered it to be imperative that capability is maintained so that it can manufacture trains in 2027-2028. At the PTSC hearing, Nick’s passion for the plant and the retention of its skilled workforce was clear. He advised them: “Once you lose it, guys, you don’t get it back.” However, he also advised that it was no problem for Alstom to supply UK trains should the Derby plant be substantially closed down. Trains could still be assembled in Derby but would have, for example, wiring looms from north Africa, pre-pressed flat pack body panels from China, and frames from central and eastern Europe. Nick felt that the question for the UK right now is how it wishes to supply that market. He advised that there were two choices.
Train operator
Type
Likely numbers of vehicles
TfL – Elizabeth Line
Class 345 EMU
45
TfL – Bakerloo
Tube train
324
TfL – South London
Tram
25 (trams)
SouthEastern Trains
EMU
350 – 570
Great Western
DMUs
242
Chiltern Railways
DMUs
174
TransPennine Express
Bi-mode
145
Northern Trains
Various
Up to 450 units
SouthWestern Railway
Battery EMU
103
ScotRail
EMU or Battery EMU
550
Likely total around
2,500 – 3,000
ROLLING STOCK & DEPOTS
PHOTO: ALSTOM
Aventra EMU at Alstom’s Derby plant
WHERE’S THE PLAN? Ten years ago, Rail Engineer (issue 115, May 2014) reported how a cross-industry group had produced its first Long Term Passenger Rolling Stock Strategy (LTPRSS). This strategy was then produced each year until the sixth and last one in 2018. The Williams-Shapps plan for rail, published in May 2021 announced that the creation of Great British Railways which would, amongst other things set out a longterm Whole Industry Strategic Plan (WISP). This was to include rolling stock and be published in 2022. The GBR Transition Team (GBRTT) called for evidence to develop this plan. Its report on the submissions from the 307 organisations which responded was published in June 2022. Yet the plan
itself has yet to be published and GBRTT is unable to advise of a publication date. At a PTSC hearing on 15 November, Secretary of State for Transport Mark Harper committed to setting out a road map for rolling stock procurement by the 31 December. At the time of writing this has yet to appear. In contrast, the PTSC was advised that the devolved administrations are clear about what they want to do. David Clarke noted that although in Scotland timescales are not certain due to the same fiscal challenges as elsewhere in the UK, the industry is able to plan for what is required when it comes to the market. In the absence of a Government or industry strategy, the recommendations from the RIA rolling stock report shows what needs to be done. These include the requirement for Government to: 1. Make decisions in 2023 to allow the procurement and private financing of rolling stock upgrade or replacement of about 2,600 vehicles by 2030 . 2. Develop a long-term rolling stock and decarbonisation strategy, which should aim to smooth out ‘boom and bust’ to create the conditions for increased productivity and reduced whole life cost.
around £25 billion. In the absence of a plan, it would seem that there is no strategic long-term view of this high value asset. Nor, it would seem is there any strategic view of rail manufacturing capability which the RIA report shows to be a high productivity industry in which employees generate, on average, gross value added of almost £105,000. This compares to an average of £65,000 in the manufacturing industry. RIA’s report also points out that, unlike infrastructure investment, new trains don’t need a large upfront public investment as the use of private finance to procure rolling stock is common practice. It makes clear that the current lack of orders will increase costs in the long-run as the lack of continuous production reduces productivity and reduces the skilled workforce. In addition, increasingly elderly trains will become significantly more expensive to operate and maintain. Thus, the industry is not requesting for Government funds for rolling stock. It asks to be given the opportunity to reduce operational costs and protect its high-tech manufacturing industries. It is to be hoped that these recommendations will be acted upon soon. 2018 saw the last industry rolling stock strategy
The UK’s mainline rolling stock fleet comprising of 16,000 vehicles, includes 7,187 new vehicles worth £14 billion according to the 2018 LTPRSS. Hence, the mainline fleet could be considered to be worth
Rail Engineer | Issue 206 | Jan-Feb 2024
PHOTO: RAIL DELIVERY GROUP
One was a fully vertically integrated, embedded, manufacturing facility in the UK, with the required engineering and software capability that we need in this country to deliver those trains into service. The alternative is having an international supply chain with a light front-end finishing veneer in the UK. The answer is obviously to maintain UK manufacturing capability. Yet by default, Government chooses the wrong answer as, in the absence of any meaningful rolling stock strategy, this choice was not addressed three-years ago. Giving his evidence, RIA’s David Clarke stressed the need for a steady flow of work to give businesses the confidence to invest in people and plant. He noted that: “rational international businesses cannot hang around waiting for the good times when they are burning through cost today.” David also advised that cancelling HS2 phase 2 was an extreme example of how not to instil confidence in the market, as international investors, who don’t just look at the rail industry, are not going to have a great deal of confidence in future promises.
33
ROLLING STOCK & DEPOTS
Whole Life Cost Optimisation: main line passenger and freight Class 66/7 locos 66793 and 66794 originally used in mainland Europe and imported for use by GB Railfreight, leased from Beacon Rail
MALCOLM DOBELL
PHOTO: GBRF
T
rains last for a long time, and their first cost is usually a small proportion of the whole life cost. This was the topic examined at an Institution of Mechanical Engineers Railway Division seminar in November 2023, where the issues facing freight, passenger, and metro rolling stock were discussed.
John praised the performance of GBRf’s workhorse, the Class 66 locomotive, and overhaul work by Electro-Motive Diesel Ltd (EMD), but he said there’s more to do. It’s no good, for example, if a loco is classed as available having been outshopped from EMD in Doncaster if it’s needed in Fort William. John said that headline availability from the workshop of 92% can be more like 70% when the location of the load is taken into account. Maintenance/overhaul was traditionally carried out on the engine, other components, and bogies while the loco stays in the workshop. Much better, John said, to exchange these items for overhauled parts and send the loco out more quickly. More spares are needed but the cost is small compared with the benefit of improved availability. John also showed new GBRf maintenance facilities being established to further improve loco availability and modernise wagon maintenance which has not changed much in the last 50 years. All this requires a keen eye on both costs and revenue. John added that he recognises that assets are vital but are merely tools needed to deliver a great service to freight customers.
At first sight it might appear that these sectors have quite different issues, but it soon became clear that the only real difference is in ways and means and freedom of action. This article describes the situation on the main line and a companion article discusses some of the issues facing TfL.
FREIGHT John Smith, founder and chief executive of GB Railfreight (GBRf), gave the keynote address, outlining the growth of GBRf from a startup in 1999 with just six locomotives, supported by Railtrack which wanted competition for engineering trains, still the largest single market for UK freight trains. Since then, GBRf has grown and has around one third of the UK rail freight market, operates many special passenger trains, and operates new trains during transit, testing, and commissioning. This success comes from leadership that values behaviours including good communications, professionalism, and enjoyment, and profits which provide investor confidence. GBRf is a freight operating company and not a rolling stock owner/maintainer. Its assets are leased and maintenance is contracted, but GBRf works very closely with suppliers to ensure reliability, availability and affordability.
Rail Engineer | Issue 206 | Jan-Feb 2024
PHOTO: GBRF
34
35
Stadler EuroDual to European Gauge
The basis for Class 99 (artist’s impression)
GBRf Class 99 Features Ambition
The future towards and after Net-Zero
Manufacturer
Stadler
Owner
Beacon Rail
Operator
GBRf
Power: Electricity
Power 6.15 MW, 25 kV
Power: Diesel
1.8 MW Cummins QSK50 stage V Engine (HVO capable)
Tractive effort
500 kN peak from 0 km/h, 430 kN continuous from 15 km/h
Top Speed
75mph conventional freight, 100mph, high speed freight, passenger
Flexibility
The power to jump the gaps in OHL supply
Construction
Modular construction for future technical advances
Versions
Freight and Passenger Versions 100mph Electric Train Supply
Driver environment
Major step forward in driver comfort and safety, latest ergonomic standards and seating; even a microwave oven.
Visibility
Forward, side, and buffer beam CCTV and suitable lighting
GBRf Maintenance hub, Peterborough
Rail Engineer | Issue 206 | Jan-Feb 2024
PHOTO: GBRF
Bob Tiller, GBRf’s asset strategy director, explained how detailed examination of locomotives’ performance in service has led to many changes in the maintenance schedule. Class 66 locos used to be maintained to the manufacturer’s instructions but, following the review, much less maintenance is now carried out and reliability has improved with availability, improved by component exchange described above. Some activities have had to be carried out more frequently to take account of changed operational context. For example, Class 73 locomotive wheelsets used to last around six years between change when operating on Southern but, when operating in Scotland on lines with more curves, wheelset change has to be carried out every three years. Another important requirement is not to schedule maintenance during peak demand periods. Bob described how expensive failures in service can be. GBRf lets full-service maintenance contracts, and it has chosen to incentivise reliable performance by including a provision for a payment from the maintainer to GBRf if a train is delayed by a locomotive or wagon fault. Whilst it costs a little more up-front, it is a huge carrot to the supplier.
He turned to future freight motive power, recognising that the Class 66 is a good modular locomotive, but its engine cannot be developed further to conform to the latest emissions regulations. As GBRf is a private company it can choose the locomotives it wants. Bob saw the Stadler Eurodual machine at Innotrans in 2018 and, after much discussion/negotiation, a UK gauge concept was developed. This is the Class 99. Costing around £4.7 million each, it is a Co-Co electric loco with a diesel engine nearly as powerful as that on a Class 66. A contract was placed for 30 locos with an option for another 20. Whilst the locomotives are expensive, where electric power can be used carbon credits can be obtained both by GBRf and its customers. Bob added that the loco is modular and as more electrification comes on stream, the diesel sub-system could be replaced by batteries. It is due into service in early 2025. Bob’s opinion is that hydrogen is not the way forward with challenges concerning the quantity required, refuelling, storage and manufacture, and, while useful, biofuels are relatively high-cost with uncertain supplies. He added that 25kV is the answer with a bi-mode addition – engine or battery.
PHOTO: GBRF
SUSTAINABLE FREIGHT LOCOS
PHOTO: GBRF
ROLLING STOCK & DEPOTS
36
ROLLING STOCK & DEPOTS
COLLABORATION
CRRC battery electric loco with two battery wagons PHOTO: GBRF
He did suggest that there might be more of a role for battery power for freight than merely last mile operation to/from freight yards. He has seen a CRRC manufactured loco in Thailand which, with two battery trailer wagons, has a range of circa 500km. Bob thought that a UK version without the trailers might have a range in the order of 200km. Summing up, GBRf spends approximately £32 million on diesel fuel and sees the future in the Class 99 and for battery freight locomotives, but Bob did not rule out a Class 66 converted to have a modern electric converter and bi-mode traction package.
Dr Linda Wain, engineering director at LNER, spoke about how she felt we need to adopt a holistic approach to whole life costing rather than in silos of rolling stock, infrastructure, etc. Linda presented some TOC challenges to having a 30-year train availability and reliability contract involving four parties, but stated this was why LNER was delighted to have established a pioneering Relationship Charter with Agility Trains and Hitachi Rail which outlines common values and high standards for collaboration and interaction.
MAIN LINE PASSENGER When privatisation was originally planned in the early 1990s, it was quickly realised that the plan to have comparatively short franchises might present problems if the passenger operators - Train Operating Companies (TOCs) - owned the rolling stock. The architects turned to the notion of dedicated companies to own the trains which would lease them to the TOCs. Three initial leasing companies were set up – Angel Trains, Eversholt Rail, and Porterbrook, and more Rolling Stock Companies (ROSCOs) have entered the market since then. It eventually became clear that new rolling stock was only likely to be ordered as part of a refranchise. A train operator, two ROSCOs, and a representative of the Great British Railways Transition Team contributed. PHOTO: MALCOLM DOBELL PHOTO: LNER
Hitachi manufactured and maintained Azuma, owned by Agility Trains and operated by LNER Collaborative behaviours agreed between LNER, Agility Trains, and Hitachi
Rail Engineer | Issue 206 | Jan-Feb 2024
ROLLING STOCK & DEPOTS
Working together as partners is a key part of delivering the best service. Essentially, the Charter is a commitment to working together to reach shared competitive goals and to achieve operational benefits through a spirit of mutual trust and openness.
MORE COLLABORATION Paul Sutherland, client services director at Eversholt Rail presented an owner’s view. Eversholt Rail owns nearly 2,800 passenger vehicles and 83 freight locos which are leased to nine TOCs and three Freight Operators. Unusually it also acts as asset manager to the Class 700 Thameslink fleet on behalf of its owner Cross London Trains. In context of support and whole life cost, Paul segregated his fleet into legacy and new. Broadly, legacy covers trains made with steel bodyshells, on train management system (TCMS), separate light and heavy maintenance regimes, some standalone software systems, some discrete remote condition monitoring (RCM) capability, and in house/in industry knowledge. In contrast new fleets tend to have aluminium bodies, TCMS with integrated software systems and embedded RCM, merged light and heavy maintenance regimes, and rely on the original supplier(s) for support. What does this mean in practice? For the legacy fleets, which were those in place when the ROSCO/ TOC arrangement was set up, this means simple contractual responsibilities such as ROSCO being responsible for heavy maintenance and TOC being responsible for light maintenance. More modern trains need more sophisticated arrangements which involve TOC, ROSCO, and OEM, with the latter sometimes responsible for maintenance. Paul suggested that the prizes the industry is chasing haven’t changed. People want to do the right maintenance at the right time to deliver safety, availability, and reliability at minimum cost, but technology, regimes, and contractual relationships have all changed and there’s a much greater reliance of knowledge held “elsewhere” as Paul put it. While the different parties (ROSCO/TOC/OEM) may want to optimise maintenance, each party bears different risks and different time horizons of interest. For example, a TOC might only have three years left on a lease whereas a ROSCO wants to preserve value for another 30 years asset life. That said, all parties have an incentive to reduce cost, but availability and reliability also need to be delivered, and no one likes surprises. Like Linda Wain, Paul emphasised the importance of collaborative working including having a shared vision between TOC, ROSCO, and OEM on where you want to take the fleet, and openness about risks and benefits to each party. Paul emphasised the importance of making benefit share and risk allocation crystal clear in contracts, as this can often be a blocker to progress. Another important factor is to grow asset knowledge together.
Regarding TCMS and RCM, these and other modern technologies have helped to extend maintenance intervals, but Paul expressed concern about how these technologies will be supported when the spectre of obsolescence rears its ugly head – another important risk that must be allocated and managed. Paul’s takeaways included staying close to the asset and finding out where the knowledge is, especially in the supply chain, to understand sub-systems and to help maintenance optimisation. He identified the risk that components not routinely examined might suddenly fail. He added that it is important to understand the incentives of all the parties, collaborate and have a joined-up vision. Whilst the contractual environments are different, these should not be a hurdle to continuing to strive to optimise maintenance.
CONTINUED SERVICE OPERATION David Buckley, head of fleet at Angel Trains introduced the concept of Continued Service operation (CSO). Because of new build delays, infrastructure delays, or increased demand, trains might be required to stay in service beyond their projected life. Angel Trains developed a structured 11-step process, which has been applied to all of Angel Train’s fleets more than 30 years old, most of which have steel bodyshells. David said that the process had shown that the biggest risk is the integrity of the vehicle body, largely due to corrosion, which impacts on compliance, crashworthiness, reliability, availability, cost, and reputation. David outlined a case study on Class 317 trains which were required to carry on for longer than expected. Assessments included a structural finite element analysis, and a corrosion management regime. Inspection showed some wiring degradation, obsolescence was an issue for some components, and the extra time in service meant that some modifications were carried out to comply with the Persons with Disabilities and with Reduced Mobility Technical Specification for Interoperability. As David and his colleagues learn from past CSO assessments, the technique is gradually being used earlier in the life of fleets to assess, among other things, the scope of imminent refurbishment or other heavy maintenance interventions.
Outline eleven step CSO process PHOTO: ANGEL TRAINS
Rail Engineer | Issue 206 | Jan-Feb 2024
37
ROLLING STOCK & DEPOTS
PHOTO: GBRTT
38
Source of cost for whole life cost framework
Rich Fisher, head of strategic planning at the Great British Railways Transition Team (GBRTT), examined whole life cost issues in the context of a long-term strategy. Echoing this article’s opening remark, Rich said his work aligns closely with what TfL is doing for its fleets, although the different structure on the mainline railway with the assets in private ownership means an enabling rather than directing approach is needed. With upfront costs representing only a small proportion of a fleet’s overall cost, it is important that the trade-off between short-term gain and longterm performance is properly made. Rich said that there had been recent examples where decisions on fleet procurements had not been made on this basis. Rich emphasised whole-system thinking. Rolling stock decisions can lead to costs elsewhere, such as infrastructure maintenance, energy, performance, depot capability, and power supply. For example, as has been reported in these pages, providing a long block train can have a profound and expensive impact on depots. As well as cost, value should be considered such as passenger environment vs revenue, train design vs performance, and whole life carbon (build, operation, and disposal/recovery). Uncertainties make it even more challenging, including future cascade or conversion, redeployment, refurbishment, market behaviours and the cost of capital tipping decisions for, or against, new trains. A good business case to invest should outline trade-offs between different options, impact on infrastructure/whole system, and a realistic assessment of the do-nothing option by, for example, not incurring every single piece of heavy maintenance for a one-year life extension. Rich’s team is aiming to develop an approach and set of tools to support better understanding and analysis of whole life costs. The objective is consistency, good practice and better decision making as proposals are developed by the market. It will be developed with the industry, not imposed, but it will allow individual
Rail Engineer | Issue 206 | Jan-Feb 2024
procurements to be considered in a consistent framework. There are numerous challenges to this modelling approach, notably: how to value flexibility to redeploy following as yet uncommitted route electrification, market behaviour which means unclear as to future use, comparison of the full range of options (life extension or cascade - 10 years vs new - 35 years), and the cost of finance which could tip the balance between new or refurbished trains. Moreover, risk identification and management should be an active whole life process, not just for procurement. Rich added that the different contracting arrangements (e.g., maintenance) mean that obtaining data for benchmarking is challenging. GBRTT is working with the Department for Transport, RSSB, and the wider industry to deliver a whole life cost guidance note for use by operators.
CONCLUSION There was evidence woven into the presentations that many train procurements have been focussed on short-term rather than long-term outcomes. Rail Engineer wonders whether the constraints of public procurement rules, together with the pressure on procurement teams during franchise bids lead to sub optimal solutions. Certainly, many in the audience envied GBRf’s and Bob Tiller’s ability to choose the supplier they wanted and to negotiate a price they could afford. The passenger railway has seen almost as many strategies and plans as there are TOCs, ROSCOs and train builders. The presentations identified ways of working cooperatively and GBRTT’s work will hopefully deliver a toolkit that will help.
Photos and captions by the speakers and the writer unless otherwise shown.
This isn’t just a rail dropper. It’s a game changer. The Gripple SwiftLine Rail Dropper is transforming rail electrification. Trusted by Network Rail, it gives you the power to install faster, work safer and get more OLE maintenance or electrification done in each possession window.
You’ve got to see it to believe it
gripple.com/swiftline/ Gripple E: sales@gripple.com T: +44 (0) 114 275 2255
Available from Unipart Rail (Official UK Distributors) E: enquiries@unipartrail.com T: +44 (0)1270 847600
40
ROLLING STOCK & DEPOTS
TfL’s work on rolling stock cost optimisation PHOTO: MALCOLM DOBELL
MALCOLM DOBELL
T
he previous article examined whole life costing of rolling stock on the main line railway as discussed at a late-2023 IMechE Railway Division Seminar. Present at the same event were several speakers from Transport for London (TfL) who presented their asset planning processes and case studies on planning rolling stock overhaul and replacement. Theirs is a challenging environment, where the demands of trying to keep the assets in a good state of repair exceeds the finance available.
PLANNING TfL has huge asset requirements over many modes of transport. London Overground and the Elizabeth line lease their rolling stock but, with an exception on one line, London Underground (LU) owns its fleet. It relies on funding and/or permission from the government to buy train fleets. For many years, the significant benefits arising from capacity upgrades justified fleet (and signalling, power, etc.) renewal/upgrades. Where assets were near the end of their lives, the benefits of more capacity dwarfed the benefits of any other options such as life extension. More recently, money for capital projects has been in short supply whilst assets continue to degrade, so TfL had to return to justifying fleet major overhauls and renewals on their own merits. Howard Taylor, TfL’s principal asset strategy manager, introduced the concept of the Asset Guiding Mind (AGM). The AGM comprises key business functions: » Asset Strategy: setting the long-term strategies, objectives, and investment plans for each asset group. » Asset Operations and Maintenance: delivering day-to-day safe operations. » Engineering: setting technical standards and policies, providing assurance, approval, and professional advice.
Rail Engineer | Issue 206 | Jan-Feb 2024
Each asset area has a guiding mind group, whose output is integrated into overall advice to top management. Helen Cooper, asset strategy manager for interconnected assets, described how this works in practice. The groups develop outcome-based, whole-life asset strategies including costed and scoped long-term asset plans, models and risks, and technical strategies (from Engineering). These become the focal point for prioritising short to medium-term maintenance and investment proposals. The whole life approach is developed taking account of life, condition, duty, obsolescence, legislation, and changes in customer expectations. The AGM group acts as the voice for the asset group, becoming the focal point for consulting on asset issues, and is seen as the ‘one stop shop’ for understanding asset risk and direction. In an ideal world, these groups’ recommendations would lead to interventions when needed, but, Howard reported, “we don’t live in an optimal whole life world.” Currently TfL’s capital funding is considerably less than necessary for steady state renewals/investment levels, with future funding still uncertain. This has led to constant pressure to reduce operating costs, creating consequences and risks in supporting current and future levels of service.
ROLLING STOCK & DEPOTS
41 PHOTO: TFL
Complete list of TfL’s Asset Guiding Mind groups
In this environment, TfL has to use available information to tackle the most urgent renewals/ significant risks. The guiding mind team also develop asset plans for a range of financially constrained scenarios while evaluating asset risks and consequences that need managing and escalating. Helen’s own area – rolling stock – comprises approximately 4,000 cars in 600 trains ranging in age from 11 to 50 years, the oldest of which are likely to be at least 20 years beyond their originally planned 36-year life by the earliest date that replacements could be in service.
REPAIR OR REPLACE? Andrew Meeson and Lorena Naylor, both lead sponsors in TfL’s Investment Delivery Planning team, outlined the cases for investment in Bakerloo line trains and a small fleet of battery locomotives, respectively. As already described the Bakerloo line trains are around 50 years old but the battery locomotives are even older. The Bakerloo line is the last of LU’s main lines to receive an upgrade to its capacity. It was included in the Deep Tube Upgrade Programme which let a contract with Siemens for a new Piccadilly line fleet with time limited options for the Bakerloo, Central and Waterloo, and City line. Since the Covid pandemic, it has not been possible to exercise any of the options due to the capital finance constraint already mentioned. However, the 1972 tube stock is the oldest fleet in regular passenger service in the UK and cannot be expected to remain in service without significant expenditure.
2016 photos of Bakerloo line 1972 tube stock train at Waterloo and undergoing structural repairs at Acton Works (L) PHOTOS: MALCOLM DOBELL
Rail Engineer | Issue 206 | Jan-Feb 2024
42
ROLLING STOCK & DEPOTS The three Bakerloo line fleet options expressed graphically. Effectively the area of the solid colour represents overall cost. New trains bring safety, level of service, and capacity improvements. Managed decline risks the service stopping altogether PHOTO: TFL
TfL has developed three scenarios: ‘Do Nothing’, ‘Do Minimum’ (and defer replacement), and ‘Replace Straight Away’. Already the service has been reduced from 22 trains per hour to 20 and TfL forecasts this decline will continue until the service has to be stopped within about 10-15 years if there is no further work to manage the trains’ condition (Do Nothing). The Do Minimum option proposes £200 million for life extension works, £350 million to deal with obsolescence issues, and higher than new train maintenance costs at £750 million. The obsolescence estimate is uncertain and independent studies suggest this cost could be more than double TfL’s £350 million estimate. Moreover, this option only delays the expenditure on new trains. The Replace Straight Away course of action involves exercising the contract option for new trains; probably the firmest estimate as it is based on the contract price. Andrew said that by not replacing the fleet there is a risk that the cost of a new fleet is incurred anyway through continuing to keep the 1972 tube stock in service, without resolving the underlying risks nor realising the benefits of a new fleet. If the time limited contract option can’t be exercised, a new procurement process would be required setting back the replacement of the fleet until the mid-2030s at the earliest. Whole life cost is better with replacement under the existing contract option and provides better value for money than decline or deferred replacement.
OUT OF SIGHT Lorena described a somewhat harder challenge. TfL’s fleet of 29 tube gauge battery locomotives was built between 1964 and 1973 to a much earlier design. All used 1930s traction motors with the oldest using second hand bogies, some of which should have celebrated their 100th birthday. The locomotive maintainers have sometimes had to ‘borrow’ parts from exhibits in the London Transport Museum to keep them running. These are vehicles that customers rarely see, but they rely on them as they haul wagons that deliver heavy materials, particularly rail, sleepers, and ballast, and haul plant to enable track renewal and other heavy jobs. They run when power is removed, hence battery operation, and in order to operate over all lines, they need at least four different signalling systems.
Rail Engineer | Issue 206 | Jan-Feb 2024
1964 battery loco (above) close to original condition (although originally in a maroon livery) (below) 1973 battery loco to same basic design undergoing modernisation to improve access and systems at Acton Works in 2016
PHOTOS: MALCOLM DOBELL
ROLLING STOCK & DEPOTS
Early S8 (L) and 2009 Tube Stock at Derby in approximately 2010
PHOTO: TED ROBINSON
Lorena said that availability and reliability are suffering due to ageing and obsolete components and that there are more and more problems (such as structural defects and bogie cracks), with only 17 of 29 are currently available for use. Shortage of locomotives impacts on the ability to undertake track works across the entire LU network and overdue track work could lead to imposing speed limits or even closing parts of the network. She added that a project to replace the locos will be complicated and is expected to take up to 10 years. Key questions to answer in building the business case included: » How many years might the existing locomotives stay in service and how much might it cost? » How many locomotives are needed to support expected track and other work? » How do the methods of carrying out that work impact on that number? » Are there innovations that enable maintenance activities to be more efficient? (With changes in travel patterns since Covid it is possible that weekend closures for heavy track work might become even more unpopular needing new access arrangements to be agreed.)
These are interconnected questions. Each one is complex and has a range of options, and the cost estimate for each is likely to be far from firm. As for innovations, unless track components become significantly lighter, Rail Engineer suspects that there will be a continuing need for locomotives and wagons for decades to come. As a member of the audience observed, LU has been exploring new designs locomotives and innovations such as fixed formation, distributed traction trains for over 40 years, yet the elderly locomotives soldier on. Lorena said next steps will explore similar options to those considered for the Bakerloo line fleet including keeping the existing vehicles in service for another 20 years. She added that TfL expects the cost of maintaining the existing locomotives will be less than the cost of replacements, so the business case will have to demonstrate that whole life costs and the significant risk of locomotive unavailability, making it impossible to carry out vital maintenance work make the case, offsets the upfront cost of new locomotives.
on the District, Circle, Hammersmith & City, and Metropolitan lines (59, 8-car and 133 7-car trains, 1,402 cars). Maintenance requirements were determined during design, and the engineering team worked to understand the factors driving maintenance and try to minimise the number of times trains are stopped for heavy maintenance.
LIFTING
SERVICING
TRAINING
RAIL INSPECTION PITS INCREASE PRODUCTIVITY
Reliable lifting and testing equipment for all rail vehicle maintenance. With over 40 years’ experience of high quality, heavy duty vehicle lifting, Totalkare combines world class products with industry leading support to facilitate effective maintenance and repair.
SAFE QUALITY LIGHTING
OVERHAUL Even TfL’s newest Underground trains are over 10 years old and are due for heavy maintenance. Chris Moss, Daniel Hamblin, and Hugh Torry discussed their work optimising the scope of programme lift (bogie overhaul) and heavy overhaul (bogies, bodies, and equipment) on the 2009 Victoria line trains (47 trains, 376 cars) and the S stock used
43
MOBILE RAIL LIFTING JACKS HEAVY DUTY SYNCHRONISED RELIABLE
Rail Engineer | Issue 206 | Jan-Feb 2024
ROLLING STOCK & DEPOTS
PHOTO: TFL
44
Heavy maintenance was originally scheduled every 762,000km, or seven major interventions during the fleet’s life. Using service experience, TfL’s engineers and many of the original equipment suppliers worked together to assess the condition of equipment that was due to be maintained at the first 762,000km intervention. TfL aims for only three interventions at roughly 1.5 million km intervals followed by scrapping at circa 6 million km. It managed to integrate 2009 stock underframe and bogie work from a whole host of different interventions to just two at 1 million km (trailer cars) and 1.2 million km (motor cars). Engineers were optimistic that they would be able to further extend to 1.4 million km. Using similar techniques, the engineering team were able to extend bogie overhaul on S stock from 762,000km to 1.25 million km, extend brakes and pneumatics overhaul from 1.143 million km and, to make a package, bring forward gearbox overhaul and flexible bogie frame bush replacement from 1.524 million km. Daniel added that this aligns well with forecast wheel life for S8 trains. S stock is a big fleet, with a very large inventory of parts, and it was reported that a saving of £20 million on the original S stock overhaul estimate had been achieved. TfL expects to make further changes to the maintenance requirement and there was confidence that £300 million might be saved over the life of the trains.
PHOTO: TFL
Before and after maintenance optimisation: 2009 stock
Quantities of Key Components on TfL S stock Fleet
S8
S7
Total
Trains
59
133
192
cars/train
8
7
Total cars
472
931
1403
Bogies
944
1862
2806
Wheelsets
1888
3724
5612
Motors
1888
3724
5612
Gearboxes
1888
3724
5612
Primary suspension springs
7552
14896
22448
secondary suspension springs
3776
7448
11224
Doors*
5664
11172
16836
Door motor/suspension
2832
5586
8418
Brake cylinders
3776
7448
11224
Seats
18054
34048
52102
Traction package
472
931
1403
Air conditioner*
472
931
1403
* Not included in the table above, each cab (two per train) has two sliding doors, two hinged doors and its own air condtioner.
Rail Engineer | Issue 206 | Jan-Feb 2024
CONCLUSION TfL has the challenge of competing for scarce public funds to replace increasingly old and frail assets on the Bakerloo line, and for maintaining the railway. Currently it is only the London Transport Museum that runs occasional heritage trains on the Underground network. Rail Engineer hopes that TfL obtains its settlement with the government so that heritage operations don’t become a day-to-day feature. TfL expressed the issue in stark terms in its recent paper to the Programmes and Investment Committee: “There are significant daily challenges to keep the fleet available for service. If the fleet is not replaced, there would be an increasing risk that an endemic failure could force the withdrawal of its 1972 tube stock from operation.” Rail Engineer does not envy TfL’s engineers having to manage the risks and uncertainties running a busy service using trains that are so far beyond their design lives.
Photos and captions by the speakers and the writer unless otherwise shown.
VIEW OUR VIDEO
Patent No. E2—886-747-B1
TRANSFORMING
RAIL PIT SAFETY
Protect your staff from pit falls Easily retrofitted to any pit with a light recess No civils work required Minimal working space lost Air operated Quick & easy operation The Premier Hinged Cover (patent No. E2—886-747-B1) is an air operated fall restraint made up of 2.5m steel mesh panels. The panels are operated by pneumatic cylinders connected to a central control box for an easy one person operation. The stairs of the pit are covered by individual sections which are manually lifted, and have the additional benefit of acting as a hand rail for ingress and egress. The Premier Hinged Cover enables clients to protect their staff with minimal disruption whilst keeping the maximum working space, and can be installed on existing steel, concrete or block pits.
by
Tel: +44 (0)1775 821222
Email: info@premierpits.com Web: www.premierpits.com
46
ROLLING STOCK & DEPOTS
Freight train derailment at London Gateway, Essex Derailed train looking towards the port
“At around 05:45 hrs on 24 December 2021, five wagons of a 33-wagon intermodal freight train derailed at low speed as the train was entering the rail terminal at London Gateway port, Essex. The derailment started when wheels on a wagon in the middle part of the train suddenly lifted off the track, just before reaching the port boundary, with the other wagons becoming derailed as they passed over points within the rail terminal. While no one was injured, infrastructure damage disrupted rail freight access into and out of the port for 14 days.“ MALCOLM DOBELL
So said the RAIB in its December 2022 report into the derailment.
T Figure 1. Plan of the track layout and gradients at the site of the derailment
he RAIB’s inspectors must have been surprised to encounter a derailed freight train on a straight piece of track, with no apparent defects in cold but dry conditions. Although previous derailments provided some clues, there were also mysteries which led to some groundbreaking analysis and simulation. This article will discuss the investigation, modelling, and the parallels the RAIB drew from previous derailments and collisions.
Rail Engineer | Issue 206 | Jan-Feb 2024
BACKGROUND FREIGHT TRAIN COUPLINGS Freight trains typically comprise a locomotive and a number of wagons which are connected together with traditional spring buffers either side of the underframe, and a centre coupling hook and screw coupler. A typical traditional container wagon is about 65ft long and able to carry a 40ft and 20ft container. With the advent of taller containers, and the ever-increasing proportion of 40ft containers, freight operators sought suitable wagons which are both shorter and with a lower deck than is traditional. If conventional buffers/screw couplings were to be used on all these shorter wagons, a great deal of available train length would be wasted as the buffers and coupler housings would have to be above deck level using space that could be occupied by a container. Instead, engineers developed designs for twin or triple wagons, where intermediate semi-permanent couplings, using centre drawbars with integral resilient elements to absorb buff and draw shocks (bar couplers), were provided with no side buffers. Twin wagons with one intermediate bar coupler came first, followed by triple wagons with two. It was the centre wagon of a three-wagon set – an FWA Ecofret 2 – that derailed first at London Gateway. This wagon was in the centre of the train and was not loaded.
ROLLING STOCK & DEPOTS
FWA - ECOFRET WAGONS
Figure 2. Ecofret 2 triple wagon showing the outer end buffers and coupling above the underframe spine
Figure 2 shows a photo of an Ecofret 2 wagon consist with a side elevation. Outer wagons are nearly a metre longer than centre wagons to accommodate the buffers and screw coupler which are mounted above the wagon spine, which is lower in order to accommodate today’s taller containers. The intermediate bar couplers are mounted below the wagon deck/spine, consisting of a metal bar secured in a housing in the wagon headstock. Elastomer elements are included in-line to absorb energy in response to tension or compression loads. The illustration, right, shows the configuration of wagons 11, 12, and 13. The suspension of the loaded wagons will be compressed more than those on the unloaded wagon, resulting in the bar coupler being at a slight angle to the horizontal as shown in figure 3.
INVESTIGATION As already stated, the first wagon to derail of the 33-wagon train was wagon 12, the unloaded middle wagon of a three wagon permanently coupled FWA-Ecofret 2 type. All other wagons on the train were loaded with at least one container. The wagons either side in the triple wagon set wagons 11 and 13 - were each loaded with one container weighing 18.9 tonnes and 20 tonnes, respectively. When investigating a derailment, it is usual to look for either an obvious cause such as a broken rail, or the point at which the wheels flanges first ride up onto the top of the rail and the distance the flanges ran along the rail before dropping into the cess. In this case, the RAIB reported that there was evidence that both wheelsets on the leading bogie of wagon 12 had suddenly lifted, moved to the left, and had remained ‘airborne’ as the train travelled about 1.5 metres. In lay terms, the bogie had ‘jumped off the track’. There were no top of rail witness marks. The other wagons which derailed were as a consequence of this first one.
Figure 3.Intermediate bar coupling showing key components and, exaggerated, the inclination of the bar between a laden and unladen wagon
SIMILAR DERAILMENTS Similar Ecofret 1 wagons had derailed in 2015 at the Port of Felixstowe and at Peterborough. In both cases the wagons were around the centre of the train and the middle wagon was unloaded. The rail industry investigation concluded that the cause was high compressive forces on the bar couplers. This led to a recommendation that longer bar couplers be provided. A train jumping off the track was identified in the RAIB investigation into the collision between an Inter-City Express Train (IET) and a High Speed Train in November 2019 on the approach to Neville Hill depot. In this investigation, the trailing bogies of the second, third, and fourth cars of the IET derailed. In simple terms, the compressive
Derailed wagon at Kisby. Straw on the track is debris from the collision with farm machinery
shock force of the collision taken though the centre bar couplings caused the trailing ends of those cars to lift and move sideways taking the bogies with them. Observers made comparisons with pole vaulting in athletics. Following a collision of a freight train with farm machinery at Kisby in August 2021, the middle wagon of an unloaded Ecofret 2 set derailed. While the RAIB was investigating
this collision, the London Gateway derailment took place and, as the wagon derailment aspect of the Kisby collision appeared similar to those described above, it was investigated as part of the London Gateway work. Its investigation sought to estimate the compressive load on the couplers on this train at the point of derailment together with modelling the magnitude of the load required to produce this effect.
Rail Engineer | Issue 206 | Jan-Feb 2024
47
48
ROLLING STOCK & DEPOTS
RESULTS The RAIB identified the immediate cause, together with causal and underlying factors. The immediate cause was a longitudinal compressive force generated within the train during braking sufficient to cause the wheels on the leading bogie of wagon 12 to suddenly lift over the top of the rail and run derailed. Evidence pointed to the left hand wheels of both wheelsets on the leading bogie of wagon 12 simultaneously contacting and then lifting over the left hand rail. This was similar to the previous incidents at Felixstowe, Peterborough, and Kisby with Ecofret wagons in the middle of the train. The report explained this mechanism (see also figure 4).
the sensitivity of the modelling to the number of data uncertainties and assumptions involved. RAIB was mindful that the largest force calculated (451 kN) was less than the baseline wagon derailment simulations predicted as being needed for full derailment (650 kN). RAIB concluded that the gap between the predictions probably arose from data uncertainties and assumptions that were needed to allow the simulation work to proceed. It added that the inconsistency could be explained and, given the significance of the other supporting evidence and the lack of evidence supporting any alternative derailment cause, the conclusions drawn could be relied upon. There were two causal factors. Firstly, wagon 12 was susceptible to derailment under longitudinal compressive force and its condition, and the loading of the Ecofret 2 triplewagon of which it was a part, increased this risk. This causal factor arose due to a combination of the following: » The design process for Ecofret 2 wagons did not fully recognise the need for there to be a change in design from the Ecofret 1 wagon to improve behaviour under longitudinal compressive forces. The report describes options that had been considered and rejected when mitigations for the derailments on Ecofret 1 wagons and the design and approval process. » The RAIB suggested that it was possible that bogie degradation and wear led to the wheel flanges being more prone to being forced into contact with the rail under longitudinal compressive force. This related to the mechanism that had been fitted to the primary suspension to control lateral motion of wheelsets relative to the bogie frame. » Having wagon 12 unloaded between loaded wagons 11 and 13 made the wheels of wagon 12 more prone to lifting under longitudinal compressive force (see figure 3).
Figure 4 derailment sequence
Stage A: the underframe of wagon 12 started to lift. Stage B: the underframe of wagon 12 then started to rotate when viewed from above (yaw rotation). Stage C: as the compressive force was increased further, the wheel flanges on the leading bogie started to contact one of the rails, while on the trailing bogie the wheel flanges started to contact the opposite rail. Stage D: wheels opposite to the wheel flanges in contact then started to unload, eventually lifting off the rail. Stage E (not illustrated): finally, one of the bogies rose clear of the rails, derailing fully as a result. A maximum compressive force of 451kN was identified from extensive modelling and this force would have been rapidly generated just before wagon 12 reached the derailment site. The RAIB devoted considerable space to the modelling which went far beyond what has previously been carried out for evaluating longitudinal forces and discussed
Rail Engineer | Issue 206 | Jan-Feb 2024
Secondly, the longitudinal compressive forces generated during braking and which acted on wagon 12 were large, significant, and sudden. Investigative work showed that compressive forces were high towards the middle of the train but low at the ends. The output of modelling for a distance of 25 metres either side of the derailment point provided evidence that the longitudinal compressive force generated during braking was likely to be higher than at other locations along the length (see figure 5).
Figure 5. Modelled coupler forces estimated at +/-25m from the location that wagon 12 derailed. Shows high forces in wagons 11 to 12 and 12 to 13. Also high force in mid-point of train, wagons 16-17 and low forces at either end of train. To the right of the derailment point, forces reduce as the brakes apply down the train, followed by a chaotic situation as the train reacts to the derailment.
ROLLING STOCK & DEPOTS
The high compressive force was caused by a double brake application resulting in a sudden and large longitudinal compressive force being generated that acted on wagon 12. This coincided with wagon 12 approaching the derailment point. Much more detail is available in RAIB’s report. The RAIB identified two underlying factors: » Derailment risks associated with the longitudinal dynamic behaviour of long freight trains are not widely understood within the rail industry and there are limited supporting processes, tools, and knowledge available to assess and manage them. » VTG Rail adopted design management arrangements that possibly limited its ability to understand the dynamic behaviour of the triple-wagon as a complete vehicle system and did not result in it identifying critical subsystem performance requirements that were associated with the behaviour of the train as a whole.
RECOMMENDATIONS Three recommendations were made, summarised below:
No.
Recommendation
Action by
1
Investigate the dynamic performance of Ecofret 2 wagons to better understand the operating conditions that result in high longitudinal compressive forces and their capacity to resist derailment. The output should be used to identify and implement appropriate mitigation measures.
VTG supported by Wabtec. (May be applicable to owners and operators of wagons permanently coupled with bar couplers at both ends).
2
Identify and implement measures to ensure that freight trains are configured and operated in such a way that compressive forces generated in service are not sufficient to cause derailment.
GB Railfreight. (May be applicable to other freight operators).
3
Establish a robust and pragmatic industry-wide framework for managing the risks of freight train derailments due to longitudinal train dynamic effects.
RSSB working with freight operating companies.
49
FREIGHT TRAIN TRACTION AND BRAKING Unlike most modern passenger trains with distributed power, almost all freight trains have a locomotive hauling the train. On a passenger train the couplings hold the train together, and generally see only the tension load of one or two trailer coaches (except in recovery situations). In braking, the brakes apply simultaneously on each coach, so the couplings see comparatively little compressive load. For freight trains, the loco to first wagon coupling has to cope with the tension load of all the wagons in the train. This load decreases along the train. There is another factor though. The couplings are generally not entirely ‘tight’. There might be some slack and/or movement to be taken up in springs, elastomer shock absorbers in the couplings, or small gaps between the buffers. If the driver were to apply power suddenly, as though a metro train was being driven, there would be considerable tension snatch in the couplings – a pulse force – that on very long trains could snap a coupling. The opposite can happen in braking: compressive forces in couplings. Generally, all freight wagons are braked, the brakes are controlled by reducing the compressed air pressure in a pipe along the train known as the brake pipe. Air is exhausted at the loco end and propagation of this ‘signal’ along the train takes a few seconds.
Simplified diagram of single pipe freight brake system (brake system on 32 wagons not shown)
As with so many RAIB investigations, this investigation highlighted that it is not a single factor that leads to an accident but weaknesses in a number of risk controls coincide to cause the defined hazard, in this case, the derailment. The knowledge gained during the investigation will be invaluable for the freight industry and timely completion of the actions should ensure that there is more knowledge available to designers, manufacturers, and operators to ensure safety by design of freight trains and their operation.
Thus, the back of the train might still be unbraked/coasting whilst the front of the train is braking leading to significant compressive forces through the couplers. If the emergency brake is suddenly applied or, worse, there’s a collision, a very significant compressive force pulse is seen through the couplers. Where vehicles are coupled with bar couplers with no side buffers, compressive forces can lead to significant lateral (jack-knife) motion restrained only by rails and wheel flanges (see figure 6). In some circumstances the movement might have a vertical component (figure 3) as was the case here.
Figure 6. Effect of longitudinal compressive forces on bar coupler joints
Illustrations sourced from RAIB report.
Rail Engineer | Issue 206 | Jan-Feb 2024
ROLLING STOCK & DEPOTS
PHOTO: VTG
50
PHOTO: RAIB
Llangennoch derailment
iWagon – what’s not to like
DAVID SHIRRES
S
ince 2005, the Rail Accident Investigation Board (RAIB) has investigated around 50 freight derailments and other accidents such as track damage from wheel flats. The main or contributary cause of almost all these accidents was poor wagon condition. This included deterioration of suspension components, uneven loading, brake defects, handbrakes left on, and severe wheel flats, either due to brake faults or long wheel slides in low adhesion conditions. Had it been possible to detect such problems as they occurred, most of these derailments would have been prevented. When such derailments occur, there is the potential to foul other lines to cause a potentially catastrophic passenger train derailment. Fortunately, there have been no such accidents in recent years. The cost of freight train derailments is high. Two recent derailments which resulted in piled up 100-tonne wagons were those at Llangennoch (issue 194 Jan-Feb 2022) and Petteril Bridge Junction (issue 205 Nov-Dec 2023). The recovery bill for these two accidents alone is likely to have been of the order of £50 million.
Our report on the Petteril Bridge Junction derailment included a pilot scheme to develop technology that can detect wagon faults to prevent freight train derailments. This is the iWagon which is being developed by the VTG freight wagon leasing company with the support of Knorr-Bremse.
DEVELOPING THE IDEA
PHOTO: VTG
To learn more, Rail Engineer was glad of the opportunity to speak to Nigel Day, VTG’s business improvement director. When he was the company’s engineering director, he had been convinced for some time of the need for a wagon fitted with suitable state-of-theart monitoring equipment. However, for VTG the business case for this was not financially viable, despite it offering a very rapid payback for the whole railway system. Nevertheless, VTG considered that there was a strategic business case for its ‘iWagon’ as this was considered to be something that its customers would want. The company also wished to show that it offered technologically advanced wagons. The iWagon initiative would also build on the VTG Connect system that the company had been fitting to its wagons since 2017. This was solar-powered and provided customers with wagon shock, GPS, and mileage data.
VTG Connect system
Rail Engineer | Issue 206 | Jan-Feb 2024
ROLLING STOCK & DEPOTS iWagon components PHOTO: VTG
not require a separate speed detection system as is the case with Wheel Slide Protection systems on passenger rolling stock. iWagon data is transmitted by mobile data to a cloud server from where it can be monitored anywhere by VTG and wagon operators. The train driver can also pick up alerts from this server. As a backup for areas of poor mobile reception, the system also uses
Axle Generators PHOTO: VTG
PHOTO: VTG
VTG Connect box PHOTO: VTG
GPS aerial
Amongst other things, VTG Connect has been used to identify where, along its journey, a wagon was graffitied. This was done by analysing its journey to determine where it was stationary for extended periods of time to show where security measures needed to be tightened up. To develop the iWagon, VTG signed a partnership deal with Knorr-Bremse. Nigel advises that his opposite number in Knorr Bremse, Director of Engineering and Innovation Sanjay Albert, led the development of the iWagon’s bespoke processing unit and managed the provision of Knorr-Bremse equipment. The system is made up of the following components: 4 x axle end generators per wagon; Wheel Flat Prevention system (WFP – a form of wheelslide protection); vibration sensors; pressure transducers; GPS unit; data transmission module; and the bespoke processing unit. A clever aspect of the axle generators is that they also detect axle speed, so the WFP does
Bluetooth-like connectivity to daisy chain iWagon data down the train to the driver. However, this requires the train to have a reasonable number of iWagons as the daisy chain is broken if there are more than four other wagons coupled together. VTG has developed an app for the driver which provides an alert in the event of a locked wheel or brake problem and advises which wagon is defective. As each Freight Operating Company (FOC) has its own driver advisory app, it is not feasible to integrate these with the driver’s iWagon app which the driver only needs in the event of a rare defect.
PHOTOS: VTG
Control unit
PILOT SCHEME iWagon was launched at the Rail Freight Group’s annual conference in October. The first phase of a nine-wagon iWagon pilot scheme began at the same time. The first three wagons to be fitted were 100-tonne cement wagons that were modified at Tarmac’s Dunbar depot. These operate a daily service between Dunbar in Scotland and Seaham in County Durham. The other wagons trialled were on the Mendip quarry services and between Clitheroe and Mossend, the route used by the freight train that derailed at Petteril Bridge junction. The technologies on test include axle lock detection, the WFP system which also monitored wheelslide, and brake condition monitoring. Future trials will assess digital real-time maintenance, and monitor harmonics frequencies and temperature. On the first day of the trials, everyone was surprised at just how slippery the rails were as almost every time a train stopped, it slid to a stop. Nigel confessed that he hadn’t realised how slippery the railway can be. On the initial trials, an iWagon was marshalled between two monitoring wagons to provide a comparison of wheelset condition. Between 18-24 October these wagons made four journeys from Dunbar to Leeds, Aberdeen, and Inverness covering 748 miles. Due to significant wheel slides on the monitoring wagons, including one of a kilometre immediately south of Aberdeen, this trial was cut short as the monitoring wagons had significant wheel flats and needed new wheels. The iWagon had no wheel damage and thus proved the system.
The team that launched the iWagon. VTG’s Nigel Day is on the left and Knorr Bremse’s Sanjay Albert is in the centre
Rail Engineer | Issue 206 | Jan-Feb 2024
51
ROLLING STOCK & DEPOTS
An important aspect of this trial is assessing how data from it can be used. VTG has engaged the Swedish company, Predge (Predictive Edge) whose products include maintenance data analytics for the heavy Swedish iron ore trains. Predge is a machine learning specialist which is providing VTG with algorithms to analyse condition data in real time to optimise predictive maintenance. Nigel considers that the trials are showing the value of such big data management to the extent that it significantly improves VTG’s own business case for the iWagon. A potential problem identified on these trials is that the wagon brake might run out of air if the WFP makes multiple continuous air dumps to prevent wheel slide. Most UK wagon fleets operate with a single-pipe system which both charges the brake cylinder reservoir air and applies the brake in accordance with a pressure reduction in the pipe. Unlike a two-pipe system, a single pipe cannot simultaneously apply the brake and charge the air reservoir. Although the trials showed that the WFP emptying the brake reservoir was an unlikely risk, the system has an alarm which would alert the driver to stop the train should this happen. Performance data from this trial is being monitored from VTG’s Bromsgrove office. By the end of January sufficient data will be available to configure the first batch of production iWagons, the first of which is expected to be completed in July.
TOTAL OPERATIONS PROCESSING SYSTEM (TOPS) In the early 1970s, British Rail purchased the TOPS system from the American Southern Pacific Railroad to improve the efficiency of its freight operations. Prior to TOPS, your writer had the daily job of phoning all concerned to produce a report on the status and location of the Scottish locomotive fleet at 06:00. This took over an hour. This changed with the implementation of TOPS which holds the locations and status of all locomotives and wagons and train consists. It is written in its own programming language, TOPSTRAN and originally ran on an IBM mainframe computer. Its implementation in 1973 and 1974 required the provision of hundreds of computer terminals in depots, freight yards, etc. This was the first widespread use of computers on British Rail and required a major cultural change. Fifty-years later, this text-based system is still an essential part of UK railway operations. For historic data analysis or use with other applications, bespoke TOPS data extraction programmes are required such as the one developed by VTG.
1970s TOPS terminal
PHOTO: BRITISH RAILWAYS
52
BENEFITS As well as preventing derailments, iWagon offers many benefits which include the prevention of flats. On freight wagons, wheel flats are a common occurrence. With, say, a 25-tonne axle load the resultant impact of every wheel rotation causes infrastructure deterioration and occasional broken rails. Hence there is a case for reduced track access charges for flat-free iWagons. If a lineside detector records an impact load of greater than 350kN from a wheel flat, the train is taken out of service and the FOC is liable for the resultant delay attribution. An additional benefit from the elimination of flats is that this dramatically reduces the number of shunting moves needed to extract defective wagons from a train. As most freight trains are now block trains, such shunting moves are a significant proportion of the total. iWagons also have the potential to transform wagon maintenance and preparation. As well as detecting whether a handbrake has been left on, brake pressure data from wagons at the front and back of the train in effect offers a brake continuity test provided that the train consist is known. VTG has created a programme to extract train consist information from TOPS. Nigel advises that interacting with the TOPS system in this way was really challenging.
Rail Engineer | Issue 206 | Jan-Feb 2024
The feasibility of harmonic frequency analysis to detect broken springs, cracked bogie frames, and other defects is to be assessed at the next stage of iWagon development. As each component has its own natural frequency, a wagon has a spectrum of, say, 10 standard frequencies. A change to a frequency associated with a particular component indicates that it has a defect. Nigel considers that the combination of such frequency analysis with iWagon’s brake system monitoring and other technologies, such as data analytics and digital wheelset measuring, has the potential to significantly reduce wagon maintenance to the extent that this might be reduced to just changing brake blocks and wheels. This could offer significant availability benefits.
A further benefit is the detection of unevenly loaded wagons that have caused derailments. This is done by data analysis of the pressure in the wagons’ variable load valves to detect trends in the way customers load their wagons. Finally for Network Rail, the iWagon provides real time monitoring of adhesion condition on lines served by freight trains to better identify low adhesion hot spots and make best use of rail head treatment trains.
ROLL OUT VTG owns about 4,500 wagons which are about a third of the UK wagon fleet. Its first batch of production iWagons enter service around July. Towards the end of the year, the plan is to ramp up iWagon production to 1,000 per year.
ROLLING STOCK & DEPOTS
The iWagon system is currently being tested on wagons with integral braking. These have bogie-mounted brake cylinders that directly press the brake blocks onto each wheel and comprise the vast majority of the VTG fleet. Its suitability for wagons with nonintegral braking systems has yet to be demonstrated. Such wagons have a single brake cylinder on the wagon underframe with a rigging system to press their multiple brake blocks against the wheels. Hence, their braking is less responsive than that of a wagon with integral braking due to unavoidable slack in their brake rigging.
LESSONS FOR INNOVATION The iWagon has potentially transformational safety and commercial benefits. As well as preventing freight train derailments, it eradicates damaged wheels and offers reduced shunting and track maintenance costs, improved wagon availability, and improved rail adhesion monitoring. In its report into the Petteril Bridge
junction derailment, RAIB concluded that “there was no engineered system in place to detect wheelsets that were not rotating.” iWagon provides such a system. These are huge benefits. Yet for the organisation funding it, iWagon had a poor business case. The rail industry is fortunate that VTG’s decision to invest in the iWagon was not based on immediate direct financial returns. This raises the question of how a company can be incentivised to invest in a new technology that can clearly benefit the wider industry. Current arrangement to promote rail innovation do not seem to address this issue. It is certainly true that there is no shortage of grants for rail innovation, yet VTG chose not to seek such grants. When asked why, Nigel advised that applying for such grants took too long and that they generally only support small pilot schemes. Hence the use of current innovation competitions and grant schemes would have significantly constrained VTG’s iWagon deployment.
Nigel also believes that successful rail innovation needs to be incremental. He cites the proposal to fit freight wagons with autocouplers. This would be a whole system innovation requiring commitment from all FOCs and the modification of all freight locomotives to provide a freight train with an electrical supply. Thus, if this was to happen, it would take many years. In contrast, iWagon is a wagon solution rather than a train solution. It can function by itself and be coupled to other wagons in the train. Furthermore, its basic functional package with an electrical supply and data transmission enables its functionality to be incrementally expanded. As well as harmonic frequency wagon analysis, temperature sensors and reversing cameras have been suggested for the next steps. Thus, VTG and Knorr-Bremse have developed their transformational iWagon despite the current industry structure and industry innovation arrangements. For this, Nigel Day of VTG, Sanjay Albert of Knorr-Bremse, and their teams deserve to be congratulated.
ADAPTIVE SYSTEM FOR HIGH LOADS
LEVEL CROSSING SYSTEMS
tolerates vertical track position changes
adaptive system for high loads
stable support
easy exchange > replace STRAIL outer panels with pontiSTRAIL 713
STRAIL (UK) Ltd. | Tannery Lane // Send / Woking // GU23 7EF // Great Britain Head Office +44 (14 83) 22 20 90 // info@strail.com
www.strail.com
@strail_official
@kraiburg strail
Rail Engineer | Issue 206 | Jan-Feb 2024
53
54
ROLLING STOCK & DEPOTS
TRACTION POWER INNOVATION AND SAFETY
K
eeping both the public and rail workers safe from railway electrification, innovative ways of doing so, and the pressing need for a rolling programme of electrification in England to meet the government’s decarbonisation target by 2050 were the main themes of a Traction Power Innovation & Safety Showcase, hosted by Network Rail and the Railway Industry Association (RIA) at Coventry’s Manufacturing Technology Centre.
All Photos: Nigel Wordsworth
A formal conference on these and other topics ran alongside an exhibition by 16 industry suppliers showing everything from cables to complete overhead systems. The day’s session started with the focus clearly on safety. Constable Mark Etienne of British Transport Police showed a harrowing video of Harrison Ballantyne’s story – an 11-year-old electrocuted and killed after climbing on a freight wagon in a depot where trains were not moving but the 25kV overhead was still live. Although fenced, the boy had no trouble climbing over it and into the freight yard to retrieve a lost football. Climbing onto a wagon, he didn’t touch the live cable, but the electricity still arced over to his body, killing him instantly. The village where Harrison lived had no railway station, and he had seemingly received no education on the dangers of the railway and its electric traction system. Delegates were urged both to support local safety training programmes and to make sure that all fencing is adequate and unclimbable.
Rail Engineer | Issue 206 | Jan-Feb 2024
Constable Mark Etienne of British Transport Police
THE TASK AHEAD Peter Dearman, immediate past-president of the Permanent Way Institute, a former head of electrification at Network Rail and consultant with both Systra and Atkins, was the next speaker. He was invited by conference host David Clarke, RIA’s technical director, to make some personal observations on the need for electrification and how to deliver safely. “Climate change is a reality,” he stated. “We are left, as humankind, with no option but to stop using fossil fuels. There are other technologies which vie for attention in looking towards an electric future - hydrogen, batteries – but none of them are going to fulfil the promise that main line electrification needs to be fulfilled.
Peter Dearman, immediate past-president of the Permanent Way Institute and a former head of electrification at Network Rail
ROLLING STOCK & DEPOTS
“We’ve got a huge amount to do, but we’re not going to do any of it unless we get costs under control. Our recent history of delivery is not terrifically encouraging. However you cut it, CP5 was a disaster in terms of our position and respect that we have throughout government, and treasury particularly. They don’t trust us, we can’t deliver anything on time, we can’t deliver to scope, and we certainly can’t deliver it for anything like the costs that we estimate. That’s our problem.” Peter continued by pointing out that the problem of having to electrify 13,000 single track kilometres (stk) by 2050 wasn’t just down to the railway industry, others have to be involved as well – particularly the National Grid, which will be undertaking major changes to its power distribution network. “If they don’t know what we want, they’re not going to build it for us,” Peter stated. “They’ve got to do the job on the grid for your house, the factories around the country, and the hospitals. They can’t wait for us to dither around making up our minds what we want to do, they’re going to do it. If that means there’s no traction power available, then there won’t be traction power available. So, we need to get our marker down. We need a grid connection strategy.” Towards the end of his talk, Peter tackled the topic of safety. “I’m not going to take away from the message that Mark shared with us just before this presentation,” he said. “Sitting in the audience with us is a gentleman who suffered horrific injuries 40 years ago because of contact with 25kV. “Bryant was an overhead linesman, an overhead line supervisor, one of the most experienced – it’s those guys who are the most at risk. We need to get that put right. We need to do that through upskilling
the people – you can’t technology your way out of this problem. There is no technology which will make contact with 25kV safe, it’s people and behaviours that we need to sort out.”
NEW DESIGNS Phil Doughty, Network Rail’s chief mechanical and electrical engineer, continued Peter’s theme. Much work has been done to drive down unit costs since a “not great CP5”. On overhead line routes, work is taking place on a rationalised design for ‘classic’ electrification, electrical performance testing, bridge parapets and clearances, and insulated pantograph horns. A new master-series catenary design, featuring 95-metre spans, had been defined only the day before. A new standard for third-rail conductor rail design has also been finalised. Safety protocols such as test before touch are also being rolled out, as is the local securing of DC networks. ‘Safety by Design’ is the latest programme to improve the railway’s electrical safety culture. Simon Skinner, engineering director of SPL Powerlines, asked the key question – is Network Rail’s traction decarbonisation strategy affordable? “Probably not,” was his answer.
Bryant Latham, a long-time railwayman and overhead linesman
Rail Engineer | Issue 206 | Jan-Feb 2024
55
56
ROLLING STOCK & DEPOTS
Simon Skinner, engineering director of SPL Powerlines
To achieve the level of electrification needed, a massive ramp-up in work is anticipated from 2028. This is a concern, as the last time that rail electrification experienced such a jump in workload, it failed comprehensively due to skill shortages. A steady ramp up towards a rolling programme is needed to sustain skills and support continuous improvement and thus lower costs. Technology will help, as will discipline integration and new ways of working, with electrification teams working with colleagues in every discipline from track to signalling and vegetation control to make the programme happen, but the programme will need to run smoothly, with fewer interventions, to drive down the cost per stk. Building Information Modelling (BIM) will become a “must do, not a nice to have”, as will a common data environment and other advances in project management. One piece of advice Simon gave was “don’t innovate throughout the project”. Freeze technology before the project starts, as trying to introduce innovations part-way through is as disruptive as any other programme change, and it was these types of ‘moving goalposts’ that, in part, sank the Great Western electrification programme.
Rail Engineer | Issue 206 | Jan-Feb 2024
Robert Ampomah, Network Rail’s chief technology officer, rounded off the morning presentations. He also admitted that the industry was “quite a bit behind the curve” in electrifying a railway that has to be zero-carbon by 2045 in Scotland and 2050 in England and Wales. He revisited the lasting problems of Great Western electrification, which was estimated to cost £1 billion in 2009 but actually cost over £5 billion, despite the programme being truncated. “As an industry, we must be much more efficient and deliver when we say we are going to deliver,” he added. However, he stressed innovative work was being done. Recent improvements in what he called the Cost Efficient Electrification Project phase 1, which includes the reduction in acceptable clearances and the resultant decrease in the number of structures that need to be rebuilt, has so far resulted in savings in the region of £200 million in Scotland, £29 million in the East Midlands, and £144 million on the Transpennine Route Upgrade.
Robert Ampomah, Network Rail’s chief technology officer
ROLLING STOCK & DEPOTS
Further work is being carried out, and Robert listed some of them: in-line neutral sections, overhead line equipment (OLE) dynamic modelling, a new Reconfigurable Autotransformer System (RATS) to digitalise classic electrification, a new conductor-rail management system, renewable power generation, and DC trackside energy storage systems. All to be deployed soon, these improvements should result in a greener railway that is safer, sustainable, and achievable at lower cost.
ASK THE PANEL There then followed a panel session including all of the morning’s speakers with the addition of Martin O’Connor (head of OLE and conductor rail, Network Rail) and Garry Keenor (professional head for electrification, Atkins). Chaired by David Clarke, the panel fielded various questions, including one from Dave Barnes, Network Rail Southern Region, on DC switchgear innovations. His question was met by a small cheer from third-rail supporters who seemed to be feeling a bit overwhelmed by OLE engineers. The answer? Martin O’Connor said that an innovative design is being worked on that will virtually eliminate risks in the DC railway. “It’s a very exciting time on the DC system,” Martin enthused. Another questioner asked about the importance of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in the coming years. “There must be huge opportunities,” David Clarke commented, before handing the question over to the panel.
“AI can strengthen the design process,” Garry Keenor commented. He then reminded the audience that money spent up-front on design could save more than it cost when transferred to the live project. “Spend £1 on design and save £100 overall” was how he put it. Robert Ampomah spoke to dispel some concerns. “AI doesn’t deskill our people,” he said. “We need good engineers to get the most out of AI.” Other questions were asked on partial electrification infilled by other technologies, the technology road map being developed by Network Rail and RSSB (“Question everything,” Garry Keenor) and alliancing (“Work together to overcome problems,” Peter Dearman).
EXHIBITION AND WORKSHOPS A lunchtime break followed, giving delegates plenty of time to visit exhibitors’ stands and network with colleagues. All of the stands were busy, and many delegates could be seen deep in conversation with individuals and small groups. Several workshops ran after the break. One was presented by Bryant Latham, a long-time railwayman and overhead linesman. Bryant was the gentleman that Peter Dearman had referred to earlier, who was hit by 25kV while working to clear a downed line 40 years ago. His description of his accident, how it happened, and the mental trauma he suffered in addition to his physical injuries was stark and graphic. Bryant now visits companies involved with overhead line work to draw attention to the dangers and the need for constant vigilance.
The panel
Rail Engineer | Issue 206 | Jan-Feb 2024
57
58
ROLLING STOCK & DEPOTS
Phil also conducted a survey of delegates to get their views on the priorities for the industry. Some of the answers were surprising (Is the industry ready for CP7? No – 63%). Others were less so (What is the key engineering barrier preventing low-cost electrification? Top answers: risk-averse behaviours and nothing – the challenge is not an engineering one, both 30% of responses). Discussion on the responses brought the day’s session to a close. Delegates all seemed to feel it had been a day well spent and look forward to another, similar session in 2024.
Kamini Edgley, director of engineering & asset management for Network Rail’s North West and Central region
This ‘Electrical Safety Step-Up’ is a 30-minute facilitated session aimed at practitioners that work on and around traction power electricity. Part of the wider Culture & Industry Approach strategy to address cultural change and recommendations from recent electrical safety incidents, the Step Up has been shaped from feedback received by industry representatives to focus on why everyone must follow process, the consequences if they don’t, and what good looks like (relating to behaviours). Bryant stressed that improving the industry’s electrical safety culture is the foundation for embedding changes to ways of working and process.
DELIVERING ELECTRICAL SAFETY Kamini Edgley, director of engineering & asset management for Network Rail’s North West and Central region, gave the first presentation after the workshop sessions. She returned to Peter Dearman’s theme at the start of the conference, stressing the importance of planning ahead and making sure that sufficient traction power is available. “New trains are coming,” she said, “but Acton Lane is already at capacity for traction power.” Over the next 25 years, the answer will be the renewal of a large part of the NW&C infrastructure, enhanced capacity at pinch-points such as Crewe, and further autotransformer conversions. She also introduced her plans for the Pantograph Damage Assessment Tool (PANDAS), developed by the Northumberland-based technical engineering company Transmission Dynamics to detect faults in overhead electric lines used in mass public transport networks. A wireless system, it uses miniature accelerometers clamped on the pantograph head to detect changes in the condition of the overhead wires above.
Rail Engineer | Issue 206 | Jan-Feb 2024
Two allied safety programmes featured heavily in Kamini’s presentations. Safer Isolations (DC network) and Remote Securing (AC infrastructure) are both designed to make isolating electrical equipment easier, safer, and more certain. No longer will workers need to go out on the line to isolate equipment and fit short-circuit safety links – in future it will all be done remotely using preinstalled equipment. Phil Doughty returned to the lectern for the last session of the day and a quick look at Network Rail’s plans for Control Period 7 (20242029). An operations, maintenance, and renewals budget of £44 billion for England and Wales and £4.6 billion for Scotland will include an electrification and power element of around £2 billion. Electrical safety devices will total around £361 million, made up of £296 million on the safer, faster isolations programme that Kamini had described, and £65 million for process improvements. The rest will pay for: » OLE – partial refurbishment, contact/catenary wire rewire, heavy maintenance. » Conductor rail renewal – increased from CP6 levels. » AC Traction – renewal and refurbishment of 25kV circuit breakers. » DC Traction – switchgear renewal and refurbishment. » Signalling power cable renewal – similar volumes to CP6.
LIST OF EXHIBITORS Brush Cable Services Cembre Ciras EA Technology Horizon Utility Supplies Meteor Power Pace Networks Sella Controls Siemens Mobility The PWI Tratos Trough-Tec Systems Unipart Rail University of Nottingham Vindhya Telelinks
THE LAST WORD As delegates were leaving, Phil Doughty reflected on the one-day conference. “I’m encouraged at the level of turnout, and I think it’s great that everyone recognises we have come a long way, both in delivering efficiencies for electrification and electrical safety. From an engineering perspective, what we need to focus on is delivering safely and efficiently, and then the political side of what electrification looks like going forward will follow. “At the heart of it, we have to do things safer, cheaper, and more efficiently.”
TUES
Sponsored by
FEATURE
Electrifying
Scotland DAVID SHIRRES
PHOTO: NETWORK RAIL
T
PHOTO: NETWORK RAIL
60
he Airdrie to Bathgate (A2B) project, which opened in 2010, included 108 single track kilometres (stk) of electrification. This new Scottish line was the first substantial UK electrification project since the Paddington to Heathrow Express electrification in 1997. As well as A2B, major electrification projects including those on Great Western and in the North West, have added a further 1,965 stk to the electrified network since 2010.
PHOTO: DAVID SHIRRES, BASE MAP – NETWORK RAIL
Of this, 568 stk were new electrified lines in central Scotland which were electrified as part of an ongoing programme which has now become part of the Scottish Government’s Rail Services Decarbonisation Action Plan, which was published in July 2021. This commits to the removal of diesel passenger trains by 2035 by a 1,616 stk electrification programme. There is no Government plan to decarbonise railways in England where electrification is essentially stalled, in large part due to the excessive costs of the Great Western and other schemes.
Rail Engineer | Issue 206 | Jan-Feb 2024
SPL POWERLINES The two last Scottish electrification schemes were delivered by SPL Powerlines. The 75-stk electrification between Holytown and Mid Calder junctions via Shotts was energised in March 2019 to provide Scotland with a fourth electrified route between Glasgow and Edinburgh. The contracts for this scheme, and the Bedford to Corby electrification, had been let to a joint venture, Carillion Powerlines. When Carillion collapsed, the Austrian-based Powerlines Group acquired Carillion’s 50% shareholding and transferred their employees to its UK subsidiary, SPL Powerlines UK. SPL Powerlines also recently delivered the 27 stk Muirhouse junction to Barrhead electrification as part of its Scottish electrification framework contract. This work started in April 2022 and was completed in November 2023.
61
FEATURE
PHOTO: NETWORK RAIL
The company also supported the recent large-scale remodelling of Carstairs junction which demanded a high level of discipline integration and involved the replacement of over 22km of wiring as part of the modernisation works. In addition, the company has been involved with the Levenmouth branch reconnected project which was originally to be electrified as the line was rebuilt. However, due to a pause in the electrification programme, the new line has only been built with foundations ready for future electrification. In July 2022, it also was announced that the company had been awarded a contract for the initial phase of work of a £120 million investment to provide six new feeder traction power stations and upgrade a further nine existing feeder stations in South Glasgow, Edinburgh, Scottish Borders, and Fife.
EFFICIENT ELECTRIFICATION Rail Engineer was glad of the opportunity to speak to SPL Powerline’s Scottish Regional Director, Lee Pounder
PHOTO: NETWORK RAIL
Barrhead Electrification (Top) Footbridge removal at Nitshill station (Bottom left) Bridge demolition near Kennishead
requirements by around 75%, improved the quality of the asset that is installed on site, and acted whilst improving the safety culture by reducing the need to work at height. During the Barrhead electrification this methodology was successfully implemented at the site compound at Nitshill. This approach requires considerate planning to ensure the prefabrication and installation runs seamlessly. PHOTO: SPL POWERLINES
to learn how electrification is being delivered in Scotland. Lee is clearly driven by the need to reduce electrification costs and advises that in Control Period 5, electrification was delivered at £2.7 million / stk and that the target of £2 million / stk for CP6 requires a 26% efficiency saving. The aspiration through CP7 is to reduce this further however volume and a rolling programme is critical to this being achieved. In Scotland, electrification is delivered by a hub and spoke model with Network Rail at the centre managing its Civil, Signalling and Permanent way framework contractors. Lee feels that this is a mature model with mature regional relationships which works well in Scotland. He considers that effective collaborative working makes a big difference, with SPL Powerlines sharing its office with Network Rail as they deliver as one electrification delivery team. Lee also considers that the way Network Rail Scotland is taking a longterm view offers significant benefits. The new Levenmouth branch has a detailed electrification design and foundations already installed which will significantly reduce the cost and disruption of its eventual electrification. Installing and upgrading feeder stations well in advance of electrification is also the right thing to do as power supplies are long lead items. The collaboration between Network Rail Scotland and ScotRail also enables engineering access to be optimised. As an example, extended engineering access between 24 June to 4 August provided efficiency benefits for both electrification work and the significant platform and civils work at stations.
Pre-dressed OLE mast
SPL Powerlines UK has also invested in a Zeck wiring unit which can complete tensioned wire runs in a single shift. This unit can be configured to run both contact and catenary wires at the same time at full tension, as well as running out a conductor at the same time as recovering another. This offers greater efficiency, avoids the need to hire additional plant to load/unload drums onto trailers, and eliminates the risk of kinks, twists, and wire deformation. Lee stressed the importance of signing off assurance documentation in real time rather than just before authorisation to avoid delays when entering the infrastructure into service. To manage this, in Scotland, SPL use Bentley’s Synchro construction management software which provides a progressive assurance database and a Power Bi dashboard to monitor progress. Zeck wiring unit module
SPECIFIC INITIATIVES SPL Powerlines UK has successfully adopted a new methodology of pre-dressing masts with cantilevers, return cable brackets, and identification plates whilst they lie flat on stillages. This methodology has reduced physical track access
PHOTO: ZECK
Rail Engineer | Issue 206 | Jan-Feb 2024
62
FEATURE
PHOTO: DAVID SHIRRES, BASE MAP – NETWORK RAIL
Schematic map of south Glasgow suburban network showing East Kilbride and Barrhead electrification
Another opportunity to reduce electrification costs is increasing span length to reduce the number of masts. A recent review of the master series OLE has shown that spans of 95 metres are possible which compares with those achievable by the highertensioned Siemens Sicat system. Lee advised that spans of up to 80 metres had been achieved for the Haymarket to Dalmeny electrification but ultimately the mean average span would be dictated by the geometry of the track, areas of long straight railway seeing the greatest benefit. Lee also felt that there was a further need to truly understand the below ground strata to improve the foundation delivery in all electrification schemes. Piling in areas of high rock head continues to drive programme and cost uncertainty. Innovations such as Ground Penetrating Radar and seismic wave analysis have been trialled with varied results. More development in this digital non-intrusive approach is a must.
FUTURE ELECTRIFICATION
services entails the use of Battery EMUs operating on a partially electrified network. For Fife services, this will comprise Haymarket to Dalmeny and four route sections from Thornton North Junction to Kirkcaldy, Lochgelly, Ladybank, and Leven which is 122 stk of electrification. This is an interim strategy pending full electrification to Inverness and Aberdeen. However, whilst electrification between Haymarket and Dalmeny started in June 2022, this is currently paused pending a review of the rail services decarbonisation plan. In July, a Scottish Parliamentary question confirmed that Fife electrification development work was continuing and that its required feeder station would be operational in 2026. The March 2023 pipeline update of Scotland’s infrastructure investment plan estimated that £907 million is to be spent decarbonising Scotland’s railway between 2021/22 and 2025/6. It also advised that this includes development of the decarbonisation plan’s phase 2 scheme between central Scotland and Aberdeen.
In September, a paper prepared by Audit Scotland advised that there are insufficient funds for Scotland’s planned £26 billion investment programme. This paper showed that, as a result, the £32 million Borders railway decarbonisation programme had been paused pending a refreshment of the decarbonisation action plan. Also paused is the rolling stock procurement plan. Of its current fleet of 1,037 vehicles, Scotland’s Railway needs to replace 388 diesel powered vehicles to deliver its decarbonisation plan as well as 285 life-expired EMUs. It is envisaged that this will require 295 suburban and 275 regional BEMU/EMUs vehicles, as well as 125 electric inter-city vehicles. The original intention was to start procuring a new suburban train fleet in 2022 for entry into passenger service between 2027 and 2030. Clearly, the financial climate has changed since the Scottish Government published its rail services decarbonisation plan in July 2020. Yet the plan recognises the need to remain flexible to take account of funding availability and emerging electrification costs. Whether the refreshed plan will be able to meet its original target of removing diesel powered passenger trains by 2035 remains to be seen. What is clear is that the plan will still set out the overwhelming case for electrification which offers not just decarbonisation but trains that are cheaper to build and operate with improved reliability and performance. No doubt, the Scottish electrification programme will continue, albeit at a slower pace than originally intended. PHOTO: SPL POWERLINES
In November, SPL Powerlines UK together with Story Contracting, AmcoGiffen, Siemens, Rail Systems Alliance Scotland, and WSP secured contracts totalling £61.5 million for the East Kilbride enhancements project which includes 22 stk of electrification. This is to be completed by the end of 2025. This is part of phase one of Scotland’s rail decarbonisation programme which also includes Fife and the Borders Line. The plan to remove diesel trains from the Borders and Fife passenger Syncro software dashboard
Rail Engineer | Issue 206 | Jan-Feb 2024
SPL POWERLINES UK
64
STATIONS & PASSENGER TECHNOLOGIES
Improving
accessibility
at stations
PHOTO: ISTOCK.COM/SCACCIAMOSCHE
PAUL DARLINGTON
T
ravelling by train can, at times, be challenging for anyone, but rail travel for customers with specific needs can be very daunting at any time. Railway stations were largely designed in the Victorian era with little thought for the needs of restricted mobility and impaired travellers. We are also fast becoming an ageing society and, by 2041, one in four of the population are set to be over 65, with increasing issues relating to physical and cognitive impairments, and restricted mobility. The effects of an ageing population, combined with growing numbers of economically active elderly people, and people with restricted mobility, means that there is a need for rail stations to be designed and adapted for inclusivity. This creates both challenges and opportunities for operators and station designers.
LEGISLATION Part III of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 (DDA), now absorbed into The Equalities Act 2010, gave disabled people a right of access to goods, facilities, services, and premises. It is unlawful to treat disabled people less favourably than anyone else for a reason related to their disability, and the rail industry is required by law to take reasonable steps to change anything which makes it impossible or unreasonably difficult for those with restricted mobility to use a service, such as using a railway station. Means must be provided that make it easier for restricted mobility people to use a service, and the industry is required to alter the physical features of premises (if reasonable to do so) if the service continues to be impossible or unreasonably difficult for people with restricted mobility to use.
Rail Engineer | Issue 206 | Jan-Feb 2024
It’s not just restricted mobility travellers who will benefit from good railway station accessibility. Those who are travelling with small children or are carrying luggage or heavy shopping will all benefit from an accessible station, as will people with temporary mobility problems (such as a leg in plaster). The increasing use of rail for leisure purposes also means that many customers are now carrying heavier and very often wheeled luggage. The term Persons with Reduced Mobility (PRM) covers all forms of restricted mobility, either permanent or temporary. The best options to improve station access are not always the most expensive nor the most disruptive. Access audits can assist in providing detailed analysis of potential and actual problems and can be made based on plans for new buildings as well as by surveying existing ones. Any access audit must take account of the full requirements of PRM, including those with sensory and cognitive impairments. Audits should be carried out by competent people and improvements to access in existing buildings can often be made most economically when carried out as part of regular repair, maintenance, refurbishment, and redecoration intervention. The key is to consult and plan, both early and properly.
65
STATIONS & PASSENGER TECHNOLOGIES
GUIDANCE PHOTO: ISTOCK.COM/VICHAI PHUBUBPHAPAN
There is a lot of guidance available on how to improve station accessibility and some examples of accessibility improvements include: » Providing lifts that are automatic, well lit, reliable, easy to use, of good size, and provide an audible tone when the doors open and close. » Staircases and platform edges with tactile warning surfaces. » Ramps with the right slope angles and that are slipresistant, and footbridges with handrails at the right height. » Open entrances and ticket gates of good size, and accessible waiting rooms and toilets.
PHOTO: ISTOCK.COM/ VERA_PETRUNINA
PHOTO: ISTOCK.COM/COLDSNOWSTORM
The main source of data for existing station improvements is the Department for Transport’s Code, Design Standards for Accessible Railway Stations, and station operators are required to comply with this as part of their licence when carrying out works. There is a railway standard for platform heights, but the actual height of platforms across the rail network is varied because when the network was constructed different railway companies used different platform heights. Low platforms present entry and exit problems to everyone, particularly for mobilityimpaired train users. The relevant standard specifies that new platforms should be 915mm above rail height, have an offset of 730mm (horizontal distance between rail and platform edge) and should not be on a curve of less than 1,000m radius. Of the 6,000 platforms on the mainline network, platform height and offset requirements are only achieved for 30% and 22% respectively, with only 7% meeting both requirements. A fifth of all platforms fail to meet the curvature requirement. This standard is a trade-off between the requirements of passengers and ensuring that platforms aren’t struck by any of the different types of trains. The loading gauge requires greater offsets at higher platform heights. Hence a 1,115mm-high platform, the typical height of most train floors, would require a 900mm offset. This compares with the 730mm offset of platforms at the standard 915mm height which research has shown to be the optimum platform height. Ideally, there should be level boarding between the platform and the train. This is provided on Greater Anglia and Merseyrail services following
the introduction of a new train fleet together with a programme to bring platforms to the required standard. Their trains have a 950mm floor height and an extending bridging piece as the door opens to permit unassisted access for those in wheelchairs. Raising the level of a complete platform is relatively costly and not easy, although recent advances in design of an overlay system may be suitable and provide a cost and time-efficient solution. A solution developed circa 20 years ago, based on work carried out in the Hope Valley in the late 1990s, is the Harrington Hump (Easier Access Area). This is a modular and easy-to-install system to increase the height of a short length of railway platform at a relatively low cost. The system takes its name from Harrington railway station in Cumbria which was the location of the first production version in 2008. Since its installation, Harrington Humps have been installed at other railway stations across the network. Most people are right-handed. This means it is good practice on wide stairways to sign people to walk on the right-hand side so that more people can use the handrail more easily. Your author is part disabled on his left side, but is right-handed; so does not find it easy to use the stairs at his local station as the signage does not follow good practice, requiring customers to walk on the left-hand side of the stairs.
Rail Engineer | Issue 206 | Jan-Feb 2024
66
STATIONS & PASSENGER TECHNOLOGIES
ACCESS AUDITS
PHOTO: ISTOCK.COM/ AGROBACTER
Whenever work of this kind is to be undertaken, access should be reviewed to see how it can be improved. Auditing access issues should also be part of the process of developing guidance, strategies, and implementation programmes. Where the area concerned is a historic environment, then the changes needed to improve accessibility should be made with sensitivity for the site environment. Early consultation with those responsible for managing a historic environment should ensure that any changes do not detract from the appearance of the area. The term PRM is a broad one. It includes people with physical, sensory, or mental impairment, and a conservative estimate is that between 12% and 13% of the population has some degree of impairment. It is essential that any design for people with mobility impairments should be to the highest possible standards. This requires knowledge of the capabilities of different types of people. There are many aspects of design of pedestrian environments that are helpful to all or most restricted mobility people (and many other rail customers). There are also some specific facilities needed by people with a particular kind of impairment. For example, manual wheelchair users need sufficient space to be able to propel the chair without banging their elbows or knuckles on door frames or other obstacles. When designing or modifying facilities the aim should be to be generous in the allocation of space. Someone who walks with sticks or crutches also needs more space. It’s the same for a long cane user or a person carrying luggage, a lot of shopping bags, or with small children. So, providing adequate clear space is of benefit to many customers. Designing for PRM requires obstacle free routes across and through stations and the type and dimensions can be found in the DfT Code and the National Technical Specification Notices for PRM. Similarly, visually impaired people need a good level of lighting and if information such as a timetable is displayed, the print size should be so that they can be
Rail Engineer | Issue 206 | Jan-Feb 2024
read easily. Almost everyone benefits from good lighting, as it gives a greater sense of security, and practically everyone finds reading timetables easier if the print is clear and large. More specific needs, however, can be just as important for people with certain types of impairment. An example outside of rail is the rotating cone below the push button box on a controlled pedestrian crossing. This is essential if a deafblind person is to know when the steady green man signal is lit.
SIGN LANGUAGE Customers with impairment issues can also be assisted by the appropriate use of technology, such as good clear intelligible Public Address (PA) systems for people with sighting impairment and good visual Customer Information Systems (CIS) for people with hearing impairment. However, there is more to inclusive accessibility than providing normal PA and CIS. Last year Network Rail’s managed stations were provided with touchscreens showing British Sign Language (BSL) travel announcements. This followed Euston station being the first to pilot the technology in 2021. The touchscreens were developed with LB Foster based in Nottingham, and sign language interpreters created a library of standard messaging as part of the screen software system. There is also a team of interpreters on standby to make bespoke signed information as situations evolve or during periods of unexpected disruption. Messaging can be turned into BSL and the videos uploaded directly to the screens using 4G. Some may assume that if someone is deaf then they can read, so why can’t a person with poor hearing just use the CIS? Many rail users with noise cancelling headphones never listen for train notices, and just read the CIS displays. Train stations can be hectic and train schedules can change, so surely it is quicker to read the displays. If BSL does help deaf people then would it be better to invest money in teaching station staff sign language so they can help with specific queries? The answer is BSL is its own language with its own vocabulary and grammar. It is not ‘English with your hands’. BSL is in a different order to spoken English, so for deaf people who rely fully on BSL reading something is not easy, hence they need an interpreter to translate for them. Research also indicates that deaf people’s reading age can be behind that of hearing people. For many deaf people, BSL is their native language, while written English is a second language. If someone can speak English then learning to read English is just learning the system that encodes the spoken language. But if a deaf person can only speak BSL, then learning to
STATIONS & PASSENGER TECHNOLOGIES
read English means they have to learn English at the same time as learning to read. This is why deaf people may struggle to read. Teaching station staff BSL isn’t that simple either. It takes at least a year of BSL Level 1 courses to learn the most basic of BSL, and at least seven years to become a fully qualified and registered interpreter. It also requires a lot of time and money to learn BSL. The deaf community has been campaigning for many years for something like the remote BSL translation displays, so it’s a welcome initiative by the industry and a good use of technology. Let’s hope other train operators take note.
Future funding for Access for All is not clear and it is unlikely that investment will be enough to ensure a fully accessible railway by 2030. Research by the Leonard Cheshire charity shows that to achieve this will require a significant increase to the current levels of funding. Follow the QR code for more information:
people must be incorporated from the earliest stage when taking forward the findings of the Williams Rail Review. » The UK Government must improve its data practices to better understand – and respond to – current barriers to using the transport network. The research and analysis provided in the Leonard Cheshire report presents the economic benefits of making the rail network fully accessible. » Disabled people should be able to expect the same standards of treatment as everyone else on their journeys. Leonard Cheshire says that accessing the right to use public transport services can be a fraught process and that improving awareness of the rights of disabled people, and how the rights are enforced is needed.
FUNDING As you might expect, making stations designed in the last century compliant with modern accessibility requirements is not straight forward or cheap, but it is absolutely the right thing to do and is an investment for the benefit of everyone. In 2005 the Government set aside funding to address compliance with the then DDA service provision. Out of this came the ‘Access for All’ programme, which aimed to maximise the service benefit by providing infrastructure changes in the form of an accessible ‘step free’ route from the station entrance to all platforms served by trains. After much detailed consultation the scheme was formerly launched by the DfT in February 2006 and has enabled around 200 stations to become ‘step-free’ and provided many other smaller-scale improvements to more than 1500 other stations. To date the funding for Access for All from Government has been:
The report recommends: » Governments across the UK, Wales, and Scotland must put in place a legally binding duty for all train journeys in Britain to be fully accessible by 2030, backed by a sufficient funding and implementation plan. » Renew the Public Sector Equality Duty with a focus on affirming the rights of disabled people to live independently. Principles of inclusive transport must be firmly established across Government and Train Operating Company standard practice, going beyond ‘accessibility’ considerations to a whole system approach. This includes embedding better inclusive training of station staff and tackling negative attitudes from the wider public. » Design public transport services and their delivery based on the experiences of the people that they are intended to serve. Comprehensive and continuous civic engagement with disabled
Programme
Year
Funding
Main Programme
2006-2015
£378m
Main Programme
2015-2020
£110m
Main Programme
2019-2024
£300m (including £50m deferred from 2015-2019)
Mid-Tier Programme
2012-2014
£37.5m
Small Schemes
2006-2016
£47.5m
BENEFITS OF GOOD ACCESSIBILITY The rail network fosters social inclusion by connecting people to homes, jobs, schools, colleges, hospitals, shops, leisure facilities, families, and friends. An inclusive railway ensures that everyone can make those connections and play an active role in their community and contribute to their local economy. Good accessibility should be a right and not thought of as a favour. Station design should include the needs of everyone, to deliver social benefits and commercial opportunities. When stations are more accessible and more people’s needs are met, then the rail industry will attract a broader range of customers including people with a range of impairments, and customers with luggage, wheelchairs and pushchairs. When stations meet customers’ needs more effectively, they are less likely to choose other transport modes. When customers have a positive user experience this helps to establish loyalty and a good reputation for the rail industry.
The author thanks Gary Tordoff of Tordoff Rail and Accessibility Consulting for his assistance with this article.
£5m-£7.5m was also made available for small scheme yearly between 2006-2016
Rail Engineer | Issue 206 | Jan-Feb 2024
67
68
PHOTO: DAVID SHIRRES
STATIONS & PASSENGER TECHNOLOGIES
Scotland’s latest
new station
TransPennine unit ‘Hailes Castle’ welcomed to East Linton station on its opening day
T
he UK mainline network had 2,581 stations as at the end of 2023. Last year saw the opening of seven stations: Reading Green Park; Marsh Barton near Exeter; Thanet Parkway; Portaway Park and Ride near Bristol; Headbolt Lane on Merseyrail; Brent Cross West; and East Linton in Scotland.
Since rail privatisation in 1994, 123 new UK mainline stations have been opened. Of these, 34 are in Scotland which comprises about 10% of the network. One reason why a higher percentage of new stations are opened in Scotland is that 13 of them are on newly opened rail lines. These are those shaded in the table. A further two stations will be opened when the Levenmouth branch is re-opened later this year. When it opened in 2015, the 35-mile-long Borders Railway was the UK’s longest new domestic railway to be built for over 100 years. Prior to this, the Scottish Borders was the only mainland region of Great Britain without a railway station. It now has four, three as a result of the Borders Railway and Reston station which opened in May 2022.
Rail Engineer | Issue 206 | Jan-Feb 2024
PHOTO: NETWORK RAIL
PHOTO:DAVID SHIRRES, BASE MAP – NETWORK RAIL
DAVID SHIRRES
PHOTO: TRANSPENNINE EXPRESS
East Linton station
STATIONS & PASSENGER TECHNOLOGIES
Station
Council
Year opened
1
Prestwick International Airport
South Ayrshire
1994
2
Camelon
Falkirk
1994
3
Sanquhar
Dumfries and Galloway
1994
4
Wallyford
East Lothian
1994
5
Drumfrochar
Inverclyde
1998
6
Dalgety Bay
Fife
1998
7
Dunfermline Queen Margaret
Fife
2000
8
Howwood
Renfrewshire
2001
9
Brunstane
Edinburgh
2002
10
Newcraighall
Edinburgh
2002
11
Beauly
Highland
2002
12
Edinburgh Park
Edinburgh
2003
13
Larkhall
South Lanarkshire
2005
14
Merryton
South Lanarkshire
2005
15
Gartcosh
North Lanarkshire
2005
16
Alloa
Clackmannanshire
2008
17
Laurencekirk
Aberdeenshire
2009
18
Blackridge
West Lothian
2010
19
Armadale
West Lothian
2011
20
Caldercruix
North Lanarkshire
2011
21
Conon Bridge
Highland
2013
22
Shawfair
Midlothian
2015
23
Eskbank
Midlothian
2015
24
Newtongrange
Midlothian
2015
25
Gorebridge
Midlothian
2015
26
Stow
Scottish Borders
2015
27
Galashiels
Scottish Borders
2015
28
Tweedbank
Scottish Borders
2015
29
Edinburgh Gateway
Edinburgh
2016
30
Robroyston
Glasgow
2019
31
Kintore
Aberdeenshire
2020
32
Reston
Scottish Borders
2022
33
Inverness Airport
Highland
2023
34
East Linton
East Lothian
2023
Reston station opening day
With the seven new stations provided by the Borders Railway, a total of 20 new stations within commuting distance of Edinburgh have opened over the past 30 years. As shown on the map, new station openings are not limited to the Scottish central belt with, for example, Inverness and Aberdeen having respectively three and two new stations within their catchment area.
PHOTO: NETWORK RAIL
Rail Engineer | Issue 206 | Jan-Feb 2024
69
70
STATIONS & PASSENGER TECHNOLOGIES
Platforms under construction with a gap left until new OLE gantries are provided PHOTO: NETWORK RAIL
Liftshafts in Position PHOTO: NETWORK RAIL
Footbridge being lifted into position PHOTO: NETWORK RAIL
Rail Engineer | Issue 206 | Jan-Feb 2024
EAST LINTON Between 1999 and 2013, no less than seven reports were produced considering new rail services in East Lothian and the eastern Scottish Borders. The last report noted that East Lothian had the highest rate of population growth in Scotland. It demonstrated that coach-based options did not meet the transport planning objectives and concluded that there was a strong socio-economic case and a good benefit cost ratio for new stations at Reston and East Linton. For Reston, the key benefit is regeneration of the Berwickshire area, while for East Linton the re-opening case is based more on achieving modal shift and sustainable development of the rapidly growing area. Both Reston and East Linton were provided with stations in 1846 with the opening of the Edinburgh to Berwick-upon-Tweed railway which is now the East Coast Main Line (ECML). Both these stations closed in May 1964 after being listed for closure in the Beeching report. A new station at Reston opened in May 2022 as reported in issue 196 (May-Jun 2022). This was followed by the recent opening of East Linton in December. As the original station was on a curve, the new station is on straight track further to the west. The £15 million East Linton station project, for which East Lothian Council has contributed £3.5 million, was built by BAM Nuttall and designed by ARUP. After a consultation exercise, planning permission for the station was submitted in December 2020 and approved in September 2021. This was for a station with two 158-metrelong platforms, fully accessible with step-free access across the railway via a footbridge with lifts, cycle storage facilities, a 114-space car park including 18 electric vehicle charging points, a bus shelter, and drop-off space. Preparatory site work commenced in December 2021 after which station platform piling started in February 2022. This was done on Saturday and Sunday nights until the end of March. Wherever possible, vibration piling was used to avoid neighbour disruption. Platform construction commenced in May with the use of a crane to lift platform sections onto the piles. As this progressed, a gap was left until two new overhead line equipment (OLE) gantries were installed early in June. These replaced single masts where the platforms were to be. Construction of the new station also required additional signals to be provided. The lift shafts were installed in September, followed by the footbridge in October 2022. This was followed by the provision of stairs, station fit out work, and the construction of the station car park.
STATIONS & PASSENGER TECHNOLOGIES
Opening day with (L to R) Scotland’s Railway’s Managing Director, Alex Hynes, Transport Minister Fiona Hislop and Transport Scotland’s Bill Reeve looking on PHOTO: NETWORK RAIL
On 13 December, the station opened with suitable ceremony at which Scottish Transport Minister Fiona Hyslop unveiled a plaque, with a piper and local school children greeting the first train. TransPennine Express also named its first unit to stop at the station after a local landmark, Hailes Castle. The new station is served by ScotRail and TransPennine Express and offers services to Edinburgh Dunbar and Newcastle. It has respectively 22, 23, and nine trains per day on weekdays, Saturdays, and Sundays. Around 130,000 journeys are expected to be made to and from station in the first year of its operation.
MARKLE CROSSING As described in the feature, the new East Linton station required OLE and signalling alternations. It has also accelerated plans to close the nearby halfbarrier crossing on the ECML, 1.6km northwest of East Linton station. With two fatalities in the past 15 years, this is regarded as a high-risk crossing. The
new station increases this risk as road users might become impatient with the longer wait for trains stopping at the station and weave through an open gap in the barriers. To eliminate this risk, Network Rail, in consultation with Transport Scotland, has developed an £8.7 million scheme to build a bridge over the ECML for which planning permission was received in May 2023.
Rail Engineer | Issue 206 | Jan-Feb 2024
71
72
STATIONS & PASSENGER TECHNOLOGIES
HS2 station control Left to right: Rob Morris Joint CEO Siemens Mobility UK and Managing Director for Rail Infrastructure and Software, and Paul Tomkinson HS2 Head of Stations Contracts Integration
MALCOLM DOBELL
PHOTO: SIEMENS MOBILITY
H
S2 is building four stations, which will be huge, even if Euston ends up only with six platforms. Old Oak Common is underground and, if the plans for over-site development go ahead, Euston will be underground too. Interchange and Birmingham Curzon Street will be on what will amount to extensive bridges. It’s no exaggeration to say that even non-public spaces at these stations will be larger than many older stations’ public spaces. As a result, there will be many systems to control and HS2 took an early decision that the same integrated information management and control system will be used for all four stations.
In mid-January 2024, at an event at the Siemens Mobility facility in Ashbyde-la-Zouch hosted by Rob Morris Joint CEO Siemens Mobility UK and Managing Director for Rail Infrastructure and Software, it was announced that HS2 had placed a contract valued at £47 million with Siemens. This is a framework contract that will be called off by the main contractor joint ventures building each station. Paul Tomkinson, HS2 Head of Stations Contracts Integration, explained that this approach will be used for other station systems that HS2 require to be common, such as lifts and escalators, LV power, and uninterruptable power supplies. The technology to be used is Siemens Mobility’s Digital Station Manager technology platform which is already in use on London’s Elizabeth line and which will “touch every stage of passengers’ journeys though the stations”. It will provide the Station Information Management System (SIMS) controlling systems such as lighting, fire, energy management, ventilation, platform barrier systems (at the through platforms), security (e.g. CCTV and intruder
Rail Engineer | Issue 206 | Jan-Feb 2024
detection), and the Customer Information System (CIMS) controlling public address and feeds to audio and visual systems, although it was made clear that the contract for the visual display screens is being completed separately.
A FACTORY TOUR The Ashby-de-la-Zouch site is Siemens’ UK HQ for Communication and Information Systems (C&IS) although the team works very closely with colleagues at its signalling HQ in Chippenham. A tour of the factory was led by Colin Rowcliffe, operations director for C&IS and Julian Randle, HS2 delivery lead. They demonstrated a replica of the equipment installed at the Elizabeth line’s Romford operations centre and at each of the underground stations. They explained that Siemens will maintain this replica for the life of the system and continue to support TfL with enhancements brought about by the experience of operating the railway, enabling any system issues at site to be replicated and investigated. Enhancements include: messages to
try and encourage customers seeking Heathrow T4 or T5 to catch the first train going to Heathrow, changing at Terminal 2, 3 stations if necessary, to providing more information about station stopping patterns especially on the western section because it is unusual that metro style services do not call at all stations. A typical operator’s workstation has three monitors, a keyboard and mouse, as well as a telephone terminal with handsets. Two of the monitors show graphical information which might be the line diagram showing where all the trains are located or a graphical information system (GIS) representation of a station. In each case the operator can zoom, scroll, and change layers to access more information or move around the (virtual) levels of the station. The third screen contains a text log of events, the seriousness of which is highlighted by colour. During the demonstration, an alarm was created which immediately appeared on the third screen. The operator was then able to locate the alarm on the GIS. Operators are able to access any of the 2,000 or so CCTV cameras remotely, and all are recorded locally.
STATIONS & PASSENGER TECHNOLOGIES
Developing different information screen presentation styles for Elizabeth line
PHOTO: MALCOLM DOBELL
Yasodha Sivanandam demonstrating a typical workstation
PHOTO: MALCOLM DOBELL
Three screens showing, L to R; schematic, physical layout and event log
PHOTO: MALCOLM DOBELL
With 3,000 suppliers, and a contract such as HS2’s where there are effectively five clients (HS2, each station JV, and possibly route-based signalling and SCADA systems) collaboration is vital. Rob said that he speaks with Howard Smith, TfL’s Elizabeth line director, on a weekly basis to ensure that Howard
Elizabeth line replica station control
PHOTO: MALCOLM DOBELL
PEOPLE
is getting what he needs from Siemens. Rob said that this type of collaborative relationship is replicated throughout the organisation. Rail Engineer observed that the people seen on site were generally relatively young. Rob said that when he started with Siemens eight years ago, the demographic was quite different and younger people had to be brought in to avoid what might have led to a loss of skills as older team members retired. Colin Rowcliffe said that the Ashby-de-la-Zouch site employs about 300 people of whom over 10% are trainees, and many more are employed on installation and configuration at customer sites. Julian added that he tries to populate project teams with a mix of experience levels especially for long term projects that ultimately lead to long-term operational support contracts. It would be unfortunate, for example, if all the members of a project team were experienced people who retired shortly after the end of the project – not good for ongoing support. Rob echoed these comments citing Siemens’ commitment to railway engineering skills through, for example, the National Training Academy for Rail based adjacent to Siemens rolling stock depot in Northampton. Asked about the future, Rob talked about an ever more competent workforce that would increasingly use software and would reflect the community. He thought that there would continue to be a skills shortage and hoped that tools such as artificial intelligence might help with routine software production, allowing humans to concentrate on complex and innovative tasks. He also forecasted that interlockings might be on computers hosted in data centres (i.e., in the cloud) rather than lineside. He is keen to find ways to reduce the amount of active lineside kit. No doubt, Rail Engineer will return to this project as it progresses.
PHOTO: SIEMENS MOBILITY
The replica system is a normal feature of telecoms control systems and visitors saw other replicas in use. They allow staff in the factory to analyse issues reported from the field and test fixes. Asked about remote connections and uploading software patches from Ashbyde-la-Zouch, Siemens’ engineers said that the replica is entirely separate and that they visit customers’ premises to carry out updates. For the Elizabeth line, as an example, engineers visit Romford and from there can update the operations centre system and each of the stations. The equipment being assembled appeared to this mechanical engineer to be largely standard IT racks, modules, brackets, and displays brought in from Siemens’ 3,000 suppliers, 47% of which are UK based SMEs. Some specialised equipment has to be manufactured and although Siemens outsources metal fabrication, it carries out assembly in house or, for large production runs, builds the prototype in house and has the production modules manufactured at the Chippenham factory. In a conversation about physical interface, Julian said that he is expecting the amount of on-site inspection and measurement, prior to manufacture and fit out, to be reduced because of HS2’s commitment to, and quality of, its building information management (BIM) system. He acknowledged that some visits will be necessary but not as often as was the case on previous jobs. It is the software – configuration of standard software and development of bespoke elements – that brings all this to life. Many of the functions are safety critical (for example, if a power system has to be isolated remotely the operator must be confident that the isolation has happened) and it is therefore important that proper processes and tools are employed. Siemens’ role is to apply/ develop control system software and throughout the tour the comment was heard: “Tools [and processes] are of paramount importance but are only as good as the people.”
73
A recent graduate of Siemens’ graduate scheme, SCADA design engineer Katie Roberts, HS2’s Paul Tomkinson and Siemens’ Julian Randle
Rail Engineer | Issue 206 | Jan-Feb 2024
74
FEATURE
Christmas
Works
2023 ALL PHOTOS: NETWORK RAIL
Greenhill Junction works
I
n the closing days of 2023, Network Rail and the rail supply chain delivered a substantial and complex programme of works valued at £127 million.
With decreased demand for rail travel, and the closure of the network on Christmas Day and Boxing Day, the festive period is an ideal time for extensive work, with minimal disruption for passengers. All those involved used the time wisely, taking on challenging works that will keep the country moving in the years ahead. Within the work bank, there were 32 individual projects delivering complex infrastructure renewals
or enhancements identified as RED through the Delivering Work Within Possessions (DWWP) assurance process. Unfortunately, we don’t have the space to comment on all the completed works, but the next few pages will give you a taste of the highlights.
EASTERN REGION
Beaulieu Park station. This project involves the construction of a new station and supporting infrastructure upgrades between Chelmsford and Hatfield Peverel, on the Great Eastern Mainline to support the new housing development in the Beaulieu Park area of Chelmsford. Works completed during the Network Rail engineers complete holidays included: (i) OLE - stage improvements in Doncaster 0.4 modification of both London and Country End Overlaps to the new loop and DN main; (ii) Permanent Way – the connection of a new Down Main and Loop line into the Down/Up main lines and installation of eight S&C ends; (iii) Signalling - test support for changeover of Cross Rail & Chelmsford North Feeders and modification works for introduction of new lines; and (iv) Electrification & Plant - Feeder changeover at PSP Chelmsford, supported by signalling. Issues encountered included below expected performance of PEM and LEM machinery during track installation.
Rail Engineer | Issue 206 | Jan-Feb 2024
FEATURE TRU Hope Valley Capacity Improvement Project
Stratford rewire. Originally part of the Great Eastern renewals, this work has missed delivery on previous attempts due to lack of access opportunities. The rewire will see improved reliability with the installation of new OLE equipment, replacing equipment that was installed in the 1960’s and has reached the end of its working life. During the festive period, new small part steel (SPS) was installed throughout wire run, 1,100 metres of redundant contact, auxiliary, and catenary wires were removed, and 1,100 metres of new contact and catenary wires for the B92 wire run were installed. New OLE tensioning devices were also installed at two locations. All works were completed with no accidents or incidents.
West Hampstead recontrol. The West Hampstead Power Signal box covers from St. Pancras buffer stops to Bedford North. Commissioned in 1979, its NX panels had approached the end of their useful life and had become increasingly unreliable. These works saw the successful recommissioning of the signal box from an NX Panel to WestCad workstations, ensuring afford safe and reliable railway performance for years to come. The project experienced significant issues post handback on the morning of the 27 December, ultimately traced to issues with the signalling data and design. This regrettably caused significant disruption on the Midland Main Line, Thameslink Core, and other neighbouring routes throughout the day incurring 4,929 delay minutes and 344 full or partial service cancellations.
Stratford rewire
Kentish Town Road Bridge. Work continued to strengthen this railway bridge which runs over the Midland Main Line. Kentish Town Road at its junction with Leighton Road was closed from Christmas Eve to Wednesday 27 December as engineers completed repairs to concrete and steel elements of the bridge, used high-pressure water to clean existing steel components, and applied a protective coating system to various parts of the steel structure. On the top of the bridge, two 25 tonne excavators demolished the parapet wall and a 350-tonne crane lifted out the old girders and installed new girders and precast concrete brick faced parapets.
TRU Hope Valley Capacity Improvement Project. The Hope Valley Project successfully delivered the replacement deck for TJC1/35 Bridge on the Sheffield side of Dore and Totley Station. There were some delays on site, due to unplanned shielding of a protected species (crayfish). The permanent way was renewed and tamped and opened back up to line speed with temporary joints, before the welding, stressing and follow up tamp is delivered in a 15-hour possession in week 40 of the project. All works were delivered, with nothing being curtailed.
NORTH WEST & CENTRAL REGION Bolton Le Sands Plain Line Track Renewal. This saw the renewal of 391 yards of the 125 mph Up Main on the West Coast Main Line between Lancaster and Carlisle. The work comprised of a mix of Cat 14 (complete renewal excavating to 400mm) and Cat 12 (reusing existing sleepers) renewals. This piece of track was classified as life expired, and the immediate benefits of the track renewal is a large reduction in maintenance requirements for this previously problematic area. It will also provide smoother, more reliable journeys for passengers. All track works were completed on time and handed back to scope. During the course of the work, the drainage associated with a local level crossing was damaged by a dozer. Repairs were subsequently made allowing the crossing to reopen a week later.
Rail Engineer | Issue 206 | Jan-Feb 2024
75
76
FEATURE
Lichfield Trent Valley Platform 3
Ardwick Signal Structures Renewal. Structural renewal and signalling works were carried out across nine signals in the Manchester Piccadilly and Ardwick areas, including the conversion of signal heads to LEDs. Following the work there will be increased reliability of infrastructure, resulting in fewer infrastructure failures and fewer delays to passengers. The new assets also require less maintenance, allowing for a reduced maintenance workload.
Lichfield Trent Valley Platform 3. This involved the replacement of the Platform 3 high level platform where the Birmingham Cross-City line crosses the West Coast Mainline. The previous structure was in very poor condition and had to undergo emergency works in May 2022. Platform 3 was then removed in July 2023. The platform has been upgraded to a compliant width and comprises of GRP elements, which should result in less onerous and regular maintenance. Work completed over the holiday period involved the installation of new steel/FRP platform, M&E, Comms & SISS. The programme fell behind during the core possession due to issues lining and levelling the platform once the sections had been lifted into position. The project had to curtail some activities to handback both lines on time on 27 December. Some of the remaining activities (CCTV, lighting etc) were completed under the CrossCity line blocks so the platform could open with contingent measures for the first train on 30 December.
Oxenholme Plain Line Track Renewal. This was the first of three core shifts for the site which totals 653 yards. The New Year bank holiday was utilised to allow the whole of the platform length to be delivered at once to prevent gauging issues and minimise future disruption to passengers and freight. The new track assets installed will reduce ongoing maintenance requirements and provide a more reliable section of railway through Oxenholme station. Works were delivered to plan, though the possession overran by 77 minutes, with 35 delay minutes incurred, due to RRV breakdowns, equipment failures and logistical issues on site. There was one incident where an RRV came into contact with the OLE in the platform area while loading sleepers onto train. The Carlisle OHLE team inspected the asset and found no damage.
SOUTHERN REGION Voltaire Road Junction. Voltaire Road Junction is located on the five track DC electrified section of track between Wandsworth Road and Clapham High Street stations, approximately two miles from Victoria. Works completed included the complete renewal of the S&C layout including 13 switches and 1x fixed diamond. Associated with the S&C renewal was 1,000 metres of plain line and conductor rail. Five new location cases to facilitate the new points operating equipment were also installed. The site was handed back at line speed. A substation circuit breaker failure during section proving activities delayed the hand back process.
Rail Engineer | Issue 206 | Jan-Feb 2024
WALES AND WESTERN REGION North Row Bridge & FNS2 Track Renewals. These planned works involved strengthening the bridge at FNS2 with extended permanent way works either side of the bridge to improve track quality. Works completed included the installation of new rail bearer top flange angles throughout the extent of the bridge, new cross bracings, main girder strengthening plates, a new timber deck, and 170-yard relay with new components and EG47 sleepers. The ballast depth across the bridge was increased from 50mm to 200mm. No significant issues were encountered during delivery and all works were delivered to plan. HS2 Old Oak Common drainage installation. This work saw the installation of three cross drains and 100 metres Linear Drainage in the Old Oak Common area. The work was required to facilitate the Conventional Station at Old Oak Common that will serve as an interchange with HS2. In total the project will deliver approximately 8,500m drainage both on and off track over the next four years. One person sustained an injury but returned to work on their next shift. All staff were briefed on appropriate manual handling. The team worked well to mitigate unknown buried services with no risk to handback. Kennet Loop S&C Renewal. Life expired points and operating equipment were renewed - replaced with modern equivalents. All works were completed as planned, though there were challenges around getting line blockages for unloading the tilting wagons, and the passing of trains from other works delayed on site progress, requiring activities to be revised. An OTM breakdown slowed progress and additional time for welding required was required.
FEATURE
SCOTLAND Greenhill Signalling Resilience Project. This project involved the renewal of life expired assets and replacing the existing Greenhill GEC Geographical Interlocking with a full trackside Computer Based Interlocking. This was achieved by installing a new WESTLOCK with Westrace Trackside System (WTS) and by extending the existing Larbert WESTLOCK which will interface to the IECC scalable control system. Greenhill is located at a critical junction on the main Edinburgh to Glasgow key route; the works were planned to incorporate the delivery of an associated enhancement at Carmuirs West, renewal of train detection equipment on the Stepps lines, and support the integrated delivery of the remodelling of Greenhill Upper Junction. Weather related challenges slowed progress and impacted cable insulation testing.
Greenhill Upper Junction. Works completed included the renewal of 11 point ends and 992 yards of Cat 11/16 plain line renewal during an eight-day possession. OLE was also commissioned on thecore routes to allow for remodelling of Greenhill Upper Junction and an upgrade to the Distribution Network Operator’s supply to accommodate new points heating. An operational incident occurred when an RRV passed a recently tested insulated block joint, which in turn closed Greenhill Lower Junction. The investigation is ongoing.
Track work at Greenhill Junction
Craigentinny Plain Line Track Renewal. The Scotland Rail System Alliance undertook the renewal of life-expired plain line track assets at Craigentinny Junction South. Work included renewing rail, sleepers and ballast over 2062 yards on the ECM8 Down East Coast Main Line.
The renewal will reduce the risk of future speed restrictions being imposed which would result in increased passenger journey times. Improved track quality will further reduce heavy maintenance over this section resulting in a smoother ride for passengers. Issues for the works over Christmas relate primarily to obtaining key staff (Machine Controllers). This was due to the volume of work taking place across the region over the period, however all works were completed as programmed. Dundee Station ‘444 Points’.This is a critical set of points that allows trains to commence/terminate in Platform 1. This is a frequently used set of S&C which had come to the end of its service life and required heavy refurbishment. Due to the deteriorating condition of the asset, Works Delivery Scotland was engaged to design, procure, and install new S&C panels including points operating equipment, along with renewing the ballast via a full dig and replenishing with fresh top stone. The renewal of ballast down to formation has also improved the drainage at a location where flooding has been prevalent in the past.
PERFORMANCE AND HANDBACKS Of the planned 1,714 network wide possessions that took place between 23 December and 2 January, there were eight service impacting possession overrun incidents, two of which were linked to the delivery of a major ‘red ranked’ scheme. The most significant possession overrun occurred in the Orpington area, where during the course of S&C maintenance activities, the team encountered difficulties when installing new closure rails during the final stages of work. This incurred 1,586 delay minutes on the morning of 27 December to passengers using Southeastern services in the area. The two possession overruns linked to the delivery of ‘red ranked’ schemes occurred at Oxenholme (NW&C), where 35 delay minutes were incurred following an RRV failure and equipment breakdowns during the course of the work, and at Barking (Eastern) where 34 delay minutes were incurred following a 21-minute possession overrun resulting from complications during the possession handback process.
Given that the total number of possession overrun delay minutes incurred was 1,751 minutes across 8 incidents and the total number of booked possessions across the wider business was 1,714, this represents a successful possession hand back rate of 99.5% - a moderate improvement on previous years. It must be noted, however, that whilst work to recontrol West Hampstead Power Signal Box (Eastern) was handed back on time, an unidentified signalling data design issue resulted in an inability to signal trains on part of the new West Hampstead workstation, causing notable and widespread disruption across the Midland Main Line and Thameslink groups of services and incurring approximately 5,000 delay minutes. While the fault was subsequently identified and rectified, work is underway with Network Rail, Siemens and Linbrooke teams (delivery partners for the scheme), led by the Rail Investment Centre of Excellence, to fully understand the nature of the issue, the events that led to the fault, and key learning points.
SAFETY In total, over the Christmas and New Year period, there were two reported accidents, zero reported environmental incidents, and four reported general incidents/close calls. The first reported accident took place within the TRU Hope Valley Capacity Improvement Project worksite where a Network Rail member of staff tripped on ballast and broke their arm. The colleague was taken to hospital and a care plan agreed. The second accident took place on the Old Oak Common drainage worksite where a manual handling injury occurred. This was deemed to be a minor injury and, following appropriate treatment, the injured person returned to work on their next shift. The teams were re-briefed on manual handling techniques following the event.
THANK YOU Rail Engineer would like to thank everyone involved in these works for devoting their time and energy over the holiday period. Your commitment to making the network safer and more reliable for all is a credit to the whole industry.
Rail Engineer | Issue 206 | Jan-Feb 2024
77
78
FEATURE
Pre Metro Operations Ltd and the Revolution VLR team in front of their lightweight RVLR vehicle which has been specifically designed to operate a light rail service on restored railways
Light Rail:
Re-evaluating infrastructure strategies
I
n recent years, the escalating costs of light rail projects have prompted urban planners and policymakers to re-evaluate transport infrastructure strategies. One emerging approach is leveraging existing heavy rail infrastructure, which potentially offers significant value for money alongside other benefits of using established heavy rail routes or mothballed branch lines.
Increased light rail costs in the UK are understandably preventing the expansion of the tram network, begging the question as to why light rail in the UK costs close to 300% more than the current worldwide average. It is true that scheme cost reporting and political controls do have an impact on project costs and make precise comparison difficult, but even when you normalise the cost of utility diversions, poor procurement, and
Local charity students using the Shuttle
Rail Engineer | Issue 206 | Jan-Feb 2024
planner bureaucracy, it still costs at least double to build a light rail project in the UK when compared to average global costs.
AFFORDABLE GROWTH Inflationary impacts and Covid-based delays, along with the UK preference for ‘developing a place’ (refurbishing the whole street or area as opposed to the track width), have all been cited as reasons why UK schemes are more costly, but in truth the work scope and specifications are similar in many countries, so why the huge variance? Apparently, no one knows, so it should be no surprise that urban light rail schemes stand a far greater chance of being built abroad than here in the UK. This lack of financial control or accountability should not be ignored, we must ask and keep asking the question: how can we support patronage growth more affordably and effectively? Utilising existing heavy rail infrastructure presents several advantages. Foremost, it can lead to substantial cost savings. Retrofitting, repurposing, or upgrading heavy rail lines eliminates the need for extensive new construction, thereby reducing material and labour costs. Time efficiency is another critical benefit; existing tracks and stations can be adapted much quicker than building from scratch, accelerating project timelines.
FEATURE
STOURBRIDGE SHUTTLE A notable example of innovative railway use in the UK is the Stourbridge Shuttle. This ‘Very Light Rail’ service operates on the short, Stourbridge branch line using a light, energy-efficient railcar, and has carried more than seven million passengers since operations began in 2009. The Stourbridge Shuttle is renowned for its low operational costs and energy efficiency, thanks to its unique use of a Class 139 Parry People Mover, a vehicle much lighter than conventional
trains. This approach exemplifies how adapting existing rail infrastructure for lighter, more cost-effective vehicles can result in substantial savings. It also highlights the potential for increased frequency of services and reduced environmental impact. The Stourbridge model demonstrates how small-scale adaptations in rail systems can lead to significant operational efficiencies and sustainability benefits. By focusing on practical and local solutions, it provides a compelling case for rethinking urban rail transport strategies.
Original shuttle prototype (2007)
Moreover, repurposing heavy rail infrastructure aligns with sustainable development goals. It minimises land use and reduces environmental impacts associated with new construction. This approach also leverages the established connectivity of heavy rail systems, enhancing the accessibility and reach of public transportation networks. Oswestry-Gobowen, March-Wisbech, Walsall-Lichfield; all are key examples that could utilise Light Rail rolling stock to provide an economic and efficient solution to local transport demands in a shortterm time frame. If route extensions are required and patronage is over-subscribed in 10 to 20 years, then upgrade the line to traditional light rail, tram-train, or even a heavy rail system at a later date, when patronage and demand have been not only proven but also developed. With light rail projects facing escalating costs, utilising our existing railway infrastructure offers a cost-effective and necessary alternative. Urban planners and policymakers should consider this approach to maximise value for money, ensuring sustainable, efficient, and financially viable public transportation solutions.
Rail Engineer | Issue 206 | Jan-Feb 2024
79
80
FEATURE
SIGEX 2023 Andy Doherty speaking at SIGEX 2023
DAVID FENNER
ALL PHOTOS: RIA
P
rior to the pandemic, Network Rail ran an annual conference to encourage innovation in signalling and control technology. Obviously, during lockdown such meetings were not possible and the conferences stopped. This year the Railway Industry Association (RIA) worked in partnership with Network Rail to revive the idea and organised RIA SIGEX 2023. The event took place on 21 November at The Venue, De Montfort University, Leicester. A key tenet of the original event, successfully carried forward to the revised format, is to highlight innovation, either technical or in the way work is organised, with the intent of bringing down the price of signalling and control systems which is approaching being unaffordable in the UK. Another key tenet was to keep the event affordable for all with minimal cost to exhibitors and free for attendees. The conference was organised by RIA and supported by Network Rail and Kilborn Consulting. It was organised around a number of exhibits in the large hall where companies displayed ideas supporting innovation across the signalling and control sector. A number of presentations were given in the auditorium highlighting the critical needs of the industry. Between these presentations there was time to listen to outlines of some of the exhibits and to network with others involved with signalling and control systems.
RIA OBJECTIVES The main presentations opened with a welcome and summary of the role and objectives of RIA from Technical Director David Clarke. Some of the key questions he asked included: Is decarbonisation on target? What should we assume about future growth and how does this affect decisions on current and future rolling stock requirements? What are the priority routes for electrification? On the decarbonisation targets, the plans for rail are significantly behind those set by the Department for Transport (DfT) in its July
Rail Engineer | Issue 206 | Jan-Feb 2024
2021 decarbonisation plan and consequently many of the other plans are currently uncertain. It was also emphasised that the recent curtailment of HS2 leaves additional unanswered questions about what is required and what will be necessary.
Martin Jones
FEATURE
SUSTAINABLE SIGNALLING RENEWALS David’s presentation was followed by Martin Jones of Network Rail who talked about Target 190 plus. The industry challenge is that the cost of signalling renewals significantly exceeds the budget available whilst at the same time the volume of work is greater than the available resources can deliver. Add to those challenges the fact that like for like renewals will fail to deliver any significant safety benefit (because they would not include automatic train protection and such renewals require significant track access to deliver and maintain, resulting in greater disruption to railway users) and it becomes clear that significant innovation is needed to sustain the railway in the longer term. So, the challenge is to reduce the current ETCS level 2 Signalling Equivalent Unit (SEU) cost from circa £315,000 to around or below £190,000 by or soon after 2029. Three primary pillars support the objective. The right technology, the right tools, and the right processes. Technically, ETCS is supported by EULYNX which itself aims to ensure a compatible component interface to increase flexibility in product choice, hybrid train detection, and ATP/ ATO with good traffic management. The right tools include, getting option selection right first time, creating a synthetic environment which supports greater levels of automation, and understanding the opportunities created so that timetabling can maximise the benefits. Process works need to focus on methods of design and validation that are simpler, easier, and quicker to use. All of this needs innovation to deliver successfully. There is a three-phased approach which recognises: first, the need for research and development to create the innovative ideas; second, a transition phase to ensure that workable ideas are embedded in future work processes; and third, when all ongoing work adopts the revised methods. At present it is anticipated that phase one and part of phase two will be completed during CP6 with the remaining parts of phase two and deployment occurring during CP7.
TESTING AND VALIDATION Following Martin, Luisa Moisio from RSSB discussed better and quicker testing and validation. This talk looked at the classic V-model life cycle from the very start of the business requirement right through to the decommissioning of a system at the end of its useful life. The key topic of the presentation was the increased use of data and modelling to deliver reliable outputs that confirm successful delivery of the required system with the right parameters of safety, functionality, and cost.
Luisa Moisio
It is of course important to have good quality models, including digital twins, and to have suitably rich data and the ability to analyse this data to achieve the objective. Finally, it is important that all these things fit together properly to ensure the tests are both realistic and can emulate the stresses the system is likely to encounter when in use.
SYNTHETIC ENVIRONMENT After a break to tour the exhibition and discuss innovations with individual suppliers there were further presentations in the afternoon. These opened with Rubina Greenwood from Network Rail discussing its Synthetic Environment. The idea here is to have suitable processes and systems in place from the original business requirement through to hand back to the asset steward, such that the whole project runs as seamlessly as practical. Initial development work is underway and it is planned that trial use should begin in 2025, operating in shadow mode to make sure it achieves the objectives set. One key requirement for such a system is a common data environment where most if not all data is exchanged in well-defined formats.
GLOBAL CENTRE OF RAIL EXCELLENCE The presentations continued with an outline of the evolution of the Global Centre of Rail Excellence (GCRE) by Andy Doherty. Andy outlined the services GCRE is planning to offer which include rolling stock testing, infrastructure systems innovations including accelerated whole life testing, and showcasing new products in a controlled environment. A major advantage of the GCRE is its availability 24 hours a day, seven days a week, and that it is being established to be risk tolerant rather than risk averse. This means that, provided appropriate controls are in place, certain risks will be tolerated whereas in other locations those risks would prevent work occurring.
Rail Engineer | Issue 206 | Jan-Feb 2024
81
82
FEATURE
This of course is a particular benefit of an independent test site that is not part of an operational network. Progress with GCRE can be summarised as follows: » Initial investment from Welsh and UK governments is available. » Private sector investment is being sought. » It is expected to commence earthworks in the first quarter of 2024 with railway works commencing a year later. » The facility is expected to be fully functional by 2026/7, although some small-scale testing should be possible before then. » Further development of the site is expected to continue in subsequent years.
NATIONAL ETCS TEST LABORATORY George Walker and Chris Winter from AtkinsRéalis then gave a talk about the National ETCS Test Laboratory (NET-LAB). In 2020, AtkinsRéalis was awarded a 10-year contract to provide support services to Network Rail for the testing and laboratory demonstration of compliance of ETCS products with the Technical Specifications for Interoperability (TSI) and national reference design to support product acceptance. The aim was to give a level of independence and to reduce the volume of on-site testing. NET-LAB will offer independent testing with suitable levels of automation offering repeatable 24-hour testing of many of the products and interfaces involved in an ETCS application.
Alexandra Luck
Robert McGeachy and Ben Orcan
Rail Engineer | Issue 206 | Jan-Feb 2024
The overall laboratory has an on-board gateway linked to a trackside gateway enabling both the train borne and trackside systems to be tested. The tests are conducted through an orchestrator which runs the required test scenarios, manages any necessary simulations, records the results, and ensures suitable repeatability of any tests.
DIGITAL TWINS Following further exhibition browsing time, Robert McGeachy and Ben Orcan from Thales talked about Digital Twins. This emphasised the increasing rate of change and the dynamic growth of interconnectivity with its effects on automation, before outlining how simulation and digital twins in the general sense offer ways of understanding these systems. They concluded by outlining some of the applications in areas of transport which have a safety critical element. Their talk was followed by another from Alexandra Luck from the Department for Business and Trade outlining the national Digital Twin Programme. This final presentation had four framework components: operating frameworks, data and technology, skills and engagement, and finally demonstrators. The operating framework looked at a wide range of issues such as legal issues, ethics, and sustainability amongst others, whilst the technology section encompassed integration, understanding data sources and quality, and model interoperability. In terms of skills, there are the current gaps in understanding when and how to use the results and issues around how those skills may change over time as the technology improves. In terms of demonstrators, two topics were presented with respect to transport, their use by the DfT itself, and the planned use of Digital twins by the GCRE project. Overall, the day was useful for getting an understanding of the topics that will influence operations in the future and appreciating some of the innovations currently in progress that could help the railway, in particular railway signalling and control becoming more effective and affordable in the future. A key takeaway was the increasing need for the railway to speak with one voice, especially to government, if it is to obtain the funding needed to progress many much-needed projects. Feedback from the event was overwhelmingly positive with some excellent networking both during and in a local pub afterwards. Consequently the RIA plan to run the event again next year at a venue yet to be determined but on Tuesday 26 November. A date for your diaries.
CAREERS
OPPORTUNITIES AVAILABLE NOW! PROJECT MANAGERS ASSET MANAGERS PROJECT ENGINEERS
COMMERCIAL MANAGERS PLANNERS SYSTEMS ENGINEERS
CONTACT US TODAY TO DISCUSS YOUR NEXT OPPORTUNITY 01483 361 061 | info@advance-trs.com
ADVANCE-TRS.COM
Find your role!
Job r upda oles te daily d
What is RailwayPeople.com? RailwayPeople.com is the largest dedicated rail job board in the UK. How can it help me? With the top career opportunities updated daily, your next move is a fingertip away. What should I do? Visit RailwayPeople.com today to find your next role and become an essential part of the UK’s rail industry to help the nation build back better.
visit: www.RailwayPeople.com / email: rp@rail-media.com / telephone: 01530 816 450
Rail Engineer | Issue 206 | Jan-Feb 2024
83
Together WE
GO BEYOND
Signalling a career in Western Australia Signaller / Network Controller Career Opportunities About Arc Infrastructure Arc Infrastructure manages and develops transport infrastructure assets that support growth and create jobs in Western Australia (WA). Rail is at the heart of our business, and the 5,500km rail network is the backbone of freight transport in Western Australia. Spanning a region around the same area as continental Europe, from the Midwest across to the Goldfields, and through to the stunning South West and Great Southern.We’re committed to working with industry, our customers, partners and communities to find new opportunities that will support and strengthen our rail network for the benefit of WA.
The Opportunity
Careers at Arc Infrastructure
Arc Infrastructure’s network control team is critical to our business, and responsible for the safe, economical, and effective monitoring and control of train services across our entire rail network.
Arc Infrastructure has created a culture of team work where diverse skills, ideas, and experience are valued. We promote a work environment that is characterised by personal accountability, mutual trust, and respect. At Arc, we take a genuine interest in our employees and their development. We understand our employees are the key to our success and, as a team, our focus is to ensure they feel safe, valued and fulfilled in the work that they do.
We currently have opportunities for experienced Signallers / Network Controllers to join our team and make a difference on our network.
About you The successful applicant will be an experienced Signaller/Network Controller who remains calm under pressure, is motivated, and is an excellent communicator. You will be provided with in-house theoretical and on the job training. From our Perth-based network control centres, our experienced network controllers will work with you to help you adapt your skills and experience to our network. You will be working 12-hour shifts on a rolling roster over an average 38 hour working week.
We will provide the successful applicant with a competitive remuneration package starting at $102,000 base salary, plus annual shift allowance of $27,663, plus employer superannuation contributions of 11%. In addition, we offer a benefits package including Visa sponsorship and relocation assistance.
ARC’S RECRUITMENT PROCESS Arc Infrastructure will be in the UK as part of our recruitment drive in early 2024, please scan the QR code to apply. www.arcinfra.com