Rail Engineer - Issue 194 | January-February 2022

by rail engineers for rail engineers

JAN-FEB 2022 – ISSUE 194

The London & Birmingham Railway

Network Rail engineers delivered crucial work over the Christmas and New Year period.

TRACK SYSTEM DESIGN & CONSTRUCTION Rhomberg Sersa Rail Group demonstrates the benefits of slab track at the Barking Riverside Extension.

www.railengineer.co.uk

SURVEYING & ASSET MANAGEMENT

HOLIDAY HEROES

ROLLING STOCK & DEPOTS

Derailment and spillage results in environmental disaster at site of special scientific interest.

FOCUS FEATURES

LLANGENNECH

STATIONS & PASSENGER TECHNOLOGIES

Curzon Street station

Watch // TRS CEO Paul Bateman talking about HVO at Rail Live 2021

Scan this //

total rail sustainable Total Rail Solutions ditches diesel and switches to a cleaner, greener fuel for a more sustainable rail network .

•

Alternative HVO fuel from Crown Oil to be supplied in all plant

•

Further improving the environmental impact on the rail network

We are one of the first hirers in rail to make this change and are committed to protecting all our futures.

Visit totalrailsolutions.co.uk or call 01962 711642 to find out more

40 CONTENTS 06| 12| 16| 22|

31

28| 31| 38| 42| 48| 52|

Notices:

Union and Scottish transport reviews published and repairs on the Royal Border bridge.

Customer focus for Great British Railways

Clive Kessell asks if line closures and bus replacements are too frequent, and whether rail has a ‘blockade mentality’.

The London & Birmingham Railway – Curzon Street Station

Hugh Fenwick gives us a brief history of Curzon Street Station, which will be resurrected as part of HS2.

Making the UK train dispatch process safer

During the early stages of New Street Station’s resignalling project, attention was turned to improving the train dispatch process.

26

26|

Twinfix – illuminating shelter solutions

We take a look at this family-run business which has provided glazing solutions to stations across the country.

76

Protecting staff from SPADS

Sheffield-based Zonegreen is working to limit the risk of SPADs in depots with its Depot Personnel Protection System.

Track system design & construction for Barking Riverside Extension

Slab track is no longer a niche solution as Rhomberg Sersa Rail Group demonstrated on this high-profile project.

IRSE Minor Railways Section Biennial Technical Seminar

The IRSE held its seventh such seminar at Kidderminster Railway Museum. Paul Darlington reports.

Derailment, fire, and fuel spillage at Llangennech This major incident saw 33,000 litres of fuel drain into surrounding wetlands. Malcolm Dobell and David Shirres investigate.

Unlocking Innovation - RailDecarb21

David Shirres provides a report on this RIA workshop, held in Glasgow in the run up to COP26.

RAMS for good asset management

Paul Darlington explains more about this decision-making tool which is essential to rail infrastructure projects.

3

58| 64| 70| 73| 76|

Reforming Britain’s Railways

An online conference in January looked at the opportunities and risks emerging from the IRP. Clive Kessell logged in.

IMechE & COP26

An official observer to COP26, IMechE used the platform to highlight the role of engineers in tackling climate change.

IMechE responds to GBRTT

The GBR Transition Team has called for evidence from interested parties to shape its strategic plan. IMechE has considered its response.

Professional Institutions: the IET

In Issue 192 we began looking at the benefits of joining a professional engineering institution. In this issue we cover the IET.

Holiday heroes

Network Rail made the most of Christmas and New Year, tackling extensive and challenging projects to keep the country moving.

Rail Engineer | Issue 194 | Jan-Feb 2022

4

EDITORIAL EDITORIAL

FOR THE WANT OF A

torque wrench A loose 10mm nut caused the derailment of ten 100-tonne tanker wagons at Llangennech, resulting in a fire and the spillage of nearly half a million litres of oil. Malcolm Dobell’s report explains how such an apparently small failing led to such a serious event and shows that, on a hi-tech railway, the basic nuts and bolts of engineering must not be forgotten. For example, the difference between a properly torque wrench tightened bolt and one with insufficient pre-load is a fraction of a spanner’s turn.

Yet the Llangennech derailment was about so much more than a loose nut. The RAIB report shows wagon work to be the Cinderella of rolling stock maintenance with depot facilities being ‘suboptimal’ for safety critical wagon maintenance. It also found significant deficiencies in maintenance practice and regulatory oversight.

In a strongly worded statement, RAIB’s Chief Inspector Simon French stressed the need for improvement as deficient wagon maintenance has factored in more than 10 investigations over the last decade. The comprehensive recommendations in the RIAB report must surely bring the required improvement.

A further aspect of the Llangennech derailment was that a hot axle box detector (HABD), which was 14 minutes running time before the derailment, could have prevented the derailment had it alerted the signaller. This had both bearing and wheel temperature sensors which detected abnormally high wheel temperatures on one wagon. However, although this provided useful information for the RAIB investigation, it was not configured to provide alerts despite dragging brakes being a known derailment risk. A possible factor in this respect is that Network Rail own the HABD but have no responsibility for defective wagons.

By bringing together the management of infrastructure and trains, Great British Railways (GBR) should provide an improved whole system approach. To shape its strategic plan the GBR transition team has called for evidence from interested parties. We describe the Institution of Mechanical Engineers’ response which highlights the benefits this approach in respect of issues such as maximising

Rail Engineer | Issue 194 | Jan-Feb 2022

capacity, skills and development, the integration of rolling stock and infrastructure projects, innovation, and line closures for engineering work.

However GBR develops, the railway can only provide the required customer service with reliable assets that are available when required. We explain how the RAMS process supports this by considering the relationship between reliability, availability, maintainability, and safety and why this must be an essential part of any project or asset management system.

5

THE TEAM Editor David Shirres david.shirres@railengineer.co.uk

Production Editor Matt Atkins matt@rail-media.com

Production and design Adam O’Connor adam@rail-media.com

Engineering writers bob.wright@railengineer.co.uk clive.kessell@railengineer.co.uk collin.carr@railengineer.co.uk graeme.bickerdike@railengineer.co.uk lesley.brown@railengineer.co.uk malcolm.dobell@railengineer.co.uk mark.phillips@railengineer.co.uk

The increasing number of line closures concerns Clive Kessell who considers that a ‘blockade mentality’ results in excessive passenger disruption that would not have been allowed in previous years. The conflict between railway engineering access and passenger requirements is a difficult balance, yet current practice does not seem to be putting customers first. Some in the industry believe that this is due to financial pressures which result in a single point focus on narrowly defined engineering costs.

Hopefully, GBR will take a broader view on this and other issues. Our ‘Reforming Britain’s Railways’ feature outlines some of the challenges faced by GBR which includes working with devolved administrations.

This also features in the Union Connectivity Review which concludes that the UK needs a strategic network of multi-modal corridors between Britain’s four nations. However, this does not include a fixed link to Northern Ireland. We report on this and the recently published Scottish Transport Projects Review.

The first railway connecting two UK nations was completed in 1850 when the Royal Border Bridge at Berwick opened to complete the rail link between London and Edinburgh. It now requires a major repair programme as Bob Wright reports. An earlier railway was London’s first inter-city railway to Birmingham which opened in 1838 to reduce the journey time between the two cities

DAVID SHIRRES

RAIL ENGINEER EDITOR

to a then remarkably quick 4 hours and 48 minutes. At Birmingham, this terminated at Curzon Street station which was a passenger station for only 16 years. Huw Fenwick explains why in an article describing the history of this station which is about to be reborn 200 years later as part of HS2.

In the latest of our articles on the professional engineering institutions, we feature the multidisciplinary Institution of Engineering and Technology (IET) and explain how this worldwide establishment can trace its 150-year pedigree. Prior to COP26, the IMechE staged two events, one on refocusing the railway in a post-pandemic world and a two-day event ‘Engineering a net-zero future’. Another pre-COP26 event was the Railway Industry Association’s RailDecarb21 Unlocking Innovation event. Although it is now some months since COP26, our reports on these events remain highly relevant.

Preserved railways are particularly good at introducing innovative signalling technologies to supplement their 19th century mechanical equipment. As Paul Darlington explains the heritage S&T community is supported in this, and other aspects, by the IRSE’s Minor Railways Section.

It is not that long since the Christmas period, which offered railway project managers the gift of a railway shutdown. As Rail Engineer reports, this enabled the delivery of over £133 million of engineering works in 1,900 possessions that incurred far fewer delays from overruns than in recent years. We should not forget the thousands of rail professionals who miss their Christmas times to do this work, often in foul weather, which gives passengers an improved, more reliable railway.

paul.darlington@railengineer.co.uk peter.stanton@railengineer.co.uk stuart.marsh@railengineer.co.uk

Advertising Asif Ahmed

asif@rail-media.com

Chris Davies

chris@rail-media.com

Craig Smith

craig@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 194 | Jan-Feb 2022

6

NOTICES

Union and Scottish transport reviews published Following the publication of Sir Peter Hendy’s Union Connectivity Review in November, the second Scottish Strategic Transport Projects Review (STPR2) was published in January. As will be seen, the two reports which have differing objectives and methodology yet are consistent where their scopes overlap.

London to Edinburgh train crosses Royal Border Bridge at Berwick.

The Union Connectivity Review (UCR) followed an interim report published in March as reported in issue 189 (March-April 2021). It recognised that devolution had been good for transport within the devolved administrations but noted that there was a gap in UK-wide strategic planning.

UKNET The UCR’s most important recommendation was for the Government to develop UKNET, a strategic network of multi-modal corridors for the whole of the UK which would connect all the nations with appropriate funding and coordination with the devolved administrations to deliver it. Following the publication of the report, the Prime Minister welcomed publication of the report and advised that he intends to accept the proposal to create UKNET.

DAVID SHIRRES

Rail Engineer | Issue 194 | Jan-Feb 2022

Other recommendations concerned specific aspects of these corridors. These included increasing rail capacity between Scotland and London, the Midlands, and the North West by upgrading West Coast Main Line and HS2; upgrading the A75 to Cairnryan port for Northern Ireland; and improved connectivity within the two discrete cross-border economic areas of North Wales - North West England and South Wales - Greater Bristol Area. UCR considered that where journeys are too long to be reasonably undertaken by road or rail there should be financial incentives to promote domestic aviation.

It also recommended measure to improve freight flows and decarbonise transport.

The review promoted the case for faster London-to-Scotland rail journey times to attract modal shift from air to rail. At the current base case of 4 hours 30 minutes, 70% of traffic is by air. Forecasts indicate that when HS2 phase 2b reduces the journey time to 3 hours 50 minutes, air traffic will be reduced to 45% and that if journey time can be reduced to 3 hours air traffic will be 25% of the total.

No fixed link The most newsworthy part of the UCR was its consideration of a fixed link between Northern Ireland and Great Britain. This was the subject of a separate report which was also the most expensive part of the review, accounting for £897,000 out of the £2 million cost for the whole UCR exercise.

This fixed link report sifted various options to conclude that the 39km link between Stranraer and Bangor was most viable. However, this would have to cross over or go under Beaufort Dyke in the North Channel. This is up to 300-metres deep and had around a million tonnes of ammunition dumped into it after the two world wars.

ON THE RIGHT TRACK FOR ACOUSTIC, T H E R M A L A N D PA S S I V E F I R E P E R F O R M A N C E With over 45 years’ experience, Siderise passive fire and acoustic insulation systems provide high-performance solutions for the rail industry without compromise. Coaches built incorporating our rigorously tested thermo-acoustic insulation, benefit from improved sound absorption, reduced sound transmission and improved reaction-to-fire performance to EN45545-2. The result, all-round comfort and peace of mind – from roof, to floor, to walls.

•

Exceptional thermal and acoustic performance

•

Thermo-acoustic insulation rail products are independently tested for fire, smoke and toxicity performance (to EN45545-2)

•

In-house acoustic engineers to assist with product selection

•

Wide range of products including vibration damping materials

Get on the right track at siderise.com

8

NOTICES

The Scottish National Transport Strategy’s transport hierarchy.

The report concluded that both a rail only tunnel and a combined road/rail bridge would be technically feasible, but they would be the longest ever built. The bridge would be particularly challenging. It would need seven main spans of 3,750 metres requiring 700-metre-high pylons in unprecedented water depths of up to 165 metres. This would require cutting-edge 21st century technology.

In addition, significant expenditure would be required on road and rail connections. The 160-kilometre route between Gretna and Stranraer would require both a new rail line and upgrading the A75 to full dual carriageway.

New rail lines would also be needed in Northern Ireland, particularly in view of its 1600mm gauge.

The fixed link report concluded that, together with their new transport links, the respective cost of bridge and tunnel crossings would be £335 billion and £209 billion and that it would take 30 years before this could be operational.

Hendy considered that such costs are impossible to justify and recommended there should be no further work on the fixed link.

UCR and STPR2 methodology

Assessment of STPR2 recommendations against Scottish National Transport Strategy’s objectives.

The UCR report aims to bring regions together to bring economic benefits and notes that this will provide a return many times greater than the total cost of the required infrastructure.

Another key consideration is levelling up, for which the review engaged with the Prime Minister’s Levelling Up Advisor. The UCR also considers the need for decarbonisation by aligning itself to the aims of the UK Government’s Transport Decarbonisation Plan.

UCR sought views from numerous stakeholders and also commissioned a survey of travel between England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. A public call for evidence also received 147 submissions on a range of issues about travel between the UK’s four nations.

STPR2 builds on the 2008 review to inform Scottish transport investment for the next 20 years. It also involved extensive consultation which engaged with 600 individual stakeholders and involved 70 regional transport working group meetings. These generated no less than

Rail Engineer | Issue 194 | Jan-Feb 2022

14,000 ideas which were sifted and collated into 45 recommendations (groupings of similar interventions), and which were assessed against the Scottish National Transport Strategy.

This transport strategy has the objectives of taking action on the climate, addressing inequality and accessibility, improving health and wellbeing, and supporting sustainable economic growth. It also aims to reduce car usage by 20% by 2030 and increase spend on Active Travel to 10% of the total transport budget by 2024-25.

STPR2’s recommendations The 45 recommendations are now subject to a 12-week public consultation which will form the basis for a delivery plan. They include connected neighbourhoods to improve active travel, behaviour change initiatives, decarbonisation initiatives, strengthening strategic connections, safety and resilience projects, and enhancing access to affordable public transport. This includes a Clyde Metro, Edinburgh Mass Transit system, and rail corridor enhancements on the Highland Mainline and from Edinburgh/Glasgow to Perth/Dundee/Aberdeen, together with smart ticketing and improved public transport interchanges.

Those that concern strategic connections include those internal to Scotland which includes better access to Grangemouth and fixed links in the Outer Hebrides and Mull. STPRT2’s crossborder recommendations concern better access to Cairnryan port and infrastructure upgrades to permit higher speeds on cross-border routes.

Thus, although the UCR and STPR2 studies have quite different methodologies and scope, it is good to see that, where they overlap, their recommendations are the same.

Britain’s Largest Specialist Transport Union

DEFEND Rail

Protecting our members’ interests is our priority

Join us today rmt.org.uk

FREEPHONE 0800 376 3706

10 PHOTO: DAVERHEAD

NOTICES

BOB WRIGHT

The Royal Border Bridge at Berwick-upon-Tweed is a well-loved landmark on the East Coast Main Line, located just to the south of the town’s station.

It is to be repaired throughout 2022 in a major Network Rail project to repair all 28 arches of the Grade I listed viaduct.

Work on the scheme began in early January and will continue until November. The structural repairs to masonry and brickwork should mean that the bridge will not require any more major maintenance for the next 30 years.

The viaduct was built between 1847 and 1850 by the Newcastle and Berwick Railway. Designed by famed railway engineer Robert Stephenson, it is 659 metres long carrying the railway 38 metres above the River Tweed on 28 18-metre-span arches.

Comprising 227m3 of masonry and two and a half million bricks, much of the bridge is supported on piled foundations, driven by the then new steam powered pile driving technology.

Rail Engineer | Issue 194 | Jan-Feb 2022

Originally known as the Tweed Viaduct it was renamed Royal Border Bridge following its formal opening by Queen Victoria and Prince Albert in August 1850, although the England/ Scotland border actually lies two and half miles further north.

The viaduct last received major maintenance between 1993 and 1996, partly funded by English Heritage. This focused on repairs to the 15 land arches and the installation of horizontal anchors through the arch rings. In 2016 an innovative lighting scheme was installed to celebrate its 160th anniversary.

The scope of this year’s project includes works to all 28 arches and will see the installation of tie bars, repairs to pattress plates, replacement of bricks, repointing of brick and stonework, and the resin grouting of cracks. All repair materials have been selected to match the existing structure and agreed with Historic England.

This year’s repairs will all be carried out at height, and a variety of access methods will be used. Roped access systems will provide access in hard-to-reach locations, suspended

NOTICES

Royal REPAIRS ON THE

BORDER

cradles will be used above the river and mobile access work platforms on the land spans. For the works to the parapets, a scaffold platform will be installed on each side from span 16 to 28. This will be cantilevered from the structure, supported by brackets attached to the spandrels. Access to the scaffold will be from staircase towers within the works compound, on the riverbank.

The timeline of the project will see pairs of arches being worked on, working across the viaduct from the south end, from spans 1 and 2 in January to spans 26 to 28 in September. November has been allocated for any additional works that may be identified and the works will be completed by the end of that month.

The Royal Border Bridge is located along the edge of Berwick-upon-Tweed and close to residential properties on the Riverdene Estate, which lies directly below the bridge.

The construction contractor, Story Contracting, is taking measures to mitigate disruption to residents. Noise will

BRIDGE

be reduced using acoustic screens around plant and the compound, the use of solar panel generators, and ‘white noise’ reversing alarms, avoiding the usual annoying beeping of manoeuvring plant and vehicles. The site team has already built a good relationship with the local community and is working with the Berwick Youth Project on volunteering projects.

The repair works in the 1990s encountered bats and birds roosting in the structure. To minimise the impact of this year’s works, ecological assessments have been carried out to identify risk areas and working methods and sequencing will reflect these.

Cutting out perished mortar produces great volumes of dust. Vacuum tools will be used to capture this, avoiding any contamination of the river and environment. Story Contracting’s working methods have all been agreed with Natural England and the Environment Agency to minimise the impacts of the project.

Rail Engineer | Issue 194 | Jan-Feb 2022

11

12

OPINION

Customer focus for Great British Railways CLIVE KESSELL

PHOTO: NETWORK RAIL

Clive Kessell offers his educated, if controversial, opinion on track blockades and whether the current system offers customers value for money.

T

he daily press releases issued by Network Rail and the Train Companies always make for interesting reading. The Williams-Shapps report’s plan to create a new company called Great British Railways (GBR) has as its stated objective to ‘Put Customers First’, an admirable intention. Much press comment has emerged since the announcement, most of it positive, but with an element of questioning as to what it all means.

Putting customers first embraces a whole myriad of services including ticketing, fares policy, dealing with

PHOTO: FRANCKREPORTER

Rail Engineer | Issue 194 | Jan-Feb 2022

complaints, information provision and suchlike, but above all it must mean the reliability and regularity of the train service on offer.

The greatest satisfaction will come from having made a journey that runs to time, is comfortable, has the right on-board facilities and arrives successfully at the intended destination.

The daily press reports constantly read of projects that are going to transform the passenger experience on a section of line by using the most up to date technology, but always at the end is the statement that says, ‘unfortunately it will mean closing the line for a period of time, with travellers having to use buses while trains cannot run’. Is this really putting customers first?

The blockade mentality It is important to question how this blockade mentality has come about and compare it with how projects used to be carried out in times past.

Much of the work described in these projects is nothing more than routine renewals and maintenance. There are occasions when a disruptive possession is necessary and that has always been the case.

A major re-signalling over an extended area, a bridge renewal, or a junction re-modelling are examples where a form of blockade is necessary. However, nowadays it seems that a total closure is needed for even the most routine of work and often for a lengthy period. It would seem that the default position is to request a line closure without full consideration of how the work might be carried out with trains continuing to run.

OPINION PHOTO: NETWORK RAIL

Blockade examples Some recent examples of late are: (i) The Cambrian Line from Shrewsbury to Machynlleth needed the height of a bridge to be raised near Machynlleth which required a six week possession. Bus substitution took place all the way from Shrewsbury to Machynlleth with seriously extended journey times. Surely buses were only needed from Caersus to Machynlleth thus permitting a train service to Welshpool and Newtown to be maintained.; (ii) the recent closure of the Cambrian Coast line while Barmouth Bridge is being rebuilt (this obviously required a closure of the line over the bridge but was it necessary to run buses all the way from Pwllheli to Machynlleth?); (iii) the closure of the Arun Valley line from Arundel to Three Bridges and Dorking from the 14-22 August leaving the towns of Crawley and Horsham without a train service; (iv) the construction of Brent Cross station on the Midland Main Line, which saw no trains running between Luton and St Pancras between the 28-31 August; and (v) a recent major remodelling of the track layout in Bristol which certainly warranted periods of total closure, but resulted in an unnecessarily prolonged lack of train service between Bath and Bristol.

More total closures are being planned, including a total closure of the Brighton Main Line, south of Three Bridges, for a nine-day period, programmed for February; and the Woking-Portsmouth line, which will be affected by a total closure between Guildford and Petersfield from 12-20 February.

Regular occurrence Hardly a week goes by without some new blockades being announced, the standard phrasing being “we regret the inconvenience being caused but passengers will experience a more reliable journey when the work is completed”. This is probably ‘good news’ press-speak and cannot always be justified.

Even platform revamping and resurfacing can cause major inconvenience or a whole line to be shut. In Scotland, work to improve the platforms at Drumry will mean passengers travelling eastwards must go to the next station (Drumchapel) and catch the next train back from 23 January until 4 April. After that, in the westbound direction, passengers must go to Singer station and get the next train back from 4 April until 12 June.

This mentality is not confined to Network Rail.

The Bank branch of the London Underground Northern Line is closed from the 15 January for 17 weeks while the new platform at Bank station is brought into use. This line serves the city business area of London and will inconvenience millions of people. Similar new platforms commissioned at Angel and London Bridge did not require this length of time, so why is Bank different?

Putting such proposals to a Regional General Manager 30-40 years ago would have been met with a degree of incredulity and could well have been a career-shortening move.

The supposed reasoning So how has this situation come about and is it all necessary? The main reasons are cost and time. Having a ‘big bang’ approach can certainly shorten the time for work to be completed and make the most of available resources. However, is it always necessary to shut everything to achieve this? What is the financial impact on ticket revenue if passengers are put off from travelling by rail if bus substitution is required for part of the journey?

And what are the costs associated with bus substitution? No doubt the bus companies are rubbing their hands with glee.

PHOTO: NETWORK RAIL

Rail Engineer | Issue 194 | Jan-Feb 2022

13

14

OPINION Another cause is machinery.

People say that track renewals nowadays require clever machines on adjacent lines to supply and dispose of new and scrap material. Whether true or not is uncertain as how does relaying take place on single track railways? For a fourtrack railway, it is increasingly common for all lines to be closed whereas keeping two lines open was once the norm.

Operational constraints are a concern, but what happened to single line working arrangements to facilitate work on the adjacent track? Is it now just too difficult to set up?

Conditioned thinking?

Obviously, safety also comes in to play and, while it is all important, sometimes overzealous safety can be counterproductive if it stops sensible working methods from being used. No one should be suggesting that trains running on adjacent lines would be running at line speed: a 10mph speed restriction would be realistic and enable personnel safety to be maximised. Even with a blockade, there have been incidents with engineering trains, perhaps because the track workers concerned had a false sense of security.

PHOTO: NETWORK RAIL

However, conditioned thinking may be a problem.

Have we reached the stage where blockades have become the default position? Engineers (and operators) really do need to question the true value of what they are requesting and to think through the impact on the travelling public. Does the financial regime, where penalty payments are imposed if a possession overruns, condition people to ask for a longer blockade time than is really necessary?

It is not unknown for a blockade to be arranged only to find that the programme of work hits a snag and cannot proceed.

With all the planning that has been put in place, the blockade remains in place with travellers being put on buses even though trains could still run.

The impact

PHOTO: NETWORK RAIL

Rail Engineer | Issue 194 | Jan-Feb 2022

Bus substitution is universally unpopular. Commuters and regular train travellers have come to grudgingly accept it and suffer the disruption with a degree of stoicism. People who use the train infrequently and who experience having to transfer to buses (often they are elderly with luggage) may be seriously put off from using the train again and will choose to drive or find other means of transport next time. This at a time when passenger numbers have to be built up following the Covid impact. Evidence suggests that the leisure market is growing but only if the train service is reliable.

While the train companies do go to great lengths to provide

advance information where a line will be closed and the alternative arrangements being put in place, not everyone will pick up these messages as smart phone ownership and usage is by no means universal.

In general, rail staff are on hand to help people at the place of transfer but even this assistance is not always there and reliance on information from the bus driver is the best that can be offered.

A plea to engineers and operators The rail engineering community needs to be part of the ‘putting customers first’ objective which means a total rethink on how engineering projects are planned and executed in the future. Yes, some blockades will always be necessary, but these must become the exception rather than the rule and, even then, must be for the shortest possible time. The building back of customer confidence in the post pandemic era is going to need everyone in the rail community to think differently.

The provision of a train service must be just that; trains need to run day in and day out to the timetable, and paying passengers deserve more than a trip around the countryside in an uncomfortable and noisy bus with no toilet or refreshment facilities. Please can all those involved take heed and ensure the highest standards of service are offered and maintained? Remember the GBR pronouncement: ‘Put Customers First’.

OPINION

PHOTO: NETWORK RAIL

Response from Colin Wheeler

The human cost Clive’s sentiment is understandable, but safety issues have to be considered, particularly in respect of engineering work undertaken adjacent to open lines. This is a highly dangerous practice which has resulted in many track workers losing their lives that would have been avoided had work been carried out in a blockade.

Within my own experience, I remember a dedicated supervisor who was working on a section of high-speed double track railway. He knew all those who were working that night and had made time to speak with each gang of workers to remind them that the adjacent line would be open to traffic, albeit at a reduced speed. A few hours later he moved back from the work and was struck and killed by a passing train on the adjacent line. We did all that we could in a practical way to assist his family, and provided trauma counselling for his site colleagues.

There are too many similar examples. We owe it to the individuals who lost their lives by forgetting and moving foul of an adjacent line open to traffic to say: “No way!”

Another safety issue is the differences in language and culture between working groups on the same job shift which has been highlighted by many RAIB reports. The best quality and safest work, completed in the shortest times, is delivered by a skilled work group who all know each other, look after one another, work regularly together and know and respect their supervisors and engineers.

Editor’s comment There is rarely an ideal solution for the conflict between railway engineering access and the requirements of passengers and freight has always been problematic.

In his opinion piece, Clive Kessell is right to raise concerns about the increasing use of long blockades for work that was previously undertaken in short possessions. Yet it is important to recognise that those who plan complex works have many things to consider, some of which may not be obvious.

As an example, one factor is the increasing use of high output machinery which has long set-up times and so requires longer continuous use to maximise its productivity. There has also been increasing customer engagement as indicated by the creation of Head of Passenger Experience posts in each Network Rail region.

The 2019 Brighton Main Line project won an award for its consultation which concluded that a nine-day blockade over half-term was preferable to the alternative of disruptive work over 79 weekends.

Ultimately decisions about line closures for engineering work are about balancing cost and the inconvenience of passenger and freight customers. Whether avoidance of lengthy bus substitution during the Barmouth blockade justifies the cost of a temporary maintenance depot is one such judgement. Clive rightly stresses the need to put customers first, yet there are not unlimited funds to do this.

Rail Engineer hopes that his article will raise questions about the use of blockades so that they are only used as and when absolutely necessary.

PHOTO: NETWORK RAIL

Blockade mentality It is true that, on occasion, the progress of work at blockaded sites has been inhibited by a lack of plant and organised skilled workers, and that is not good enough. But closing the railway, doing work and reopening it are predictable costs.

Hence, fewer but longer possessions are better in terms of actual direct costs. However, that needs to be balanced by costing the disruption, including the cost of providing alternative services and even advertising to increase passenger revenue after the work is completed.

Great British Railways can and should do better than their predecessors, but it must be done while reducing, not increasing, the risk of injury or worse.

Rail Engineer | Issue 194 | Jan-Feb 2022

15

16

STATIONS & PASSENGER TECHNOLOGIES

The London & Birmingham Railway HUGH FENWICK

T

Curzon Street station

he 112 miles long London & Birmingham Railway (L&BR), engineered by Robert Stephenson, was the first inter-city line to be built into London. The Parliamentary Act authorising its construction was passed on 6 May 1833. At Birmingham it was to connect with the 82 miles Grand Junction Railway (GJR), authorised on the same day. Together these railways would provide a route from London via Birmingham to Liverpool and Manchester, connecting four of the most important cities in the country. Construction of the L&BR was the largest project ever undertaken in Britain, costing approximately £5.5 million at the time.

As Birmingham is on high ground, the L&BR and GJR stations were located at the eastern edge of the city on the south side of Curzon Street, in an area of market gardens and fields next to the Digbeth Branch Canal. The original intention was for the two railways to meet end on to facilitate operation of through trains. Unfortunately, opposition from influential landowners forced changes to the desired GJR alignment at Birmingham that resulted in two adjacent termini being built at Curzon Street. This created both inconvenience to passengers and operating difficulties for journeys between London and the North West.

Rail Engineer | Issue 194 | Jan-Feb 2022

The Grand Junction line reached Birmingham in July 1837 and ran trains to a temporary station at Vauxhall about a mile short of Curzon Street until the 28-span viaduct over the River Rea valley and their Curzon Street station was complete. The L&BR terminus opened on 8 April 1838. However, due to the delayed completion of Kilsby Tunnel, London passengers had to travel the 36 miles between Denbigh Hall (near Bletchley) and Rugby by horse-drawn coach or omnibus. The first through train from London to Birmingham entered the station on 17 September 1838 after covering the 112 miles in 4 hours and 48 minutes. Before construction of the railway, this journey was a bone shaking two-and-a-half-day ordeal. The GJR terminus opened soon after, on 19 November 1838.

STATIONS & PASSENGER TECHNOLOGIES

The Birmingham Terminus of the London & Birmingham Railway, 1838.

The original stations The L&BR station was built on the south side of the site with parallel arrival and departure platforms and six tracks. Four carriage sidings were between the two outer platform tracks.

A train shed comprising two wrought iron truss spans covered both platforms and the six tracks.

Booking offices, waiting rooms and a parcels office were in a long building along the back of the departure platform. An imposing threestorey ‘Principal Building’ with four massive Ionic columns designed to match the Doric Arch at the London terminus was erected at the entrance to the station that faced onto New Canal Street. This is now the only surviving part of the original station. It is the world’s oldest example of monumental railway architecture and is Grade 1 Listed.

The Grand Junction terminus was a more modest affair on a triangular area of land alongside Curzon Street, immediately north

of the L&BR station. As shown on the 1846 plan, it was necessary for the arrival platform to be built beyond the end of the departure platform to fit the odd shaped site. The principal station offices were at the rear of the departure platform. Separate arrivals and departure yards were provided for passengers and their horse-drawn carriages between the station buildings and Curzon Street. An elaborate façade or screen wall was built between the station and Curzon Street to impress travellers and commemorate the construction of the GJR, another major feat of engineering.

L&BR carriage sheds, a sixteen sided ‘Engine House’, and facilities for transhipping goods between the L&BR and the Birmingham Canal were on the land to the south and east of the termini. Three tracks ran between the two stations to a level crossing that provided access to a L&BR Goods Depot on the north side of Curzon Street. By 1846 the train shed had been extended to accommodate longer trains. The departure platform had been extended to create a bay platform for the Birmingham and Gloucester Railway and the Principal Building at the station entrance had been extended on its north side to provide additional refreshment space for passengers.

The building became the Victoria Hotel, later renamed the Queen’s Hotel.

(Left) The L&BR Principal Building and hotel wing in 1900.

Plan showing the layout of the L&BR and Grand Junction Railway facilities at Curzon Street, 1846.

Rail Engineer | Issue 194 | Jan-Feb 2022

17

18

STATIONS & PASSENGER TECHNOLOGIES

1887 Ordnance Survey Map of the LNWR Curzon Street Goods Station.

Inside the original 1838 L&BR Train Shed in LMSR days.

LNWR days The year 1846 is significant because it was when the L&BR and the GJR merged to form the London & North Western Railway (LNWR).

One of their first decisions was to obtain an Act to build a larger through station closer to the centre of Birmingham to replace the Curzon Street station, which then was struggling to handle increasing traffic levels. This new station was built jointly by the LNWR and the Midland Railway between 1846 and 1854. When opened it was called the Grand Central Station but was later changed to Birmingham New Street. After the 1854 opening, all Curzon Street passenger services were transferred to New Street and the Queen’s Hotel was closed.

For several years, the old passenger station was used only as an overflow area for the goods depot that continued to operate on the other side of Curzon Street. However, from the mid1850s rail freight volumes increased year on year making it increasingly difficult for the depot to handle the traffic. The LNWR converted the passenger station into their main Birmingham goods station. Work started in 1860 with closure of the Curzon Street engine house.

Rail Engineer | Issue 194 | Jan-Feb 2022

The train sheds were kept but the general station buildings were demolished. Conversion was completed in 1865 after which this depot remained in use with little change for more than a century, until its closure in 1966. One change, in 1874, altered part of the site at the corner of New Canal Street and Banbury Street to make an ‘excursion station’ for trains to Sutton Coldfield and Sutton Park and relieve New Street at peak holiday periods. This was used until Easter 1893 when it closed to enable the main lines into New Street to be increased from two to four.

The 1887 OS map shows the extent of the Curzon Street Goods Station. The grey building on the north side of Curzon Street is the original L&BR goods depot. It was combined with the main LNWR depot and known as the ‘Top Yard’.

The old passenger station’s Principal Building and hotel wing were retained as offices for the main goods station. They are clearly indicated on the map at the junction between New Canal Street and Curzon Street. The photograph on page 17 shows how they appeared in 1900.

Many horses were used for delivering goods to and from the depot. The stables and veterinary facilities for the horses were in the Top Yard.

In 1914, the Curzon Street Goods Station employed more than 2,000 people together with 600 horses and 900 wagons. In the early years, horses were used to shunt wagons in the depot but capstans and turntables were also used to transfer wagons between tracks and marshal them into trains.

The depot handled a vast range of items of all shapes, sizes and weights. Fruit and vegetables went through the old GJR arrival platform train shed, while grain and flour were dealt with in the old GJR departure area. General merchandise was processed beneath the 1838 L&BR train sheds.

STATIONS & PASSENGER TECHNOLOGIES LMS, BR and HS2 After the Railway Grouping of 1923, ownership of the depot transferred to the London Midland & Scottish Railway (LMSR). During the Second World War the depot suffered bombing. An incendiary hit the Principal Building and other bombs fell nearby. Damage to the Principal Building was not severe. It was repaired and, in 1952, given Grade 1 Listing in recognition of its historical importance.

Throughout the LMSR era and into the 1950s, when it was part of British Railways, the depot continued to be a hive of activity.

By the mid-1960s, migration of freight from rail to road changed all that, leading to the depot’s closure in 1966. Within a few years after closure, the platforms, train shed and the substantial remains of the GJR station had all been removed. The Principal Building was the only part of the old station to be spared. The goods station site was bought by Royal Mail who erected large steel-framed sheds and created a Parcelforce depot. A car park was built over the former GJR station land.

The Principal Building remained in British Rail ownership. It was left to decay. In 1970 and again in 1978, British Rail applied to demolish the Grade 1 Listed Building, but permission was refused on both occasions. Ownership of the building eventually transferred to Birmingham City Council in 1979. The Council carried out extensive restoration and repairs between

1979 and 1982. However, that work included demolition of the hotel wing, leaving only the original Hardwick designed edifice standing. The building was intermittently used as office space but now has been empty for some years.

By 2005 the Parcelforce depot was out of use. In 2006 the buildings were removed and the whole site became a car park. Five years on, the government in 2010 published their ‘National Strategy for High Speed Rail’, the first phase of which would be a new high speed line between London and Birmingham, and which recommended a new Birmingham city centre station at Curzon Street. The document also

Marshalling Wagons using capstans and turntables.

THE FLANGEWAYLESS INNER PANEL SYSTEM.

simply safe > typical veloSTRAIL  the

safe system with compressible flange groove. ¬ suitable for most rail and sleeper types ¬ Network Rail Approved up to 70mph Linespeed ¬ can be combined with all STRAIL inner panel systems ¬ popular areas of application: inner city, e.g. in front of schools, day-care centres, shopping centres, in front of hazardous crossing angles, e.g. for cyclists and wheelchair users, baby carriages, inlineskaters, trolley bags, etc.

STRAIL (UK) Ltd. - Richard Whatley | Tannery Lane // Send / Woking // GU23 7EF // Great Britain Phone +44 (14 83) 22 20 90 // info@strail.com // www.strail.com

@strail_official

@kraiburg strail

Rail Engineer | Issue 194 | Jan-Feb 2022

19

20

STATIONS & PASSENGER TECHNOLOGIES

reported that the station offered an exceptional opportunity to restore the iconic Grade I listed frontage of the former Curzon Street terminus for railway use.

In November 2013, HS2 Ltd deposited a Bill with Parliament to seek powers for the construction and operation of HS2 Phase 1.

The Bill became the High Speed Rail (London – West Midlands) Act 2017 after receiving Royal Assent on 23 February 2017. This Act

(Top and bottom) Computer-generated imagery of Curzon Street station.

(Right) Aerial view of the old Curzon Street station as work proceeds with the new Curzon Street station.

Rail Engineer | Issue 194 | Jan-Feb 2022

authorises construction of Phase 1 between London and Birmingham and the station layout authorised under the Act states: “Old Curzon Street Station building and wall to be retained”.

A later HS2 brochure has confirmed that, in addition to the new station, separate plans are being progressed to redevelop the Grade 1 listed building. It says the renovated building will house a visitor centre and office space that will be used by HS2 along with other organisations.

Once in place, the building will serve as a community engagement hub for HS2. If this happens, the building will serve the railway industry into the foreseeable future, and be a fitting and lasting monument to the first railway between London and Birmingham: the first main line railway into London, completed more than 180 years ago.

Hugh Fenwick is the Vice-chair of the Robert Stephenson Trust

SECURITY SOLUTIONS

OPTYMA

®

SECURITY & SAFETY THROUGH TECHNOLOGY

Optyma Security Solutions have been helping Rail Engineers protect the network since 1987 with sustainable eco-friendly safety and security systems including:

CCTV

Access Control

•

•

Intruder Detection

•

Passenger Help points

Integrated security, safety and fire systems for the rail network WWW.OPTYMA.CO.UK

OPTYMA

®

Tel: 020 8304 8635 OPTYMA Security Solutions 6 Harcourt Road, Bexleyheath, Kent, DA6 8AQ

22

STATIONS & PASSENGER TECHNOLOGIES

e h h t c t g a n i p k s i a r D M e n f i a a r T S K U ss

e c o r P RICHARD MERRILLS

A

round 2016, during the early stages of the development phase for the Birmingham New Street resignalling project, attention moved to the methods the railway might use to achieve compliance for safer train dispatch processes.

As part of the ongoing important stakeholder engagement, it became clear that the industry wished to see an improvement in the train dispatch process. There are increasingly strict rules and standards surrounding the despatch of trains, to ensure that they depart the station without any safety issues for customers, staff, and services. It was therefore felt that the current technology to facilitate the process was worthy of improvement.

The prevailing tide of concerns resulting from a fatal accident at James Street station in Liverpool in 2011, was starting to point towards

Rail Engineer | Issue 194 | Jan-Feb 2022

a system change that improved the information made available to the train dispatch or train crew on the platform. It was also felt important to centralise the task, ensuring that the primary role of viewing and monitoring the train dispatch corridor could be carried out without distraction.

This would mean the removal of distracting and potentially contradictory supporting information displayed elsewhere on the station.

This pointed to a new product − a sub-system designed entirely for train dispatch, rather than one adopted from other railway train signals.

New thinking at New Street With a blank canvas for the project to re-signal the station, came the ability to think beyond the traditional, while complying with the new and enhanced requirements around platform safety.

The opportunity to provide the right product soon became an exciting one, rather than one seen as a blocker or delay to the project’s primary goals.

Birmingham New Street station is the busiest station outside of London, and the fifth busiest overall in the UK with 43 million passengers using its platforms in 2017. By the time the first Train Despatch Equipment Unit (TDEU) had been commissioned in 2019, that figure had risen to 47 million.

New Street has 12 through platforms and one bay platform. Each of the through platforms are divided into A and B portions and signalled

STATIONS & PASSENGER TECHNOLOGIES accordingly. Operationally rather than physically, it has 25 platforms for train services.

The higher number platforms, from No. 6 upwards have always suffered significant curvature, encasement of their retaining walls, and very limited visibility to the platform ends. During 2016, when the Gateway project ended, even with new cladding to make the passenger experience more enjoyable and additional CIS screens generally, the platform envelope became very cluttered.

To add further furniture for train dispatch purposes where it didn’t exist today was almost seen as a non-starter. Initial assessment of the 69 signals which would be required for the 25 platforms, very quickly displayed a need for over 100 separate OFF/RA Indicators just to comply with train dispatch.

These would all need to be double-sided to aid flexible viewing from anywhere along the platforms.

Desire to improve Lessons learned from other capital projects around the network showed that the desire to improve the train dispatch process was not unique to New Street. Feedback came from the Thameslink project team who had just completed the London Bridge station remodelling. Here, the indicators required for train despatch were orientated to face the dispatcher looking along the dispatch corridor rather than facing the platform signals. This was a definite improvement but was achieved by using new products that were not approved for this application and had not undergone the formal Product Approval process.

In a world where RAM (Reliability, Availability and Maintainability) capability, supported by Design for Reliability processes, can sometimes define a solution rather than just the more obvious end goal

functionalities, it became even more clear that a product Specification was needed.

As the responsible engineer I was required to find and manage the system engineering response to these multiple issues. It was very exciting and challenging to learn that the industry wanted change and the market was supportive of finding the change solution.

The sponsor of the New Street re-signalling scheme, alongside the end users, stakeholders, and asset engineers (who would

Rail Engineer | Issue 194 | Jan-Feb 2022

23

24

STATIONS & PASSENGER TECHNOLOGIES be the ones managing the new system once in service), all demanded that we take this opportunity for a better train dispatch system and run with it.

In November 2016 I ran with it, supported by Dewhurst, and some like-minded engineers and operators. This is the story of what happened over the next four years and the journey to develop the new TDEU.

Engineering necessity Signalling Engineers are excellent at providing a solution to a problem. It creates interest, provides a legacy, and is innovative. In a world that is becoming more demanding of performance rather than solution-defined, a sub-system within the railway system that performs reliably while achieving its safety requirements is one that will stand out and be taken forward.

We knew as we started to engage the market that simply picking a nice-looking, costeffective product would not

meet these performance level requirements but nothing like this existed anyway. The new product needed to be defined and it had to be measured against European standards for reliability, rather than just adapted from and then added to the new signalling system.

By the end of 2016 a manufacturer had been located who showed a desire and commitment to develop this new product design. It bode well that it had already produced similar products in the rail sector such as the Train Ready to Start Plunger Unit, in wide use by Network Rail.

Dewhurst UK, based in Feltham, Southeast London agreed to support our aims for a TDEU, integral to which would be the Dispatcher Indicator Unit (DIU). The DIU would be subject to stringent Product Approval, Design for Reliability and Trial tests for EMC, HF, IP, IK, and general environmental standards, all to be revealed later.

But what was the engineering necessity here? We didn’t want to engineer standard signals into the roof fabric on each platform. We wanted the signalling information in the Dispatcher’s eye line at the Dispatch Point. We wanted the Train Dispatcher to operate from separate objects rather than rely on those provided for the train driver. We wanted an ergonomically acceptable solution rather than a signalling engineer’s design. And we wanted to apply the lessons taken from London Bridge train dispatch solution.

Development necessity During early discussions and the development of the specification with Network Rail’s approval parties and Dewhurst, which I led as the Product Sponsor, we carried out research around the UK rail network.

Our findings were interesting to say the least, but a personal favourite will always be the TDEU installed, presumably

Rail Engineer | Issue 194 | Jan-Feb 2022

many years ago, at Crewe station.

Here a standard catalogue of signalling parts had been brought together to achieve the same overall requirement.

It brought the signal status information right to the train dispatcher. An OFF signal immediately adjacent to the TRTS. At Crewe there is no need for the dispatcher to seek out information elsewhere and so nothing to distract them from their primary tasks.

Perfect.

However, back in the day we didn’t record RAM targets or safety analysis, or product approval. What this example was able to show us was that the desire has always existed to move away from signals hung from platform ceilings. This gave a strong precedence, we just needed to design the best product to achieve it.

Our first attempts at mocking up suitable product design led us to conclude that, in order to achieve acceptable levels of clarity for the indication of the signals, we would need to start with a clean sheet with regard to the product’s design.

Product specification The majority of 2018 was spent establishing the new DIU Product Specification.

STATIONS & PASSENGER TECHNOLOGIES It was critical that it could be used by any manufacturer seeking to use its requirements in this application. Once approved as a Network Rail Standard, Dewhurst became the first manufacturer to make provision for the specification resulting in their first DIU product demonstration in January 2019.

The headline requirements for a DIU were as follows: (i) it must be clearly visible at up to five metres, with an arc of viewing 45 degress left and right of dispatch point; (ii) it must use NR standard MIL50-15 style coupler cables; (iii) it must have had national use rather than just at New Street - all dispatch indication variants available; (iv) it must be line replaceable - any failure results in quick swop rather than on site fault finding; (v) it must be able to cater for sunlight and phantom aspect interference; and (vi) it must meet EN50121 (EMC), EN50122 (electrical safety), EN50125 (environmental) and design for reliability.

In parallel to the DIU specification preparation, the project also undertook an Ergonomics Fitting Trial using a mock-up of the equipment for the proposed TDEU. We invited a selection of the 85 trained, full time dispatch staff at New Street to undertake a trial of its operation using a simple wooden mock-up and answer questions on the layout, height, orientation, and functionality of the TDEU.

TDEU product trial Using standard signalling design processes undertaken by the Network Rail Design Delivery team in Birmingham, a set of signalling designs were produced and accepted. This allowed the existing platform 4C TRTS with signal OFF light to be replaced by the first trial TDEU for the UK network.

Using Signal Works Testing procedures and a new approved Test Specification for the DIU, the Network Rail team commissioned the TDEU into use in the early hours of Sunday 3 February 2019.

Close monitoring of the TDEU’s performance and reliability with no reported issues, along with detailed feedback from the despatch staff using the TDEU, led to the full certificate of acceptance being granted in November 2020.

Human factors The findings of our ergonomic engineer revealed a considerable number of the improvements that the TDEU was offering.

The resulting report, accepted by all stakeholders, made the product trial easier and quicker, as the human factors had already been built into the product design by Dewhurst.

At the same time, we also sought general improvements to the existing TRTS product from Dewhurst to complement the overall TDEU trial. This included conversion to NR standard MIL50-15 style coupler cables; TRTS plunger able to alight when pressed and signalling system receives request; a lockable door using the same dispatch key for reduction of trespass incidents; and reducing the number of TRTS variants to standardise the product range.

In addition to the DIU and the TRTS, a TDEU is also intended to give clear fixed information to the user which should include the TDEU identity, which is platform and direction rather than signalling system asset numbering; and a fixed location map, to allow clear dissemination of the platform that the TDEU is dispatching for. This resulted in an engraved mimic plate and identity plate being mounted on each TDEU.

As part of the trial, and to gather a wider application of feedback, a TDEU was also commissioned at Wimbledon station to overcome a dispatch risk within the Thameslink project scope. This application, while within the original trial certificate scope was the basis of the TDEU design now used at New Street and due for commissioning in 2022.

Dewhurst is now supporting other national station improvement projects at London Moorgate, London Victoria, and the re-signalling of Macclesfield with new TDEU equipment at the centre of safety improvements for train dispatching.

Richard Merrills is a railway engineering manager & sponsor of the TDEU product range for Network Rail.

Rail Engineer | Issue 194 | Jan-Feb 2022

25

26

STATIONS & PASSENGER TECHNOLOGIES

Twinfix

illuminating shelter solutions

T

winfix is a family run business which, for more than 30 years, has supplied modular polycarbonate panels for use as rooflights in many railway stations and depots. Last year, the company assisted with the refurbishment of two of the UK’s historic stations, Gerrards Cross and Headstone Lane, providing glazing options to flood the stations with daylight while eliminating the common issues that occur with historic railway roof-glazing.

Travel 11 miles east of Gerrards Cross and you arrive at Headstone Lane station, another of the UK’s historic stations. Headstone Lane opened in February 1913 and consists of a small single storey, brick-built station with two platforms, adjacent to the Headstone Lane road bridge. This station was also part of the Railway Upgrade Plan, with investment in the refurbishment of both platform canopies.

Innovative glazing Gerrards Cross.

Historic stations

Headstone Lane.

Built in 1906 as part of the Great Western and Great Central Joint Railway, Gerrards Cross Station is a fantastic example of one of the nation’s historic stations. As part of a £2.4 million Railway Upgrade Plan investment by Network Rail, it has recently undergone a series of upgrades to improve the station for passengers.

The work has included the full replacement of the platform’s canopy – ensuring passengers are protected from the weather; installation of lighting throughout – making the station safer and more secure; re-roofing of the main station’s roof; window repairs where necessary; fresh coats of paint to steelwork; and refurbishment of the canopy roof.

Rail Engineer | Issue 194 | Jan-Feb 2022

A team comprising of Network Rail, Principal Contractor J. Murphy & Sons Limited, and specialist design consultant Arcadis Consulting (UK) Ltd was assigned to the job to ensure that the correct roof glazing was specified and installed over the platforms.

The product chosen for both stations was the Twinfix modular non-fragile Multi-Link-Panel NF (Non-Fragile) system, glazed with 6mm clear solid polycarbonate. Approximately 225 square metres of these panels were required to re-glaze the five canopies across both stations, with panels delivered to site ready for quick installation.

Each panel of the Multi-Link-Panel NF system comprises a powder-coated aluminium frame, fitted with polycarbonate glazing. The panels are built completely off-site in a quality-controlled factory environment, reducing the risk, and cost, of site mistakes, and are delivered on-site

STATIONS & PASSENGER TECHNOLOGIES

Headstone Lane. fully glazed and ready for rapid installation.

The system has a unique linking design feature that results in incredibly quick installation times, making the system very much suited to rail work due to its restricted possession times.

The system has been well utilised for many years on station canopy roofs, and it has been thoroughly tried and tested in that time. It was the chosen system for this project for a number of reasons: » Sustainability. These panels are virtually unbreakable in manufacture, transit and in situ, meaning that, unlike glass, maintenance costs will be eliminated. » Safety. The panels conform to the HSE recommended test method ACR[M]001:2019 (as outlined in document HSG33) and achieved a ‘B’ Classification. » Off-site construction. The panels are preassembled in Twinfix’s factory ensuring strict quality guidelines are adhered to, which is not always guaranteed when roofing products are assembled on site. » Ease of access. The panels can be fitted with In-Line Access Hatches, to allow cleaning of gutters and roof. These hatches are hardly visible and allow safe access through the glazing without needing to get on the roof. » Weight. The system is light in weight and, due to its modular format, is very quick to install which allows for short rail possession works. » Appearance. The clear polycarbonate panels have the appearance of glass and provide just the right level of diffused light transmission onto the platforms below.

This project demanded a collaborative approach, requiring Twinfix to liaise closely with Principal Contractor J. Murphy & Sons Limited, installation company Orchard Roofing & Building, and design consultancy Arcadis, where early engagement with the team ensured that all aspects of the project ran smoothly from the onset.

Richard Nash, Contracts Manager at J. Murphy & Sons Limited commented: “Throughout the design and implementation stages of our refurbishment works at Gerrards Cross and Headstone Lane Railway Stations, Twinfix have been a pleasure to work with. Working alongside both our designers and approved installers, they have provided a professional end to end service resulting in a quality finished product.”

Piotr Stencel, Senior Project Manager at Arcadis Consulting (UK) Ltd said: “All the Twinfix team we have been in contact with have been very helpful to provide information, contact

Gerrards Cross. and help resolve issues. We were also invited to their offices in Warrington back in 2019 where we could see and touch Twinfix products and discuss design and constructability aspects, which is always better than just seeing on the product data sheet.”

The Twinfix team is proud to be part of the journey which will see the UK rail network revolutionised and sees exciting times ahead.

For further information, contact our enquiries team on 01925 811311 | www.twinfix.co.uk | enquiries@twinfix.co.uk

Headstone Lane.

Rail Engineer | Issue 194 | Jan-Feb 2022

27

28

ROLLING STOCK & DEPOTS

Protecting staff from

SPADs

W

hen two passenger trains collided in Salisbury in October last year, a major incident was declared by the emergency services and 15 people, including one of the drivers, were taken to hospital.

Preliminary findings by the Rail Accident Investigation Branch (RAIB) attributed the incident to the South Western Railway train involved in the crash passing through a stop signal, which occurred as a result of low adhesion between the wheels and track.

Signals passed at danger (SPAD) have long been a serious concern for the rail industry and have resulted in several high-profile accidents.

The worst in living memory was the fatal collision between two passenger trains at Ladbroke Grove in 1999.

In its 2019/20 report, the Rail Safety and Standards Board (RSSB) noted SPAD levels were at their highest since 2008.

Perhaps surprisingly, empty coaching stock (ECS) make up almost 20% of SPADs nationally despite accounting for just 4% of train services, and in period

Rail Engineer | Issue 194 | Jan-Feb 2022

10 of 2020, there was a spike, predominantly made up of ESCrelated SPADs. The causes of ESC SPADs Why do so many empty trains pass signals at danger? The RSSB’s 2021 report − Mitigating Against Empty Coaching Stock SPADs − found that 52% of all incidents are due to the driver failing to check the signal aspect. This was twice that of the next biggest reason for ECS SPADs − a misread signal.

The explanations as to why drivers fail to check the signal aspect when operating ECS services are many and varied, but often they are the result of inattention, distraction, or loss of concentration.

However, ECS operations involve more shunting than other train services and the RSSB report did find that almost half the ECS SPADs reviewed involved shunting.

Most ECS SPADs seem to happen during busy times for train movements in and out of depots, yards, and sidings - before and after the morning peak, and again after the evening commute is over,

LIFE IS PRICELESS.

zonegreen safe working solutions

SMART DEPOT PERSONNEL PROTECTION SYSTEM (DPPS™) Renowned as the global market leading depot protection system, the SMART DPPS™ delivers physical protection from vehicle movements to rail depot staff whilst providing visual and audible warnings.

www.zonegreen.co.uk

The Smart DPPS™: • Protects staff and equipment • Ensures safe and controlled movement of rail vehicles into and out of the depot • Allows train maintenance operations to be conducted without endangering the safety of staff or damaging infrastructure

Tel: +44 (0)114 230 0822

It is: • Fully configurable, flexible and functional • Proven in use and installed globally • Capable of interfacing with third party equipment including signalling systems.

• Adaptable to the safe requirements of the depot

info@zonegreen.co.uk

30

ROLLING STOCK & DEPOTS

when most passenger services stop and rolling stock returns to stabling.

Given that depots are less likely to have automated train protection systems, their infrastructure and the people who work within them are at a significantly increased risk of harm from SPADs.

Protection and prevention There is no question that SPADs in rail depots can be catastrophic. A vehicle that fails to stop where it is intended could crash into the maintenance shed and plough into the path of unsuspecting staff.

Sheffield-based rail safety specialist, Zonegreen, is working with depot operators to limit the risk of SPADs through the implementation of its Depot Personnel Protection System (DPPS).

The firm’s technology manages the safe and effective movement of rail vehicles around a depot, providing physical protection to staff in at risk areas, through the implementation of Network Rail-approved derailers and warning beacons/klaxons. Should a train entering a maintenance facility fail to stop at a signal, the derailer will prevent it from coming into contact with workers.

Zonegreen’s derailers are controlled by intuitive Road End Panels situated adjacent to the depot doors with direct line of sight of the physical protection.

The latest version of the panel, launched in 2020, was more than five years in development and is the product of

continuous research and customer feedback. Staff are issued with personal RFID tags, programmed with various levels of authorisation which they use these to log onto the system when they begin work, via the road end panel. The derailer is then prevented from being lowered, physically protecting the road that is in use from train movements.

At the heart of DPPS is the concept of ‘distributed intelligence’ which means, unlike alternative systems, there is no master controller or signal point failure, producing unprecedented reliability.

The latest version of DPPS is ‘software free’, allowing simple configuration and future modification.

Certified risk reduction Independently certified DPPS is the only depot protection system that has been independently certified to be EMC compliant (electromagnetic compatibility). The road end control panel has been assessed by Eurofins to meet European radio emissions and railway standards, ensuring its radio frequency range will not interfere with telecommunication or electrical devices.

This is critical in a depot environment, where there are many complex pieces of equipment, including the trains themselves.

“A lot of consideration has gone into the human factors involved in depot protection and this has enabled us to find ways to make DPPS easier to operate, actively avoiding error and leading to large productivity gains for our customers,” says Christian Fletcher, Zonegreen’s technical director.

“Whilst SPADs may still occur at depots operating our system, workers can carry out their duties confident that every possible step is being taken to protect them from serious harm.”

DPPS is also independently certified to meet the hardware safety integrity requirements of SIL2. This is a measurement of the performance required for a safety instrumented function and is defined by assessing the relative levels of risk reduction it provides.

Although there is no defined SIL requirement for depot protection, some alternative products integrate an off-the-shelf SIL2 PLC into an otherwise untested system. However, Zonegreen has subjected the whole of DPPS to the functional safety assessment, demonstrating its commitment to improving the depot environment for maintenance personnel.

The firm’s continued research and development has enabled its team to create a standard DPPS product that can be simply and quickly configured to each depot’s unique layout. This means every installation will be certified to SIL2 in respect of hardware failures.

“We are continually improving our safety system by identifying areas of risk to rail staff and finding innovative solutions,” says Christian. “The introduction of RFID panels is a great example, making contactless technology available at a time when it is so crucial.

“Our research shows SPADs are a serious concern for depot operators, but we believe our technology has the potential to reduce the number of incidents occurring annually, particularly among ECS services.”

For more information about DPPS or Zonegreen’s range of depot protection equipment, telephone (0114) 230 0822 or visit www.zonegreen.co.uk.

Rail Engineer | Issue 194 | Jan-Feb 2022

FEATURE

I

n the UK, the benefits of concrete slab track continue to be ever more appreciated across the industry and slab track is escaping the perception of a niche or specialist application. This is primarily due to the move away from capital cost assessments into more sophisticated whole life value or sustainability evaluation methods. Thus, the decreased maintenance liabilities and other strategic implementation benefits of slab track systems can be demonstrated as part of the decision-making process.

Rhomberg Sersa Rail Group (RSRG) has had a key involvement on the high-profile Barking Riverside Extension project, where the client took the decision to implement a core section of this route in slab track. This railway infrastructure is intended to serve more than 10,000 new residential properties that are being built as part of the overall Barking Riverside Limited residential development with a four-car service at 15-minute intervals. The project is administered by Transport for London (TfL).

The track infrastructure consists of a twin track extension of the London Overground line beyond Barking station to a new terminus named Barking Riverside. Gospel Oak remains the opposing terminus location for this section of route. The extension continues beyond Barking on a conventional ballasted track system that sits snuggly in the footprint of the existing Tilbury lines for approximately three kilometres.

The new lines transition on to an elevated alignment and continue for the final one-and-

Rail Engineer | Issue 194 | Jan-Feb 2022

31

32

FEATURE

half kilometres along a viaduct into the new terminus station at Barking Riverside.

RSRG provided the technical expertise to meet this very challenging piece of track engineering and concrete logistics through an integrated design solution for the intermediate layer, slab track system, and switches and crossings. Additionally, the design stage utilised a 4D BIM strategy to manage design and construction risks. The core delivery scope was to undertake the construction of the slab track system on the elevated section as a subcontractor to the main works contractor Morgan Sindall and VolkerFitzpatrick (MSVF).

For the track system aspects, the design phase was completed between January 2019 and May 2020 and the Construction phase ran from May 2021 and October 2021.

Track system overview The track system design utilised a precast variant slab track system manufactured by supplier PORR, named Slab Track Austria (STA), incorporating the name of the country where it was first developed and used.

The STA system comprises discrete precast reinforced concrete track slabs set on a

Rail Engineer | Issue 194 | Jan-Feb 2022

suitable structural foundation.

Once accurately positioned, fixation of the track slabs is achieved with a minimal amount of regular C40/50 selfcompacting concrete that is placed though openings in the track slabs and fills the space beneath them.

Adhered to the bottom of the precast slab is an elastomeric rubber granulate sheet to debond the slab from the selfcompacting concrete. Shear keys resolve longitudinal and transverse loadings, which are formed when placing the selfcompacting concrete within the openings, with two openings being present for a standard slab. The fastening system used was a 300-1 series, provided

by Schwihag AG with standard toe load fastening points for 56E1 rail to manage rail stresses and eliminate the need for Rail Expansion Joints. The low toe load section is restrained at each end by full toe load assemblies which provide a robust CWR stress transition zone.

In collaboration with Schwihag AG in response to design work

by FCP, the deck end rotation and lateral displacements of the structural design had to be checked and mitigated to limit imparted rail stresses.

This was achieved through the selection of an enhanced performance ‘bridge support point’ baseplate and fastening assembly (BSP-FF-B-1) for use under every rail at three support points each side of

deck discontinuities.

Although switches and crossings upon in-situ slab tracks are well established, for the first time in a UK mainline application, the solution developed for the project also consisted of precast slab track. Thirty-two slab units were provided to cover the whole of the NR56V CV 1:10 scissors crossover. Temporary formworks were set prior to fixing the precast slabs again with a self-compacting concrete (SCC). The rails were fine lined using the internally developed Rhomberg Switch Alignment System (RhoSAS) prior to a secondary grouting exercise, utilising 4,800 litres of proprietary grout, supplied

by Fosroc, to fix each fastening into pockets cast into each precast panel.

The ballastless resilient rail fastenings and supports supplied by Schwihag were type DFF SW for the switches and crossings, precisely aligned and designed with the required high elasticity to distribute loads within the track structure.

Switch motors and associated signalling, power supply and supplementary equipment are supplied by Voestalpine and Unistar HR type. They were specified to be capable of accommodating the resulting differential movement between the rails and elastic fastenings, and the rigidly fixed track slabs upon which the equipment is mounted.

HIGH SPEED Innovative System Solutions for Future-Proof Networks

Given the growing environmental awareness and the trend in energy prices, today‘s high speed technology offers huge potential. Speeds of almost 400 km/h and diverging speeds exceeding 200 km/h make stringent demands, but can be mastered safely and comfortably today thanks to the system solutions of voestalpine. From Europe to the Far East, there is hardly a high-speed network without track components from voestalpine.

This is what we call “Performance on Track®”.

voestalpine Railway Systems www.voestalpine.com/railway-systems

34

FEATURE radius at 220 metres and the highest applied track cant at 100mm. These are currently the highest applied values that the PORR STA system has been installed on in the UK.

Construction methodology

Geometric design Several variants of the STA track slabs were used in the project due to geometric constraints, the required fixity into the track supporting structure and requirements arising from the design integration and track bridge interaction. All slab variants have a standardised 2.4m width and 1,435mm nominal track gauge.

There were 91 panel types derived from four categories of slab: (i) standard, for plain line where lengths varied from 2.58m to 5.16m; (ii) transition slabs, where additional fixity is achieved with underlying integrated steel reinforcement elements and the omission of the elastic layer from the slab base. (iii) deck end slabs, where three rows of BSP-FF-B-1 baseplates are integrated at the bridge joint interface and the remaining support points have standard fastenings; and (iv), short deck end type, to suit two specific piers which incorporated thee rows of BSP-FF-B-1 baseplates and additional fixity and no elastic layer on the slab base.

For the Barking Riverside project there are a total of 711 STA slabs including the 32 S&C slabs. The track alignment characteristics consisted of a maximum three percent vertical gradient, the tightest horizontal

Rail Engineer | Issue 194 | Jan-Feb 2022

Concrete works preceding the track system installation included the intermediate layer. This is specified primarily to act as a load transferring element into the main bridge structure below, while also serving as a regulating layer to reduce the required volumes of concrete to be placed within the track fixation stage.

Linking stirrups were provided to couple the two concrete pour stages to provide a strong and durable mechanical connection for the transfer of loads.

The next stage is to lay out and space the steel reinforcement specified for inclusion within the SCC layer that will fix and support the precast STA slab units. The mobile gantries, developed in partnership with Thomson Engineering, are then used to ‘shuttle’ in the precast STA slabs in the correct sequence. The slabs are then placed and adjusted using threaded spindles, five in number for a standard slab. The tolerance of this process was targeted at +/-10mm but the initial positioning exercise was consistently achieving +/-5mm.

Once the slabs are accurately positioned, the reinforcement is measured and visually checked prior to the formwork being fixed to enclose the space beneath a run of slabs. This is to provide predetermined breaks in the concrete pour. On the

project, approximately 1,250 cubic metres of self-compacting concrete was required to provide all of the required fixation. The SCC was provided by Tarmac to site in delivery wagons as 6.5 cubic metre-portions from the batching facility, with each wagon undergoing quality control tests focussing on the material consistency and flow characteristics.

Utilising Tarmac’s logistics management systems, concrete was ordered close to just in time.

From the delivery wagons there were four different logistic modes used to convey and/ or place the concrete along the viaduct: (i) mobile concrete pump, several variants of pump were used with a maximum reach up to 47 metres used on the project; (ii) a loading skip attached to a crawler or fixed crane; (iii) a cassette carried under the mobile gantries; and (iv), a wheeled mobile mini-mixer that was able to drive on the intermediate layer.

Technical challenges and developments As with all track engineering applications, particularly slab track, surveying plays an absolutely critical role in the overall methodology and is the key determinant in the level of geometric quality achieved.

The surveyors were tasked with achieving ‘best in class’ tolerances despite the 40mph designed line speed for the new infrastructure, with +/-2mm horizontal and vertical absolute tolerances consistently achieved.

This was well inside the required project tolerances: (i) horizontal

FEATURE

UK rail news as it happens.

Daily email update.

Latest rail video.

www.railuk.com

Over 15,000 rail articles.

Rail Engineer | Issue 194 | Jan-Feb 2022

35

36

FEATURE

of +/-6mm; (ii) vertical of +0/-15mm; (iii) cant of +/-5mm; (iv) maximum twist of 4mm; (v) gauge of +/-2mm; (vi) horizontal versine over 10m of 4mm; (vii) vertical versine over 10m of 6mm.

RSRG utilised an innovative Trimble-manufactured GEDO Rail-less Track bar and trolley system in conjunction with Trimble S9 Total Stations. These systems were all supplied by Trimble distributor KOREC and used to undertake the bulk of the surveying positioning work to single millimetre accuracy and also create as-built surveys. Extensive training and on-site support for these solutions were also supplied by KOREC. Multiple sets of equipment allowed referencing and calibrating to reduce the error of individual sets of equipment, and this was done in collaboration with the client surveying team to ensure agreement of obtained results.

RSRG undertook a first of type UK application for ‘rail free’ setting out using the KOREC supplied Trimble GEDO Rail-less system, which resulted in highly accurate positioning of the track slabs. This is where the continuously welded rail is not present at the point of concreting, as the influence of long rail strings behaving differentially to the structural deck is eliminated. (Note, this is only for slab positioning prior to rail installation, and additional work finelining was needed immediately prior to the concrete pour). This is new to the UK and will have a significant benefit in the future for installation of the PORR STA system, particularly bridges or viaducts. The GEDO Rail-less Track bars supplied by Trimble sat within the fastenings to act as the reference for the surveying system, instead of the gauge corner typically referenced by trolleys or rail shoe adaptors.

As with the surveying influences, working on a viaduct created other technical challenges. The structure consisted of 31 decks total with nine steel composite decks of 40-metre spans and 22 concrete decks consisting of 2 x 25-metre spans with a fixed central pier. Structural decks naturally expand and contract with variances in temperature, and the steel composite decks were displaying up to 16mm of relative vertical movement over 24 hours for the worst-affected days through the summer prior to the track being installed. To resolve this, three consecutive night pours were implemented while the deck was stable enough to maintain the track alignment and ensure enough concrete strength gain was achieved before the peak variances seen during daylight. With each shift, 120 metres of single track length or approximately 43 cubic metres of concrete was installed within the constrained working hours each night.

Overall, the project was successfully completed by working closely with our client MSVF JV, their client TfL, our partners PORR/FCP and the supply chain.

A resilient team effort with strong collaboration among the joint venture and other contractors on site resulted in an efficient overall programme for the track system installation works.

Rail Engineer | Issue 194 | Jan-Feb 2022

International Exhibition of Railway Equipment, Systems & Services International Railway Infrastructure Exhibition

ON TRACK FOR THE FUTURE

10 – 12 May 2022 | Olympia London For the first time, Railtex / Infrarail takes place at Olympia London, covering all aspects of railway technology, including:

• Infrastructure • Rolling Stock • Rail+

• Passenger Experience • Net Zero • And many more

MORE THAN JUST AN EXHIBITION! Extensive conference programme CPD ACCREDITED On-Track display

Recruitment wall Plant and machinery exhibits

REGISTER NOW

www.railtex.co.uk

Organiser:

38

FEATURE

IRSE

Minor Railways Section

Biennial Technical Seminar

PAUL DARLINGTON

H

eritage railways in the UK are operated in order to re-create or preserve heritage railway routes, many of which closed as a result of transport changes after World War Two and the Beeching cuts in the 1960s. They are normally ‘not-for-profits’ often run by volunteers and can be lines of local interest with many being tourist or educational attractions in their own right. A number of them have become even more important in the last year with many more people holidaying in the UK. Much of the rolling stock and other equipment used on these railways is original and is of historic value, including the signalling and telecoms (S&T) systems. These have to be managed, maintained, and operated just like the S&T equipment on main line and metro railways, and with the same safety requirements.

The Institution of Railway Signal Engineers (IRSE) Minor Railways Section (MRS) aims to support, assist and provide guidance to, and learn from those involved in the heritage S&T community. This includes all aspects of historic S&T equipment and the section shares information and gives guidance regarding items such as safety, legal requirements, communication of industry relevant information, technical processes and procedures, compliance, and competence. The MRS is now 12 years old, so is anything but minor, and has become a source of valuable signalling knowledge via its guidance notes.

Embracing technology The S&T systems of many heritage railways aim to replicate both the look and operating practices of historic former railways companies, but in the ‘background’ some heritage railways use innovative and creative engineering solutions which can put main line railways to shame. For example, the Ravenglass & Eskdale Railway was using radio to signal trains long before radiobased signalling was used on main lines. Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) is used, for example

Rail Engineer | Issue 194 | Jan-Feb 2022

FEATURE on the Severn Valley Railway (SVR) as well as the North Yorkshire Moors Railway (NYMR), and many heritage lines have embraced early adoption of LEDs as a replacement for oil lamps. Programmable logic controllers for level crossing control have been used on the Romney, Hythe & Dymchurch Railway and Dean Forest Heritage Railway; and the list could go on.

The theme of the 7th IRSE MRS Biennial Technical Seminar, held in November 2021, was creative innovation, application and progress in minor railways signalling.

A total of 62 attendees representing 25 heritage railways meet at the Kidderminster Railway Museum on the SVR. The IRSE MRS were very grateful to Park Signalling and Green Dragon Rail for their sponsorship of the seminar and the Kidderminster Railway Museum for hosting the day. Eleven ‘minor’ railways and suppliers took part in the presentations.

Digital Block Controller Ian Allison from Park Signalling gave an update on the DiBLoC (Digital Block Controller). With a token system, possession of a physical token gives a driver authority to enter a particular section of line and electric token machines allow two or more trains to travel in the same direction over a section of single line. DiBLoC replicates the traditional token instrument, but with modern digital communications, which can include commercial telecoms broadband links.

DiBLoC has been designed to be a ‘like-for-like’ replacement for traditional style token instruments and to allow a section of single line to be controlled without the need for expensive traditional copper lineside cabling. It is designed to communicate digitally through Internet Protocol (IP) based communications.

Ian explained the trial of the first two type DiBLoC KT100 instruments took place at the Ecclesbourne Valley Railway in March 2019. Further trials were then

carried out at the Romney Hythe & Dymchurch Railway with over 5,000 token exchanges, from which arose a number of issues including potential corrosion implications due to the salt atmosphere and low temperatures causing failures.

The led to the development of an upgraded instrument, the KT101.

This will now be installed during 2022 on the main line Network Rail network, on the Central Wales Line (Pantyffynnon to Llandeilo), Dartmoor Line (Crediton to Okehampton) and the Rylstone Branch (Skipton to Swinden Quarry). So, the Romney Hythe & Dymchurch Railway has assisted the main line railway with the development of an IP token instrument solution, and it has been far easier to trial the system on the heritage railway, rather than face the main line railway trial equipment processes.

Lynton & Barnstaple Railway Bob Barnard, past president of the IRSE, gave an interesting description of Lynton & Barnstaple (L&B) Railway. He covered the original line and as it is today. The line reopened in 2004 at Woody Bay and was extended 1.6km to a new station at Killington Lane in 2006. The current signalling at Woody Bay reflects the original signalling at the station, but limits the number of trains and the operational facilities. Killington Lane only has a ground frame and the line is operated by one train.

A ‘Phase 2A’ extension of the line from Killington Lane through to a new station at Wistlandpound has been proposed, which is an additional 7.2km. Bob explained the Verification and Validation (V&V) and specification process being undertaken to define the project requirements.

A key objective is to enhance the visitor experience with the sympathetic rebuilding of the line. This will include developing a signalling scheme in keeping with the original signalling and to operate the proposed train frequency. All of this must be achieved while maintaining compliance with current legal and safety standards.

The L&B has created draft timetables with one, two and three trains, to calculate the required train capacity and the point at which ‘crush-loading’ occurs.

The main depot of the extended railway will be at Blackmoor, with a fully signalling crossing loop with a staffed signal box.

Other options would require a signalled loop at Parracombe and signalling at Wood Bay, while Wistlandpound will be train crew operated. Woody Bay and Parracombe will ‘switch-out’ when not required, reducing the need for operators.

Attracting sufficient volunteers both to operate and engineer heritage railways is always a challenge; therefore, innovative engineering and ways of working may be required. This may include, for some heritage railways, the need to introduce more automation which could conflict with the aim of replicating the original look and operating practice of the railway.

Hydraulic signal operation, Bluebell Railway Ali Bruce explained the traditional method for power operated signals on the Bluebell Railway, with the use of a Westinghouse Signal Machine. These have been in used for over 100 years, but a shortage of spares and experienced technicians was making it difficult to keep operating them. Hydraulic operation of

Rail Engineer | Issue 194 | Jan-Feb 2022

39

40

FEATURE the signals was selected as British Rail and the East Lancashire Railway had used hydraulic signals at various locations, and hydraulic clamp-lock power packs were readily available.

A ‘proof of concept’ was carried out on a shunt signal at Kingscote. The system worked but there were fluid leaks and the signal returned to ON after about 20 minutes. So, the system was modified with a leak free ‘Poppet Valve’ in the fluid return hose. When the valve coil is energised, the valve is pulled down to its seat, stopping the fluid flow. The operation of the signal was by a farm trailer actuator, which was readily available.

A test signal has completed over 4,000 cycles successfully and during the test it was left in the OFF position for 21 days without any fluid leakage. The first operational signals will be provided at Horsted Keynes inner home and calling-on signals, which have freed up an existing signal motor for use as a spare for other signals.

Southend Pier Railway Kevin Weston gave a brief history of the Southend Pier railway, also covering its present form as a single line. A crossing loop works automatically by the passage of trains operating various treadles on the approach to the loop and within the loop using two-aspect (red/green) signals and HW1121 point machines. An indication panel in the supervisor’s office monitors the operation of the equipment. In 2017, a condition assessment found there was evidence of age and salt water corrosion.

Rail Engineer | Issue 194 | Jan-Feb 2022

A damaged treadle has been repaired in the railway workshops and other work included the production of a new maintenance manual, new circuit drawings, and the building of two new override key switch units. New Dorman LED miniature tunnel signals have been installed to replace life-expired GEC signals and the original panel indications have also been replaced with LEDs. The line is now subject to regular maintenance and testing. This has also allowed signalling trainees and inexperienced designers the opportunity to gain valuable experience working with mainline-type signalling equipment on an operational railway and in a relatively safe environment.

Improving DC track circuits Denver Whiting from the South Devon Railway explained the reasoning behind the improvement of their 2.2V low voltage track circuits. These used wet lead/acid cells which were costly and have health and safety issues.

A bespoke voltage regulator circuit was developed that could be wired across the output of a single cell track circuit feed unit to provide a stable 2.28V output. The regulator is small enough to fit inside the two types of Track Service Set units used on the railway. The regulator produces a stable output voltage with a faster charging time and will work with wet lead/acid cells if required.

FEATURE

IT security Dr Liesel von Metz, from Green Dragon Rail explained the importance of data security. She discussed a situation where a company used an in-house server to run the paywall. The server failed and it took three weeks to completely rebuild the server. All the data was backed-up, but none of it could be accessed. Using a third-party host or cloud-based service would be a good solution.

But what if administration access can’t be easily found?

Cyber security and hacking are issues for all organisations, including heritage railways. Data is valuable and, for example, former members of staff with a ‘grudge’ could compromise data security. Everyone should think about their data systems, especially those provided by a third party. Systems which meet General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) requirements and a secure Virtual Private Network (VPN) with up-to-date anti-virus systems should always be used.

Other presentations heard during the seminar included level crossing gate drive renewals on the North Yorkshire Moors Railway at Grosmont and New Bridge. The railway had carried out repairs to gates in the past, but making new gates using hardwood for the vertical timbers and softwood for the horizontal timbers is now the preferred choice. This allowed the railway to make improvements such as strengthened mortise and tenon joints without changing the overall appearance. New phosphor bronze bearings were made by a local foundry. Making new gates in the railway workshop saved money and allowed the railway to better control the quality.

point indicator lamps. The aim being to replicate the typical WAGR colour light signalling used in the Signal Cabin between 1962 and 1983.

Dominic Beglin, the MRS chair, presented the Chair’s award to Charles Hudson MBE. Charles has been involved with the Bluebell Railway, the first standard gauge heritage railway in the UK, since it opened in 1960 and was member number one.

The MRS recognised the support and assistance provided by Dave Postle and the staff of the Kidderminster Railway Museum to the seminar, and Dominic presented Dave with a cheque as a contribution towards the future expansion of the excellent museum.

The museum is made up of a fascinating collection of signalling equipment.

Get involved Being involved with heritage railway signalling is an excellent way to gain engineering knowledge and can offer more opportunity for ‘hands on’ experience than from a main line railway. As the seminar demonstrated, there is lots of interesting, innovative, and creative signalling engineering taking place which can benefit main line railways. The IRSE’s Minor Railways Section’s library and the guidance notes are free to download from the IRSE website.

The MRS Facebook page at www.facebook.com/ irseminorrailwayssection provides regular updates of heritage railway signalling activity and, if you are interested in getting involved with heritage railway signalling, then the MRS can be contacted at mrssecretary@irse.org.

The next MRS AGM is being planned for June 2022 at the Romney, Hythe and Dymchurch Railway, and the next MRS technical seminar is due to take place in November 2023.

Structural Precast for Railways Awards The MRS S&T Technician of the Year award was presented by IRSE president Ian Bridges to Chris French, who was the driving force behind the restoration of the redundant Claremont signal cabin in Western Australia. Chris refurbished the electrical and mechanical interlocking of the cabin to simulate the cabin’s busiest period.

He also developed a unique, miniaturised relay set to interface with the existing signalling infrastructure. This includes a McKenzie & Holland No 9 Pattern Lever Frame, Union Switch & Signal Company approach lock timers and various forms of signal and

Rail Engineer | Issue 194 | Jan-Feb 2022

41

42

FEATURE

Llangennech DERAILMENT, FIRE, AND FUEL SPILLAGE AT

MALCOLM DOBELL

DAVID SHIRRES

O

n 24 August 2020, train 6A11 − the Robeston to Theale freight train − derailed near Llangennech, Carmarthenshire. Of its 25 bogie tank wagons, each carrying 75.5 tonnes of petroleum products, 10 were derailed. This resulted in the spillage of 446,000 litres of oil and a major fire.

Although no-one was hurt, this was a major environmental incident with 330,000 litres of oil draining into the surrounding wetlands which is a both a site of special scientific interest and a special area of conservation.

The extensive damage to the track and the underlying formation, and the need to remove contaminated soil, meant that the route was not reopened until 5 March 2021.

The RAIB report into the incident was released on 13 January 2022. Its comments about freight wagon maintenance are salutary reading.

Before the derailment Train 6A11 left Robeston, near Milford Haven at 2152. Its class 60 locomotive and 25 laden bogie tank wagons had a combined weight of 2,672 tonnes. It travelled 62 miles at speeds of

Rail Engineer | Issue 194 | Jan-Feb 2022

up to 60mph before it was derailed at Morlais Junction. Signallers at signal boxes enroute did not report anything untoward as the train passed. However, CCTV recording shows sparks from the third wagon’s front wheelset at Peny-bedd level crossing which is 11.5 miles from Morlais Junction. The train passed this crossing at 2246.

At 2250, 6A11 passed through Pembrey station where members of the public reported hearing unusual ‘metal on metal’ sounds and then passed over the hot axle box detector system (HABD) at Pembrey, which did not generate an alarm.

FEATURE

Scene of the Llangennech derailment. GERS 89005 is shown by the red arrow.

As the train passed through Llanelli station at 2253, CCTV also recorded heavy sparking from the third wagon’s front wheelset. At Llangennech station, half a mile before derailment, it left marks on the railhead of the type associated with locked wheels. When the train reached Morlais Junction it was travelling at 38mph.

As the third wagon − TEA wagon GERS 89005 − reached the junction’s trailing points, it derailed to the left as its leading wheelset had a false flange from sliding on the rail. Shortly afterwards, this derailed wagon and those behind it were diverted to the left at the facing points causing the derailment of wagons behind it. This also broke the coupling and brake pipe between the second and third wagons and applied the train brake. Of 10 derailed wagons, five overturned, six were punctured. Wagons three, four, and five also caught fire.

Loose nuts The RAIB investigation concluded that the derailment was caused by the false flange

on the leading wheelset of wagon GERS 89005. The report found that the false flange was the result of the wheelset ceasing to rotate and that this was ‘probably’ caused by a braking system malfunction.

RAIB defines the term ‘probably’ to mean a highly likely conclusion with some

geometry, the preparation and driving of the train, and a failure of the brake relay valve, and found no evidence that these were contributary factors.

RAIB investigators found that on wagon GERS 89005, the nuts securing the brake relay valve were loose with no washers present and that

Standard (black) and actual (red) LHS wheel profile of leading GERS 8095 wheelset shows about 15 mm of tread was ground away while the wheel was locked for what RIAB estimate to be around 13 miles. element of uncertainty remaining. In this case, due the fire and damage, RAIB was unable to forensically prove that there had been a brake malfunction. However, the report rules out all other possibilities. Hence it is reasonable to consider that this accident was due to a braking system malfunction.

The investigation considered other potential factors of track

the mounting studs in the pipe bracket were only finger tight. As a result, the mating faces between this valve and pipe bracket had separated by one to two millimetres. The resultant displacement of ‘O’ rings then created a route for air to flow between the relay valve’s input and output ports to produce a partial brake application which ultimately locked the front wheelset.

TEA wagons have a gross weight of 101.2 tonnes.

Rail Engineer | Issue 194 | Jan-Feb 2022

43

44

FEATURE TEA wagon relay valve, insert shows in yellow the 1-2 mm gap found between pipe bracket and relay valve on GERS 89005.

The report considered the loose relay valve was due to two sub-factors: (i) a relay valve design change that increased the risk of it becoming loose; and (ii) the valve not being maintained as specified by the manufacturer.

The brake relay valve was originally fitted to the mating surface of the pipe bracket by four M8 (8mm diameter) studs. However, around 1985, this design was changed to reduce the number of studs from four to two, with the studs and nuts increased to M10 size.

The braking system was designed by SAB Wabco who also introduced this modification.

Subsequently, they became Wabtec Faiveley who had no documentation of a risk assessment for this design change.

After tests and analysis, RAIB concluded that the design change from four to two fasteners had resulted in an inherently higher risk as, if one fastener was not fully tightened, the joint would tend to rotate around the remaining stud and loosen it. Some engineers consider that it is the nut and bolt that prevents the

Bolted joints When tightening a threaded fastener, the torque used extends the length of the bolt or stud under tension as surfaces are clamped together. The resultant longitudinal tensile force in the bolt is known as the preload.

The reaction to this force results in a clamping force within the joint. In the case of the relay valve, part of this preload compresses the ‘O’ rings to achieve air-tight seals.

Some of the tightening torque is used in overcoming the friction both between the threads of the nut and the bolt/stud, and between the nut and the clamped part with which it is in contact. For steel components, the coefficient of friction typically ranges between 0.1 and 0.445.

For the threads, the amount of friction is dependent upon its condition which generally deteriorates with reuse and retightening, and any lubrication or contamination present. For a given

Rail Engineer | Issue 194 | Jan-Feb 2022

joint from moving, but they misunderstand how bolted joints work. RAIB considered this in its investigation into the 2007 Grayrigg derailment which was also due to loose nuts, in this case on a set of points. The explanatory ‘Bolted Joints’ box is based on appendix E from that report.

Another design issue with this joint is securing ‘O’ rings as they are installed. These ‘O’ rings make the seals between the various compressed air passages on the mating surface. When the relay valve is fastened to the pipe bracket it is vertically orientated, so the ‘O’ rings have somehow to be held in place while the valve is fitted. RAIB reported that standard practice was to hold ‘O’ rings in place with dabs of grease. However, a good bolted joint requires the mating faces to be clean and grease free (refer Box). This is clearly a conflict.

Moreover, maintenance often happens in the open, sometimes in poor weather and lighting, making it difficult for maintainers to ensure everything is properly done.

torque, higher thread friction results in less preload, and hence less clamping force within the joint.

The failure of a joint can be defined as slip. Slip occurs when the load on the joint exceeds its clamping force and allows the joint surfaces to separate or move relative to each other. For the brake relay valve on GERS 89005, the vertical load is the weight of the valve flexed by the dynamic impact of vibration. In this case, deterioration of the ‘O’ rings will see the pre-load gradually reduce.

Any slip leads to a reduction in clamping force and therefore further slip will occur under lower successive loads, eventually leading to a complete loss of clamping force. Once clamping force has been lost, a plain nut will be loose and free to unwind off the bolt under dynamic conditions.

No component has surfaces that are perfectly smooth. Surface roughness

depends on the manufacturing process e.g., rolled, forged, machined, etc.

Surfaces must also be clean and dry. Any contaminant such as grease, will reduce the coefficient of friction between the two surfaces, thus reducing the efficiency of the joint.

When two components are clamped together, permanent deformation of the local contact points between mating surfaces occurs, particularly the ‘O’ rings. This is known as embedding and is on a microscopic scale. Over time, this embedding moves surfaces closer together and therefore reduces the extension of the bolt. The bolt relaxes which results in a reduction of preload and the joint’s clamping force.

The difference between a bolt tightened to the specified torque value and one where the joint looks closed but with very little pre-load is small – in the order of one quarter to one half turn of a spanner.

FEATURE Poor wagon maintenance The tank wagons are owned

by Touax Rail which is also the Entity in Charge of Maintenance (ECM). In 2015, Touax was certified as an ECM by Belgorail which was accredited to do so by BELAC, the Belgian national accreditation body.

Touax contracts DB Cargo Maintenance Ltd (DBCM) to undertake day-to-day maintenance and DCBM employs wagon maintenance staff at Robeston. Arlington Fleet Services Ltd (AFSL) was contracted by Touax to undertake the seven-yearly General Repairs on its wagons.

is likely that new nuts were not used when the relay valve was reattached, nor were washers used under nuts. » DBCM staff did not obtain the required authority from Touax to swap distributors between wagons as was done during fault-finding. » There was no documented requirement for DBCM to tighten nuts to the specified torque value when relay valves were reattached. » When wagons failed a brake test, DBCM staff only visually checked the relay valve instead of checking the security of fixings as required

was no equipment at the depot to calibrate the torque wrench. » Following an incident on 30 October 2017 (RAIB report 17/2018), when a tank train developed severe wheel flats, RAIB observed that the facilities at Robeston were ‘suboptimal’.

Maintenance management With such deficiencies, it is not surprising that the RAIB investigation found failings in Touax’s management of wagon maintenance, and the work done by DBCM and AFSL. Witness evidence described

Organisations involved in the investigation.

When RAIB investigated maintenance practices it found the following deficiencies: » Touax was not in possession of the manufacturer’s maintenance manuals. » Touax’s maintenance manual supplied to AFSL did not state the manufacturer’s required torque setting for relay valve nuts and the requirement to use new CS washers. » AFSL did not routinely stock new washers, nuts, and studs for the relay valve. Hence it

by Touax’s maintenance manual. » In October 2019, GERS 89005 was reported to be ‘eating brake blocks’ (a sign of a partial brake application), but there was no evidence that this issue had been followed up after subsequent brake block renewals. » When RAIB visited Robeston depot, the torque wrench was broken, this had been reported two months earlier and no action had been taken. Furthermore, there

how Touax was restructured following its acquisition of the GERS tanker wagons in 2015. This resulted in several staff leaving and UK managers reporting to directors in Hamburg and Paris.

Witnesses stated that this affected the level of engagement, communication, leadership, and support offered by UK managers. This implied that Touax, who do no maintenance themselves, was insufficiently resourced to fulfil its duties as an ECM which is

Rail Engineer | Issue 194 | Jan-Feb 2022

45

46

FEATURE

The wheel and bearing temperatures of locomotive and first five wagons of the train recorded by the Pembrey HABD shows the high temperature of all wheels on GERS 89005.

to ensure that its vehicles are safe to run on the mainline railway through a system of maintenance.

Broadly, this requires the maintenance of a vehicle in accordance with: (i) maintenance file for that vehicle; (ii) applicable maintenance rules; and (ii) applicable Technical Specifications for Interoperability. ECMs must also comply with the common safety method (CSM) for monitoring risk evaluation and assessment.

The maintenance management deficiencies identified in the report were: » Wabtec Faiveley had no record of its brake control maintenance documents being supplied to or requested by Touax when it took ownership of the wagons in 2015. » Neither Touax, DBCM nor ASDL identified that these documents were missing from its library.

Its maintenance file was therefore deficient as it did not include manufacturer’s instructions. » Liaison between Touax and DBCM and ASDL was ineffective with no discussion of maintenance problems, such as fitting ‘O’ rings or best practice such as marking nuts to highlight movement between examinations. » During maintenance, some loose relay valves had been found but this was not reported to Touax or other contractors. » Touax’s response to previous incidents showed that it was not effectively applying its procedure to learn from accidents. » There had been many instances of near misses reported but there was no evidence of investigation or corrective action. » Belgorail’s accreditation of Touax as an ECM appeared to have been based on a survey of management paperwork rather than an examination of work

Rail Engineer | Issue 194 | Jan-Feb 2022

done versus work required.

RAIB concluded that regulatory oversight of wagon maintenance was significantly diminished after the ORR relinquished its responsibilities as an ECM certification body

While the causal factors identified by the report are primarily concerned with wagon maintenance, the report also concluded that this accident could have been prevented had the Hot Axle Box Detector (HABD) at Pembrey been configured to alert the signaller of the wagon’s dragging brakes.

However, when the train passed over this HABD it recorded the leading wheelset of wagon GERS 89005 having a tread temperature of 334°C and the following wheelsets on this wagon having temperatures of 326°C, 248°C, and 270°C, compared with all the other train wheels having temperatures of around 35°C. If all wheels on just one wagon have excessively high temperatures, this indicates an uncommanded brake application on the wagon. Furthermore, the temperature/time curve of the first wheelset as it passed over the sensor indicated that it was a locked wheel with an uneven temperature around the wheel tread.

This HABD, which the train passed over 14 minutes before it derailed, had sensors to measure both wheel bearing and tread temperatures. It had been in use since the 1980s, but its measurement of wheel tread temperatures had caused many false alarms (e.g., from hot wheels due to a train braking heavily) and so its wheel tread temperature alarm was disabled on this class of HADB in 2001.

This, and previous accidents, have shown that dragging wagon brakes present a significant risk. Despite this, the Pembrey HABD had sensors that detected hot wheel treads but did not have the software to raise an alarm.

Thus, this HABD provided useful information to RAIB after this accident but could not give the signaller an alarm that could have prevented the accident.

No HABD alarm

FEATURE A thorough report The Llangennech derailment was an extremely serious incident likely to cost tens of millions of pounds. Fortunately, no one was killed or injured, though the line was closed for six months to repair the severely damaged track and remove 31,000 tonnes of contaminated land. Had it occurred close to a population centre and involved more volatile fuel, the direct human consequences could have been considerably worse.

This was a complex investigation, no doubt hindered by evidence being altered or destroyed by the fire. As usual, RAIB has produced a thorough report which makes no less than nine detailed recommendations to address the many deficiencies found. Commenting on this, and previous freight train accidents, RAIB’s Chief Inspector, Simon French, made the following hard-hitting comments: “The rail industry’s approach to the safe maintenance of freight wagons needs to improve. In this investigation we found that there were inadequate maintenance practices, and a failure to appreciate the importance of the correct fastening of the various components of the tanks wagons’ braking system. This is not the first time that we have investigated an accident where RAIB has identified serious issues with the maintenance of a freight train. Over the last decade we have identified deficient wagon maintenance as a

factor in more than ten investigations, including maladjusted suspension, undetected frame twist and worn bogie pivot liners.”

With the experience of the pandemic and the carbon benefits of rail (even diesel powered) the future is bright for rail freight. Rail Engineer hopes that the letter and spirit of the RAIB recommendations will lead to the necessary changes.

Recommendations made by the RAIB Llangennech report are summarised below.

Wagon maintenance

Relay valve design

» Touax should commission an independent

» Wabtec Faiveley should use the findings

» The Department for Transport and the ORR should jointly review

review of actions it has taken to improve

of this investigation to review the design

the current arrangements for the

management of maintenance following

of the interface between the relay valve

oversight of ECMs and certification

the accident at Llangennech.

and the pipe bracket, and implement any

bodies that are not based in the UK.

» Touax, in conjunction with its routine

necessary improvements.

HABDs

maintenance supplier, DBCM, should conduct a task analysis of fuel tank

Role of ECM

wagon maintenance processes at

» BELAC should use the findings from

should review system used in UK

Robeson Terminal, which considers the

this report to review its processes to

and Europe to provide alerts of a

risks of tasks completed incorrectly

assess certification bodies which apply

wagon defect that may lead to a

and the working environment, and

for or undertake ECM surveillance and

derailment.

implement the findings.

certification process. This may also apply

» AFLS, in conjunction with Touax, should improve its quality management

to the UK Accreditation Service (UKAS). » RSSB, with the National Freight Safety

» Network Rail, RSSB, and NFSG

Improving wagon maintenance » National Freight Safety Group and

arrangements for maintaining and

Group (NFSG) and UK accredited ECMs,

the Freight Technical Committee,

overhauling safety critical systems

should commission guidance on the

in conjunction with Network Rail

and components at Eastleigh Works,

practical application of ECM regulations

and other industry stakeholders,

including a task analysis of the processes

in the freight sector. This should provide

should develop a comprehensive

for verifying the work done and that the

ECMs with good practice examples for all

programme of measures designed to

instructions issued to staff are complete,

four ECM functions, particularly in respect of

promote the improvement of freight

suitable, and implement the findings.

outsourced maintenance delivery activities.

wagon maintenance in the UK.

Rail Engineer | Issue 194 | Jan-Feb 2022

47

48

FEATURE

Unlocking Innovation

RailDecarb21

T

he Unlocking Innovation events hosted by the Railway Industry Association (RIA) are always of interest and their RailDecarb21 workshop, held in Glasgow on 13 October, was particularly topical as it was held just over two weeks before COP26.

While the focus was on reducing carbon, in her keynote address Jo Lewington, Network Rail’s Chief Environment and Sustainability Officer, emphasised that sustainability required more than this. She stressed the need to improve biodiversity as required by Network Rail’s Environmental Sustainability Strategy as she considers the risk of biodiversity collapse as greater than that of climate change.

Network Rail’s Sustainability Strategy Manager in Scotland, Wendi Wheeler, described the action being taken to meet Scotland’s Railway target of no net loss of biodiversity across Scotland’s railway by 2024.

Scotland is also now taking action to decarbonise its passenger services by 2035 and ensure net zero emissions for all of Scotland’s Railway by 2045.

DAVID SHIRRES

Rail Engineer | Issue 194 | Jan-Feb 2022

The three options Three parallel workshops considered electrification, battery and hydrogen traction.

An advantage of the hybrid event was being able to watch videos of the two workshops not attended on the day.

The first presentation in the electrification workshop was

by Richard Fluin of Arcadis who considered the costs and benefits of overhead line systems. His presentation showed how the 25kV AC system is currently the most economical system with a return on investment that can be easily reached on busy lines. It also showed that total infrastructure and rolling stock cost of an electric railway is two-thirds that of a diesel railway with electrification halving the costs of both rolling stock maintenance and energy.

Allowing freight trains to be electrically hauled all the way into freight terminals was considered by Noel Dolphin of Furrer+Frey, who is leading a pilot project that has a moveable overhead conductor bar to permit unloading. Denzel Collins, a Network Rail Environmental Specialist is working with the Riding Sunbeams initiative to provide an energy storage for 750 Volt DC 3rd rail systems to store energy from intermittent renewable sources and improve receptivity for regenerative braking.

Dr Pedro Antunes of the

FEATURE

University of Huddersfield’s Institute of Railway Research described the institute’s pantograph test rig and explained how tools to simulate complex pantograph-catenary interaction had been developed.

With increasing use of batteries in all sectors, the Knowledge Transfer Network (KTN) is creating a cross-sector battery system innovation network. Dr Abi Hird, KTN’s battery systems network lead explained how an online platform (www.ukbatteriesnetwork.org) had been created to promote this. This has a webinar on battery

opportunities for rail which shows that battery costs for rail are typically £2,000 per kWh, 10 times the cost of automotive batteries.

The hydrogen workshop had presentations from Jon Constable of Tpgroup, Richard Kemp-Harper of Arcola Energy, Kevin Fothergill of EnAcumen, and Luke Johnson of H2Green. These showed how Tpgroup had used their experience of submarine atmospheric management to develop fuel cells for the Hydroflex train and how Arcola were installing their A-Drive hydrogen drive train in

Confidential Reporting for Safety

Digital safety

Is your technology secure? Is there a safety risk? When something doesn’t seem right, no matter how small, raise it with us in confidence and we’ll pass it on.

www.ciras.org.uk Report hotline: 0800 4 101 101

Report textline: 07507 285 887

Freepost: CIRAS

We take all genuine health and safety concerns.

Rail Media (190mm x 130 mm half page) Education ads.indd 1

06/01/2022 2022 14:40:43 Rail Engineer | Issue 194 | Jan-Feb

49

50

FEATURE

Scotland’s hydrogen train.

Presentations from EnAcumen and H2Green considered the issues associated with the production and transport of hydrogen and options for its storage, including Ammonia.

Reducing non-traction carbon Construction and electric vehicles were considered by two presentations. Costain’s Group Climate Change Director, Lara Young explained the need to prioritise while having clarity of the whole picture. Costain’s climate change action plan prioritised construction plant, low carbon materials, vehicle fleet decarbonisation, and energy use of accommodation.

A systematic approach to make the best use of depots when introducing electric bus fleets was considered by Mike Nugent, Hitachi’s Head of Electric Vehicles. He explained that applying this approach to a particular Network Rail depot would require an investment of £2.8 million which would pay for itself in six years and save 380 tonnes of CO2 per year.

The importance of embodied carbon was stressed in three presentations. Jamie Pitcairn of Ricardo explained that, with only 10% of UK manufacturing emissions occurring in the UK, life cycle assessment is

Rail Engineer | Issue 194 | Jan-Feb 2022

needed to fully evaluate embodied emissions. Victoria Eggleston of Arcadis explained how useful the RSSB’s rail carbon tool was in this respect. She showed how carbon could be reduced by careful analysis of concrete grade for cill units and the thickness of steel elements. Finally, Dr Saran Sohi of Edinburgh University described greenhouse gas removal technologies for linear infrastructure projects.

Elevator pitches Short presentations showcasing products and services were given by: Dan Cutting of the Driving Electric Revolution Industrial Centre, which provides support for the development of power electronics, machines and drives.

Natalie Cartwright of GBR-Rail Ltd, which has

developed the ClearTrack sustainable sink and toilet waste treatment system that purifies and recycles liquid waste. The system only needs emptying every three months, is lighter, and has a lower energy consumption than conventional CET toilets.

Rupert Stevens of Dynex, which has 60 years’ experience of power semiconductors.

Gary Sanford of Scott Parnell, whose Flex MSE stacked bag retaining walls system has 97% less embodied carbon than concrete and can be installed at around 60% of its cost.

Dr Will Midgley of Loughborough University whose control systems group has undertaken studies to determine emission savings from electrification.

It was an intense and useful day which offered much food for thought. Thanks to RIA’s Sam Bemment, Karl King and Milda Manomaityte who did a good job of managing the intricacies of this hybrid event. Do look out for RIA’s 2022 programme of Unlocking Innovation workshops which are ‘must attend’ events for anyone with an interest in rail innovation.

Are your windscreen wipers the best in their class?

If they are that's great, if they aren't then contact PSV Wipers today.

A th

If they are that’s by email sales@

01905 350 500 sales@psvwipers.com

Are your windscreen wipers the best in their class?

they are that’s great, if they aren’t then contact PSV Wipers email sales@psvwipers.com or by phone 01905 350500 PSV Wipers have everything you need to improve your wipers from wash jets, wiper blades and wiper arms to full replacement electric motor assemblies including pneumatic to electric conversions.

Staffordshire-based locomotive manufacturer, Clayton Equipment Ltd recently chose PSV Wipers to design and supply the full wiper system for their CBD90 locomotives (to be known as Class 18). This heralds a new era for the manufacturer and continues the story of its standard gauge Clayton Type 1 (Class 17) Bo-Bo diesel-electric locomotives manufactured by the company between 1961 and 1965.

Why not discover the benefits PSV Wipers equipment can bring to your fleet, by contacting us today.

PSV Wipers, 18 Kempton Road, Pershore, WR10 2TA.

PSV Wipers have eve wiper blades and wip including pneumatic

As the UK’s leading s 460mm (18”) Rail Fl consistently improve for depots.

Why not discover th can bring to your fle Paul Curry today.

PSV Wipers Ltd., 18 Kempton Roa

52

SURVEYING & ASSET MANAGEMENT

R AMS for good asset management PAUL DARLINGTON

(Above) Figure 1.

A

n essential part of any rail infrastructure project or asset management system is a robust Reliability, Availability, Maintainability, Safety (RAMS) assessment process. But what is RAMS and how does each element relate to one another?

RAMS is a decision-making tool to identify how to increase the availability of a system. In some industries RAMS refers to a Reliability, Availability, Maintainability, Study or Schedule. However, in the rail industry, the ‘S’ generally refers to functional safety and standard EN 50126 is called: “Railway Applications.

The Specification and Demonstration of Reliability,

(Right) Figure 2.

Rail Engineer | Issue 194 | Jan-Feb 2022

Availability, Maintainability and Safety (RAMS)”. EN 50126 also defines the type of analyses that must be carried out for many railway applications.

In simple terms, reliability is the probability of no failures occurring over a defined time.

Availability is the percentage of time a system is considered available when required, and maintainability is a measure of the ease with which a system

can be restored to operation after a failure. Safety (in the context of this article and RAMS) is the condition of being protected from danger, risk, or injury by the safety function of an asset. For example, a signalling interlocking ensures that signals and points act together for the safe routing and movement of trains.

Complex calculations There are many academic and detailed papers explaining RAMS with calculations that can become quite complex.

However, the principle is that good availability is delivered by good reliability and maintainability, and the safety function of a safety critical or safety related asset, is dependent on good RAM.

SURVEYING & ASSET MANAGEMENT

A RAMS study should be conducted in the early stages of a project and be reviewed and updated as the project progresses. This will identify targets for RAMS, together with any significant causes of loss of availability or the safety function. The study will also identify improvements to the design or maintenance regime to achieve the identified targets.

The relationship between reliability, availability, maintainability, and functional safety is shown in Figure 1.

Availability is at the top of the first triangle, as it is dependent on reliability and maintainability.

Consider the availability of an asset that is very reliable but has poor maintainability.

This could be for a variety of reasons, such as poor access

or location, no competent staff available, no working spare parts, or it may be an asset where it is difficult to identify what has actually failed. In extreme cases it could be that a spare part or a competent person has to be flown from another part of the world (and this has occurred on more than one occasion). So, in this scenario the availability target could fail significantly.

Extreme example Now let’s consider another extreme example of an asset which is very unreliable, but has excellent maintainability, with many competent, knowledgeable technicians and engineers readily available and with many spare parts at hand which are easy to change. In this scenario it could be that

an asset with poor reliability has good maintainability and, therefore, acceptable availability. ‘A’ also stands for Affordability and, generally, good maintainability will cost more in terms of competent staff, spares, and support contracts, so affordability is another factor that has to be included in any RAMS study.

If an asset is providing a safety function, then its RAM must be of an acceptable level to ensure the safety function is delivered when required and any failure of the asset results in a safe state. So, for example, a failed track circuit must return the protecting signal to red. The relationship between RAM, and how reliability and maintainability affect availability in simple terms is shown in Figure 2.

Rail Engineer | Issue 194 | Jan-Feb 2022

53

54

SURVEYING & ASSET MANAGEMENT systems have to be carefully designed and tested so that if they do fail, they fail safely and do not create unsafe train paths.

Detect likely failures

Improving reliability So, how can reliability be improved to deliver better availability? It’s vital to identify why an asset fails, so that something can be done to improve its reliability. A root cause analysis should be carried out, with tools such as Failure Mode and Effects Analysis (FMEA). Asset managers and maintainers need to continually review, revise, and learn from failure reports, which could also involve independent forensic investigations from specialist engineering experts.

Some Original Equipment Manufacturers (OEM) may be defensive when cooperating with third party investigations, but any independent analysis of a problem should be welcomed. Cooperation and collaboration is how we will deliver a better railway for all.

Higher quality components could also be looked at to improve reliability, although with safety related and safety critical assets this could involve a safety case and design change, with appropriate verification and validation, and testing.

EMC immunisation should always be checked out if any electronic assets are failing for no apparent reason. Many railway electronic assets are old and were designed before modern immunisation standards were in place. It is not unknown for new assets to be installed in existing equipment rooms which, while complying with modern standards, can cause

Rail Engineer | Issue 194 | Jan-Feb 2022

older equipment to fail. With more and more modern electronic equipment installed in older equipment rooms with poor immunisation protection, this problem may increase in the future.

Frequency of maintenance Reliability Centred Maintenance (RCM) is one tool available to asset managers.

Rather than based on a period of time or mileage, RCM sets the frequency of maintenance interventions to take into account the criticality of the asset with respect to its function and historic reliability. So, if an asset is likely to fail more often, and the failure is going to adversely affect availability, it should be checked more often.

Increasing redundancy in the design of a system will also improve reliability. If designed properly with hot standby or load sharing, when a vital asset fails another one seamlessly takes over. Processes need to be in place to detect the non-service effecting failure and resolve it, otherwise reduced availability is simply being delayed, rather than the failure being mitigated. Sometimes it may require a healthy asset to be taken out of service to resolve the issue and operators may be unwilling to assist, because as far as they are concerned there is no failure.

Signalling interlockings are provided with redundancy with several Safety Integrity Level (SIL) processors. The interlocking

Remote condition monitoring is increasingly being used in many engineering disciplines to detect likely failures before they occur, so that an intervention can take place before an asset fails. Greater remote monitoring with more functionality and more intelligent infrastructure enables technicians to safely inspect and predict ‘work arising’ earlier and more accurately.

This results in fewer people working on the track ‘at risk’, and provides the ability to plan work earlier and in safety, and deliver a more reliable railway.

A good example of the benefits of remote condition monitoring are with track circuit monitoring. With intermittent faults it can be difficult to identify the root cause and can result in time-consuming attempts at fault finding and incorrect ‘fixes’ being applied.

Remote condition monitoring of track circuits enables prompt detection of intermittent faults and the correct identification of the root cause prior to attendance on site.

Data overload There are examples where too much data and false positives can overload operators. One answer is to use Artificial Intelligence (AI) to create useable information, rather than just collect raw data, and this is one area where AI has much to offer asset management and improving reliability in the future. AI could one day automatically instigate a manual intervention or may even be able to deliver a robotic repair.

An earthworks example of remote conditioning monitoring is the Insight Earthworks Monitoring system by L.B. Foster. This won the Equipment Innovation category at the GE Awards in 2021. The system

SURVEYING & ASSET MANAGEMENT uses LiDAR technology and was used on a project for Network Rail in Gloucestershire. Little Hagloe is on the coastal rail line adjacent to the River Severn in Gloucestershire. The railway runs along the bottom of a steep embankment and has a history of failures of the cutting slope. The Insight LiDAR units are now providing real-time monitoring of slope integrity at critical sites along the line.

Maintainability When an asset does fail, its maintainability is the ease with which it can be restored to operation. So, competent, well-trained staff equipped with the right tools and spares must be readily available.

Therefore, good training to enable technicians to fault the asset is essential. A good project should engage with the maintenance organisation at an early stage to identify and scope the required training and, just as important, the maintainer needs to

communicate with the project during its development.

Good documentation/ faulting guides can also assist technicians with the maintainability and faulting of systems, and it is important that projects communicate and consult with the maintainer throughout the project development to ensure they are provided with the right assistance to fault the system.

This is not always the case and sometimes generic training courses provided right at the end of the project may not provide what is required to deliver good availability. It is too late to start thinking of the training requirements just before the commissioning of a new system. Similarly, test equipment, spares, and documentation, including faulting guides, should be addressed at an early stage of any project.

It is somewhat ironic that a reliable system will not provide technicians and engineers the

opportunity to practise their faulting skills. Therefore, further training throughout the systems asset life should be considered, both for current and new staff.

Fault-finding Consideration should also be made for establishing a test/ training rig for staff to practise their fault-finding skills and to receive training on the system, along with competency assessment. This could be located at the maintainers training school, on site, or at

Rail Engineer | Issue 194 | Jan-Feb 2022

55

56

SURVEYING & ASSET MANAGEMENT

Improving maintainability Siemens Surelock - the successor to the Type 63 point machine, widely used on London Underground and designed with maintainability in mind. » Four easily identifiable modules. » Red is screw drive, blue is motor, yellow is detection and control, black is escapement. » All the electrical connections are plugcoupled. Each of the modules are easily carried, and light » Remote condition monitoring can be provided with a plug coupler to the outside world. » Fitted with ‘mechanical fuse’ so if points are run through this breaks before any damage is done to the point machine. » Every bolt that needs to be removed is the same size - so only one spanner required.

the OEM premises. This will also be useful for the OEM or a third party to develop and test replacement obsolete parts for the asset during its life. Test/training rigs will not be cheap but could be invaluable with ensuring systems are maintainable throughout their life.

Access to the system must also be considered during its design, both for good access to the site by technicians with tools, test equipment, and spares; and to easily access any parts that may need replacement. So, equipment cubicles may need front, rear, and side access. It should be easy to disconnect electrical connections and remove items with standard tools.

Remote diagnostic alarm and analyses of systems will also aid maintainability. Ideally, if people have to go to site they should be provided with details of the intervention required well before they arrive.

The maintenance organisation will also need to carefully plan and optimise the faulting cover to aid maintainability. This needs to make allowance for travelling

Rail Engineer | Issue 194 | Jan-Feb 2022

to site at all times of the day and week. An escalation process will also be required, both for telephone and on-site assistance, 24/7. This could include in house, third party, and OEM support. No matter how good and competent a person is, it always helps to seek another independent opinion, especially with difficult and safety related/critical tasks.

There is an engineer’s phrase: “If you plan for the worst, you may not need it; but if you don’t plan for the worst, you will definitely need it!”

“Are you building it right?”

Independence is also an important part of design and testing, especially with safety critical assets. One important area of independence in project development and implementation is verification and validation. This is sometimes carried out by specialist verification and validation engineers, who will assess RAMS among other project deliverables.

Verification is intended to check that a product, service, or system meets a set of design specifications. “Are you building it right?” is a process

that is used to evaluate whether a product, service, or system complies with standards, regulations, and specifications.

Validation is intended to ensure that a product, service, or system meets the operational needs of the user, which must also include the maintainer. “Are you building the right thing?” Identifying design problems and solving them as early in the project as possible is the key to keeping projects on time and within budget, and providing systems that are reliable and maintainable, and well as delivering their safety function.

Conclusion When applied appropriately, from the early stages and throughout development and implementation of a project, RAMS modelling is an effective tool for assessing system reliability, availability, maintainability, and functional safety. RAMS calculations can become quite complex because of inter-dependence between the various elements, but good RAMS modelling is crucial to support the whole life availability and viability projects.

R A I LW AY T E C H N O L O G Y

State of the Art

FFU™ synthetic railway sleeper Since 1985 we have installed more than 1,550 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

58

FEATURE

CLIVE KESSELL

M

any comments have appeared since the UK government issued its white paper on an Integrated Rail Plan (IRP) in late 2021, the centrepiece of which was the curtailing of the HS2 eastern leg at East Midlands Parkway station with high-speed trains using existing rail lines from there northwards.

This announcement caused considerable controversy but there was much more in the paper than just HS2. The earlier Williams-Shapps report on how the structure of Britain’s Railways will be changed to create a single entity – Great British Railways (GBR) – was no doubt intended as a precursor to the white paper, but both have been subject to analysis and comment by the media with regional interests and disappointments being widely reported.

So, what to make of it all? The Westminster Energy Environment & Transport Forum staged an online conference in January to look at the facts, opportunities, and risks that will emerge.

Badged ‘Reforming Britain’s Railways’ and sponsored by AECOM, Burges Salmon, and IMechE, an impressive line-up of speakers gave some surprising views in the process.

Rail Engineer | Issue 194 | Jan-Feb 2022

These conferences focus more on the politics and finance than the technology but have an important influence on the subsequent engineering projects.

Split into four sessions, the first was chaired

by Jack Brereton, MP for Stoke on Trent South, who indicated his hope for rail within the constituency with proposals to re-open Meir station, the Stoke to Leek line and a new station at Trentham. His comment that Stoke is well connected to London but that local rail connectivity is very poor is all too true, but typical of many smaller towns and cities around the country. He therefore welcomed the simplified structure that GBR should provide but said it was important to recognise that this was not re-nationalisation. MPs as a whole are welcoming what is being promised.

FEATURE Realism from the RSSB There are big challenges for the rail industry in the ongoing Covid pandemic, said Mark Phillips, the Chief Executive of the Rail Safety and Standards Branch. At the lowest point, passenger numbers dropped by 70% but have recovered in more recent times. Income has plummeted and full marks must be given to the Treasury for the support it has provided.

However, industry costs have risen, partly due to the acquisition of new rolling stock.

A different form of competition has emerged – working from home - but car usage is also on the ascendancy. Reduced timetables have had to be put in place with fast services having more stops and, consequently, increased journey times.

Improved productivity will be key to recovery together with digital technology that matches other forms of transport, e.g. autonomous road vehicles. Rail must re-adjust to new forms of demand and tackle the high cost of operations.

It is expected that the transition to GBR will take until 2024.The single guiding (but not controlling) mind should ensure that the industry will be flexible and not bureaucratic.

From a passenger view, rail must be seen as one industry but inside there will be many private sector players that have to work together and TOCs must buy into the overall picture. The devolved administrations in Scotland and Wales will need to work out how they fit the GBR model as well as local, regional authorities and their funding.

Passenger comfort, on time punctuality, and value for money are what people want with no excuses when services fail. The commuter market will diminish, so efforts to increase business travel, leisure, and tourism markets must be built up. The ‘final mile’ of a journey has to be part of the offering, meaning integration with trams, buses, ferries and metro services being part of the travel package.

Freight, which has held up well during the pandemic, must have ways of maintaining newly formed paths but operating at higher speeds will be part of this. The effects of climate change and weather-related incidents need to be better predicted and managed accordingly. Line and station re-openings are an opportunity but the cost of these must be realistic. The government will need help to reach the right choices for investment.

In all of this, safety has to be maintained and technology will change with associated adaptation. The RSSB is developing a ‘Futures Laboratory’ to investigate all of this. In short, Rail is not broken but it is in need of repair.

Reaction from the supply industry The Railway Industry Association (RIA) with 300+ members, 60% of which are SMEs, is there to represent member interests to clients, government and regulators, so says Max Sugarman the Public Relations Director. Prior to Covid, the supply chain chalked up £43 billion in revenue, providing 710,000 jobs and yielding £14 billion in tax revenue. The impact of the pandemic and latterly the Omicron variant, has seen these numbers contract but 20% of all construction work was still in rail. A recent survey indicated that 45% of industry thought rail would continue to grow, 30% thought it would contract, so on balance, confidence is considered to be returning. GBR is key to the future and the RIA welcomes the prospects.

Rail Engineer | Issue 194 | Jan-Feb 2022

59

60

FEATURE

Network Rail class 313 test train at RIDC. The Association has 4 ‘Gs’ in its outlook; Growth, noting that for every £1 spent on rail generates £2.2 for the economy; Global, meaning the whole of the UK; Green where rail has obvious advantages and Geography with exports being valued at £800M/year.

The RIA wishes to see 5 main elements emerge: (i) no pause in committed work or new projects during the transition period; (ii) clear and open dialogue with suppliers and between suppliers; (iii) appropriate private sector engagement with visibility on how investment decisions are made by government. (iv) Rail being able to thrive; and (V) industry being part of a positive legacy.

The green agenda is increasingly important with electrification being a major part of this. Historically this has been subject to stop gap investment with huge detrimental consequences for both skills and cost. A different approach is needed. ETCS will be a new focus for investment with the ongoing ECML project being the test case and lessons learned being openly transferable.

The passenger viewpoint In all of this, what are passengers looking for that is different? Sharon Hedges from Transport Focus reported on recent survey results. Improving traveller experience was the banner headline consisting of service reliability, a comprehensible fares policy that offered value for money, staff availability, toilet facilities, and journeys to be personalised, the latter to apply to both disabled and non-disabled travellers.

In more recent times, social distancing has become a factor, along with good train cleaning since Covid remains a point of concern. When things go wrong, compensation should be straightforward and rapid.

There is recognition that the rail market is changing but train operators have to up their game in the leisure market. Rail is still viewed as expensive and needs to make the most of its green credentials. The balance between capacity and passenger demand needs to be better understood. An increasing concern is the impact and disruption caused by engineering work where the travelling public is put off rail travel by bus substitution and/or long diversion routes.

Regional views Unsurprisingly, the UK regions have views as to how rail can enhance travel in their own particular area. Andrew Summers, Strategic Director for Transport East (which serves East Anglia), has a 30year strategy for transport out for consultation.

Four priorities are emerging. » Decarbonisation to net zero by 2040.

Forty-two percent of emissions come from transport, with large car ownership and heavy haul lorries from ports, of which there are many with Felixstowe and London Gateway dominating. Modal shift to rail is important including hydrogen and battery being used for rural communities. » Connectivity. For rail it is very much London centric, but travel between the region’s 75 towns and cities is considerable. Half a million new homes will be built in the next 20 years,

Rail Engineer | Issue 194 | Jan-Feb 2022

FEATURE which implies better transport links. Both the Great Eastern and West Anglia lines need to be speeded up and cross-country links such as Cambridge Ipswich and Ely Norwich have to be improved. » Rural and coastal connectivity is poor with rail needing to be part of an improvement programme both on existing lines and reopening some closed route. » International Gateway Opportunities. The region has 13 ports and three airports. Freight traffic from these is significant but constrained by infrastructure limitations. The Felixstowe branch and Haughley junction were cited as examples where investment is urgently needed.

Similarly, in the North East, Jonathan Spruce from Newcastle-based Fore Consulting and an ICE Trustee, questioned how customer demands can be realised to support regional economic growth. The IRP is generally welcomed but it lacks any vision for electrification and the connectivity needed for places such as Sheffield and Hull.

There are just too many rail pinch points with parts of the East Coast Maine Line (ECML), the Castlefield corridor in Manchester, and access in to and out of Leeds station being prime examples.

These should be investment priorities.

although it is recognised the latter will take a long time to come to fruition. The tradition of freight having a lower priority to passenger trains needs to be reconsidered.

Third party views Inevitably, consultants and legal organisations will offer comment and advice on the rail reform proposals. Andrew Meaney from the economics and finance consultancy Oxera considered that the relationship between politics and rail will be dominant. Government ministers are heavily involved with rail issues which is a step change from 25 years ago. Key will be how the future network will be funded while recognising the need for improved service quality and a changing passenger behaviour post Covid.

Regional connectivity is becoming more important and GBR has to be the focus for this.

The freight perspective With Lord Tony Berkeley taking the Chair, and being well known for his informed view of rail in general and freight in particular, Maggie Simpson, Director General of the Rail Freight Group, asked the question ‘What do freight customers want from the railway?’ High on the list is more freight routes between the main hubs and also to ports for the export-import business. While freight has been a success story during the pandemic, with increased paths becoming available, this needs to be maintained as passenger traffic returns. A big worry will be rising inflation, meaning increased costs for both road and rail transport. Rail needs resilience and reliability but has to be affordable.

Freight depots are now few and far between, but working out freight routes between all of these with fast services linking them all on a regular basis needs to be part of the ongoing plan. Investment to provide additional freight corridors e.g., Skipton – Colne, would be beneficial. There is recognition that rail is only suited to the trunk haul from, for example, port to inland centres, leaving road for the local collection and delivery. However, to encourage a switch to rail, these services have to be guaranteed.

Ever mindful of the financial situation, schemes like the Ely remodelling are held up awaiting investment funding. Freight paths have to be better organised and should take advantage of Traffic Management Systems and digital signalling,

However, financial concerns must not lead to ‘death by a thousand cuts’ in the closure of stations, perhaps an entire line, or the reduction of train services. New purpose must emerge with associated new relationships. Bolder measures were advocated by Chris Lewis from Burges Salmon, the London based law firm. The stated GBR claim of putting customers first, and what this means for the whole industry, must be understood. Examples include: adaptation to changing travel patterns; a modernisation of the rail experience; reform of ticketing and retail; safety and security; the growth of rail freight; and creation of innovative services using open data, data sharing, and GDPR compliance.

The thinking of the rail industry The most influential of existing rail organisations is probably the Rail Delivery Group (RDG). Robert Girgis, its Head of Policy, stated that much will depend on the design of the Passenger Service Contracts that will transition from the existing TOCs. The RDG is optimistic about passenger numbers returning but it will need to understand the nature of changed travel patterns and different markets. A ‘one

Rail Engineer | Issue 194 | Jan-Feb 2022

61

62

FEATURE size fits all’ is not appropriate since Inter City and commuter markets need a very different understanding. Concession type models may emerge but direct linking to the obligations that they are granted will be essential. Creation of output focussed contracts are likely with a ‘Can Do’ culture being part of that.

Existing TOCs with long term contracts will have to transition into the new contractual arrangements but with recognition being given to the commitments within the existing contract.

Similarly, Open Access train companies must be given every opportunity to thrive in the integrated plan.

From a smaller TOC perspective, Sophie Chapman of Heathrow Express visualised the evolving requirements of train travellers in support of regional economic growth.

Regular ‘old style’ commuters know where they are going and almost do not need the information provided. Occasional travellers are often bewildered by signage and information availability. This has to be addressed especially as the younger generation expect all information to be available on a smart phone. The messaging must however be consistent for all rail travel and displayed in a uniform way.

Heathrow is a hub and needs to deliver travellers to the regions. Doing this by train is preferable to short air hops. At present, the airport is only connected well to London with connections elsewhere being poor. A connection going westward to the Great Western (GW) main line would be relatively easy to achieve but a rail link to the south of the airport should also be part of the plan. Heathrow employs thousands of people so both these links would encourage workers to travel in by train rather than car.

Rail Engineer | Issue 194 | Jan-Feb 2022

The role of technology The fundamental desire to create a more integrated railway will need a lot of technology if the ambitions are to be realised. The development of new systems for both the direct operation of trains and the indirect facilities that will help passenger’s knowledge of rail travel, have to be robust in both the thinking and proving of the product. Several universities have rail research departments and the Birmingham Centre for Rail Research and Education is one of the most significant. Its head, Professor Clive Roberts, reported on the importance of Digital Twins, a technique aimed at de-risking the end project.

Already used extensively in the automotive, aerospace and construction industries, it is increasingly being deployed in rail. The principle is to produce two models, one primarily aimed for the design of the total project with the other (its twin) being there to test out the operational and engineering scenarios such that any shortcomings can be fed back into the first model in the refinement of the design. A prime example is the planning for HS2 where a digital model of the whole line has been created to test out how the anticipated train services can interact with each other and especially the interfaces with conventional lines and services.

This covers not just the service patterns but the signalling, electrification, and timetable production.

It was noted that a former BR Chairman, Peter Parker, once said in the 1970s that the railway falls flat on its interfaces. That is as true today as it was then. Too many projects have gone wrong because interfaces have not been understood or, worse, just ignored. The constant feedback loop between the twins will do much to eliminate the risk.

Ticketing remains a constant source of criticism from the general public. Neil Connor, the Client Executive for Public Transport at Fujitsu, believes that smart and flexible ticketing can be developed using power and quantum computing, which will optimise journey opportunities. Standards will need to evolve between National Rail and other operations, e.g., Transport for London (TfL), trams, buses, and ferries, such that a single ticket can cover all modes. In this, difficult decisions will be needed as to who sells the ticket and who collects the revenue, part of the problem being the government policy for having more competition.

Once again, the importance of digital twins in the development process was emphasised.

Robust technology is a major part of the declared intention to create a digital railway and a better understanding of what this term means to rail managers, the supply industry, and the general public should have its own publicity focus.

PHOTO: ANDREW PARSONS/NO10 DOWNING STREET

FEATURE

Prime Minister Boris Johnson on the train back to London Euston and the Secretary of State for Transport, Grant Shapps after taking trains across the north of England to coincide with the announcement of the Integrated Rail Plan.

The Government’s stance

In summary

As can be seen, many views are emerging as to how the future railway structure and services should be designed under the GBR organisation.

The lessons from the past have to be reflected in the new Network Governance and Priorities, says Dan Brown, Director for Strategy and Policy at the Office of Road and Rail (ORR).

A number of critical points are at the centre of government thinking. Firstly, the funding to ensure it can all happen, which needs to embrace safety, performance and sustainability as well as new projects.

Second, Enhancing and Growth Proposals are coming in thick and fast but the improvement to services that developed in the 1990s are now on shifting sands. Rail has seen the transition from public funding to private funding but is now back to largely public funding which, with the country amassing huge debts since Covid, will always be sensitive. The Treasury will continue to have a big say in what can or cannot be spent in the future.

Third, determining the role of government to develop rail requirements and priorities will depend on the accountability of the future rail directors and who they are responsible to, namely stake holders, regulators, or centralised government. The Williams-Shapps report has tried to answer this but recognises that there is no one size fits all.

Finally, implementation risks are real and there must be no disruption to operations and committed projects whilst the organisational transition is taking place. As one former British Rail General Manager once commented: “during any reorganisation, you bleed”.

The ORR is preparing to take an ‘All Systems’ approach, which includes freight which has to maintain the additional traffic gained since the start of the pandemic. GBR needs to give strategic direction but must remember the lessons from the previous Strategic Rail Authority’s demise.

It is clear that the creation of GBR and the implementation of the IRP has many hurdles to cross before a firm idea on how a definite delivery plan will be structured. Lots of aspirations are emerging but just how many of these will actually see the light of day remains to be seen. The availability of funding will be the influencing factor and, with the difficult financial position that the UK faces post Covid, making the case for rail investment will be a challenge alongside competing claims from other organisations. The Treasury will demand lower costs for running the railway.

The demand for London style commuting around the big cities of the north is probably not financially viable as revenue per passenger does not match that of London and the South East.

Strangely, there was almost no mention of HS2 or the ERTMS programme, with the conclusion that these are in separate money packages that will not influence the general railway finances.

Improved regional interconnectivity was a common request which should be able to be achieved relatively easily. More difficult will be the business case for reopening closed lines and provision of new stations as these remain expensive. A rolling programme of electrification might just happen to achieve decarbonisation targets. Above all, the declared aim to ‘put customers first’ will be how the new organisation is judged. Rail Engineer will monitor closely the progress that emerges.

Rail Engineer | Issue 194 | Jan-Feb 2022

63

64

FEATURE

IMechE & DAVID SHIRRES

A

s well as being an official observer to COP26, the Institution of Mechanical Engineers (IMechE) is keen to raise awareness of the role engineers play in tackling climate change and advocate for positive policy change. To do so, the Institution focused on three key themes: energy transition; clean transport; and cities and the built environment. It has published policy papers for each theme and held a two-day hybrid event to consider them on 28-29 October. In addition, the IMechE’s Railway Division held a half-day event on 20 October: “Refocusing the railway in a post-pandemic world.” I was asked to speak at both of these events.

system. If this was to power HGVs on a busy motorway, this would require about 5MW per kilometre. Rail OLE uses 25kV AC to supply such power. Furthermore, the Climate Change Committee’s Net Zero report considers that, for HGVs, hydrogen may offer the lowest whole system cost.

Railway recovery REFOCUSING THE RAILWAY

Orion’s class 319 EMU converted for express cargo deliveries.

The first presentation on the agenda was my own on catenary-free electric trains.

This considered the benefits and disadvantages of hydrogen and battery trains. It also stressed that, in a net-zero world, hydrogen trains had to be seen as part of a hydrogen economy as the gas is likely to be the optimum zero-carbon solution for high-powered applications such as HGVs, especially when infrastructure costs are considered.

Rail Engineer | Issue 194 | Jan-Feb 2022

The following speaker, Professor David Cebon, disagreed and presented a plan to erect a double catenary electric road system (ERS) on 15,000km of main roads and motorways. This system was presented as proven technology as rail uses overhead line and the system has been demonstrated by projects in Sweden and Germany. Many in the rail industry would dispute this. A particular issue is these pilot projects have a 670 V DC

Mark Gaynor, the Rail Delivery Group’s Head of Rail Strategy, explained how the railway was recovering from Covid with changing travel patterns which included a significant reduction in five-day-a-week commuters.

As of 7 October, rail passenger journeys and services run were respectively 69% and 88% of pre-pandemic levels.

Other presentations considered how the railway should respond to this to meet customer expectations and improve efficiency. TfL’s Anjay Ray spoke on the 4LM project to improve services on its sub surface lines. Daniel Fredriksson, Network Rail’s Express Freight Development Lead, considered the opportunities and challenges of using converted passenger trains to deliver parcels into city centres or distribution hubs.

He explained that there were opportunities to co-locate such hubs alongside heavy freight facilities.

FEATURE GBR transition Michael Clark, Programme Director of the Great British Railways Transition Team, explained how GBR is to be set up and the challenges it faces.

The team now has a website, though currently it only shows its seven members who are led by Andrew Haines. Michael advised that next year he expected to see the required legislation which would merge Network Rail, the Rail Delivery Group, and parts of the DfT, though in the meantime there was much that could be done and that a particular challenge was reduced revenue. He felt that GBR offered significant advantages and, from an engineering perspective, would see rolling stock and infrastructure considered as part of a whole system.

The safety implications of creating GBR were considered

by John Abbott, Deputy Chair of the Parliamentary Advisory Council for Transport Safety (PACTS). John has experience of safety being compromised with the creation of Railtrack and felt that introducing the new GBR organisation was a similar fundamental change.

Hence, clarity of safety responsibilities was essential.

John also explained how PACTS considered that GBR was an opportunity to re-engineer the rail to support a 24/7 365-day economy and modern logistics.

He also noted PACT’s wider concerns which included HGV’s safety record of 66 vehicle occupants and 450 other road users killed each year.

MAKING COP26 MATTER: ENGINEERING A NET-ZERO FUTURE The IMechE’s two-day COP26 event on 28-29 October was introduced by its President, Peter Flinn. He considered how engineers had contributed to economic progress that, each year, has resulted in 93 million cars and 50,000 aircraft being produced, with 25,000 TWh of electricity generated. Since 1847, extreme poverty among the global population has been reduced from 90% to less than 10%, despite that population increasing from 1.2 to 7.8 billion.

Yet the downside is the climate emergency, as atmospheric CO2 concentration has risen from 284 to 412 ppm.

Energy transition Guy Newey of the Energy Systems Catapult (ESC) stressed the need for whole systems thinking. This required breaking down silos between electricity, heat, and transport and joining up the physical requirements of the system with policy, market, and digital arrangements. The ESC’s modelling indicated that, to achieve net zero, unabated annual fossil fuel consumption had to be reduced from 1,500 to less than 300 TWh and electricity consumption increased from 300 to 700TWh whilst energy consumption from

district heating and hydrogen would be respectively 150 and 250TWh. Kirsty Gogan of LucidCatalyst focused on the challenges of energy transition. She felt this needed the equivalent of the impossible burger, a vegetarian substitute with the same taste and texture of the real thing.

Such drop-in substitutes are needed to make best use of existing assets. She considered that there was the potential to develop low-cost nuclear power to provide advanced heat sources that could replace boilers in conventional power stations.

The benefits of nuclear power were also stressed by consultant David Ross as it provides the stable base load required by the electricity grid. He contrasted this with electricity generation from natural gas with carbon capture and storage (CCS) which is the only other way of net zero-carbon base load generation. The generation of 1GWh of electricity by nuclear power produces 5kg of spent fuel whereas gas with CCS produces 400,000kg of CO2 which requires permanent storage. His presentation also showed how more nuclear power could significantly reduce the required renewable generating capacity for a net-zero grid.

Jamie Burrows of the Global CCS Institute

The reactor dome of the nuclear power station at Sizewell in the UK.

Rail Engineer | Issue 194 | Jan-Feb 2022

65

66

FEATURE Energy Minister Anne-Marie Trevelyan opens first Hydrogen demonstrator homes in July 2021.

explained how carbon capture was needed for deep decarbonisation of hard-to-abate industries, for the production of low-carbon hydrogen at scale, and zero-carbon bio energy production. He advised that there are currently 27 worldwide operational CCS facilities capturing 40 million tonnes of CO2- equivalent per annum (MtCO2e), but to deliver on climate commitments a hundredfold increase in CCS capacity is needed by 2050.

The development of wind power technology was the subject of a presentation by Matthew Laskaj of Project Engineering Management. He explained how the average turbine size had doubled from 5MW to 10MW over the past ten years. He also noted how many of the skills needed by the wind industry were similar to those in the oil industry.

Built environment Carbon emissions from buildings represent a quarter of total UK emissions. Options to decarbonise buildings include heat pumps, replacing gas with hydrogen, district heating schemes, better insulation and connecting houses that produce electricity into networks to share energy. There were no presentations on these topics which were discussed by a panel of experts. For those without prior knowledge, it was difficult to understand the advantages and problems of these technologies although it was made clear that there was no one silver bullet.

Issues discussed included the use of ground, air, and borehole heat pumps, which don’t supply hot water and are not suitable for

Rail Engineer | Issue 194 | Jan-Feb 2022

densely populated areas for which electrically powered district heating schemes may be more appropriate. It was felt that heating had to be considered as part of an overall heat and building strategy. Moreover, new financial models were needed to support domestic consumers with refit costs and incentivise sustainable house building.

The panel all thought that the use of hydrogen to heat domestic premises was an extremely dangerous move due to its propensity to leak and its explosive properties. Yet no reference was made to the Hy4Heat initiative set up by the Department for Business, Energy & Industrial Strategy. This has produced a report, reviewed by the Health and Safety Executive, that concluded that hydrogen is as safe as natural gas.

The domestic heating discussion was followed by a sobering presentation from Dr Tim Fox who chairs the Institution’s Climate Change Adaptation Working Group. He referred to the Independent Assessment of UK Climate Risk which predicted hotter, drier summers with wetter, warmer winters and increased frequency and intensity of heavy rainfall, heatwaves and droughts. By 2100, sea levels could rise to

FEATURE

Climate Central’s projection of land below annual flood level in 2050. between 0.7 and 1.15 metres in London. The UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change makes a similar projection but does not rule out a two-metre rise due to uncertainty around ice sheet processes. Tim noted that, with buildings typically having a 100-year life, engineers need to design for these sea level rises now.

Sarah Hayes is currently working with the Centre for Digital Built Britain, Britain’s National Digital Twin programme, as the project lead for the Climate Resilience Demonstrator project.

She explained how this initiative enables resilience planners to take a cross-sector level view to make decisions to maximise resilience.

Clean transport In 2017, transport accounted for 167 of the UK’s 503 MtCO2e. Of these, the emissions from various modes of transport were: Cars – 70; HGVs – 21; Vans – 19; Air – 36; Ships – 14; and Rail – 2. IMechE’s Clean Transportation Lead, Amol Gulve of

the Volvo Group, advised that the Institution had published a cross-modal strategy which had three priorities: i) reducing demand; ii) modal shift to public transport and rail; and iii) improved efficiency and use of renewable fuels.

Amol then considered the electrification of road transport with battery electric vehicles and noted that HGVs, which typically travel 400km per day, are the hardest to decarbonise and may require the use of hydrogen fuel cells.

Decarbonising the rail sector was considered

by Network Rail’s Iain Flynn who noted that the rolling resistance of a car tyre on an asphalt road was 12 to 30 times more than steel wheel on steel rail. His presentation explained the advantages of electrification and considered hydrogen and battery trains for lightly used lines.

Alex Best, an aero gas turbine consultant, presented options for decarbonising air transport which accounts for 2.6% of all greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. He noted that since 1990 aircraft efficiency has improved by 1% per year. However, despite these efficiency improvements, increased demand is predicted to increase GHG emissions by a further 19% by 2050.

Although battery energy density is expected to increase to 400Wh/kg, this is still 30 times less than conventional fuels. Alex advised that all-electric planes are likely to be limited to planes with less than 20 seats having a range of less than 300 miles. Liquid hydrogen is being considered as a net-zero option for planes of up to 200 passengers with a range of 2,000 miles. However, such planes present significant problems.

Sustainable aviation fuels (SAF) are advanced biofuels produced primarily from waste oils and blended with conventional fuels in concentrations of up to 50%. Power to liquid fuels can be produced by synthesising carbon from CO2 with hydrogen. This requires a significant amount of energy which makes them much more expensive than conventional fuels.

Rail Engineer | Issue 194 | Jan-Feb 2022

67

68

FEATURE SAF can reduce emissions by 80% but are currently three to five times more expensive than conventional fuels and were only 1% of the aviation fuels used in 2019. They are, however, the quickest route to aviation emission reduction but require extensive investment to produce the required amounts at an acceptable cost.

Professor Reza Ziarati, who is currently leading the Greenship project, noted that the marine sector had also improved its fuel efficiency. He considered that Ammonia was a possible net-zero solution for shipping and advised that an Ammonia powered Suezmax ship had been ordered. With a worldwide fleet of 56,000 merchant ships averaging 37,000 tonnes, it was important that the lifecycle

Rail Engineer | Issue 194 | Jan-Feb 2022

of ships was considered.

Ammonia is promising in this respect as, with modification, it can be used by existing diesel engines.

A panel of four experts, including your writer then answered questions about their sector. These brought out further issues including the need to consider embodied carbon, the cost of supporting infrastructure for net-zero road vehicles, and that a likely 2050 fuel scenario showed that 75% of transport energy could be supplied by sustainable liquid or gaseous fuels. My contribution was to emphasise the importance of rail capacity to accommodate modal shift.

Unfortunately, in this respect, the need for HS2’s eastern leg has not been heeded by Government.

Transport, energy, and buildings are sectors that depend on fossils fuels and account for 84% of UK CO2e emissions. The IMechE’s COP26 conference was a thought-provoking two days which emphasised the role of engineers in implementing solutions to achieve net-zero emissions in these sectors.

It also highlighted the need for effective policies that only Government can provide if these sectors are to be weaned off relatively cheap and easy to use fossil fuels.

Platform, Depot & Trackside GRP Access Solutions for the RAIL INDUSTRY

GRP - THE

LONG-LAS TING, LOW-MAIN TENANCE ALTERNA TIVE TO

GRP Walkways GRP Hand Railing STEEL GRP Catch Pit Covers GRP Embankment Stairs GRP Access Equipment GRP Maintenance Platforms GRP Roof, Track & Cess Walkways GRP Vehicular & Pedestrian Trench Covers GRP Platform Gates, Steps, Ramps & Fencing

Step on Safety www.steponsafety.co.uk 01206 396 446

70

FEATURE

IMechE

responds to DAVID SHIRRES

T

GBRTT

he Great British Railways Transition Team (GBRTT) has called for evidence from all interested parties to help shape its strategic plan, to learn the lessons of the past and meet the challenges of the future. The UK Government has developed five strategic objectives for the Strategic Plan over the next 30 years: meeting customers’ needs; delivering financial sustainability; contributing to long-term economic growth; levelling up and connectivity; and delivering environmental sustainability. GBRTT’s call for evidence document asks 18 specific questions relating to the delivery of these objectives.

Together with fellow writer, Malcolm Dobell, I was invited to join the team preparing the response of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers (IMechE). The thrust of this response, which has yet to be finalised at the time of writing, is that the creation of Great British Railways (GBR) will enable a truly whole system perspective.

Engineers are there to help the railway deliver customer requirements by providing sufficient capacity, performance, and facilities in a sustainable, safe, and cost-effective manner.

In addition, they should support strategic Government objectives such as decarbonisation and economic growth. IMechE has no doubt that a whole system approach will enable railway engineers to make a better contribution that will lead to more economic, efficient, and even safer solutions. Some of the engineering issues that inform its response to GBRTT are shown below.

Skills The Williams-Shapps report rightly points out that the current railway structure makes it difficult for staff to understand how their roles relate to others in different parts of the industry.

This limits the opportunity for whole-system, high-performance, efficient solutions to emerge.

A system-wide workforce strategy and plan is needed to ensure that GBR is resourced to meet current and future needs. All disciplines within the railway need to work closely together to deliver the best possible capacity and performance. To do so, it is important that everyone understands how their role impacts on others.

Merely delivering a solution compliant with standards within an individual’s own discipline does not necessarily deliver an optimised whole.

Hence, there needs to be a strong crossfunctional element in training and development plans. For example, the Connected Leaders Scheme (launched in 2020) is equipping future leaders with a deeper understanding of customer needs and a better cross-sector perspective.

Rolling stock, infrastructure, and timetables In the current railway engineering structure, Network Rail is responsible for infrastructure maintenance and upgrades, with train operators responsible for rolling stock provision, maintenance, and modification. There have sometimes been significant disconnects between programmes and little effort to do anything other than the minimum infrastructure change to accommodate new trains. An exception to this

Rail Engineer | Issue 194 | Jan-Feb 2022

FEATURE was the Thameslink programme that included civil and system infrastructure changes to deliver a significant capacity upgrade provided by a new fleet of trains.

The introduction of programmes such as electrification and digital signalling require rolling stock to be modified or new trains procured in alignment with infrastructure delivery. In some cases, rolling stock priorities might drive the urgency and type of infrastructure interventions. As an example, in Scotland the immediate need to replace diesel trains in Fife resulted in a transitional solution of partial electrification and battery electric trains. This is part of the integrated plan that is now being delivered to decarbonise Scotland’s railway by 2035.

As well as aligning procurement and programmes, it is also an opportunity to integrate improvements in performance or other important capacity or connectivity work.

This was not done during the Great Western Electrification programme as this did not include freight gauge clearance. As a consequence, rail freight to Wales remains restricted.

All the above demonstrates the need for an integrated rolling stock, infrastructure, and timetable strategy.

Issues that need to be considered include ensuring that, as far as possible, all trains have the same performance. In practice this requires electrification, especially for freight trains.

Although the resultant capacity benefit from electrification is an important part of its business case, this benefit was not quantified in Network Rail’s Traction Decarbonisation Network Strategy (TDNS) as it can only be quantified on a case-bycase basis.

Freight trains require loops to accommodate full length, 770 metre trains with reasonable turn out speeds that minimise impact on capacity.

A mixed traffic railway would also benefit from freight trains with better acceleration.

Avoiding boom and bust The costs and skills issues of the UK’s boom and bust approach to rail electrification has been highlighted by the Railway Industry Association (RIA). This has also been a significant issue for rolling stock procurement. Between 2016 and 2021, around £11 billion was invested in 7,000 rail passenger vehicles. In the previous six years, less than 1,000 vehicles entered service.

The recent glut of train orders was for more than half the UK fleet and resulted in 4,000 vehicles being surplus to requirement, many of which were serviceable trains and some of which were electric trains for which there was no electrified railway. Most of these new train fleets were late and suffered teething problems. Many of which were related to the industry’s capability to deal with so many new trains entering service at the same time. The unnecessary costs associated with procuring such a glut of trains is likely to be a significant percentage of their cost i.e., of the order of around £1 billion.

Maximising capacity Whatever the future timetable requirements, high capacity will always be required on coreroutes to provide the required connectivity and accommodate freight and modal shift.

Although digital signalling can provide some benefit, capacity on a mixed traffic railway is primarily constrained by train performance and infrastructure limitations. Improving capacity thus requires a whole system approach.

Engineering access When and for how long to close the railway for infrastructure work is a complex trade-off between train revenue and customer needs against the engineering cost of different access windows. GBR provides the opportunity to optimise such access by considering all relevant factors in a manner that cannot be achieved under the current relatively crude Schedule 4 penalty payment regime.

Innovation Under the franchise regime the adoption of innovations on trains was limited by the relatively short payback period. As an example, there was no demand for an innovative, fuel-saving transmission with just a four-year payback because of the length of the TOC franchise.

An even bigger impact would be realised if the Double Variable Rate Sander (DVRS) system was installed on the UK’s multiple unit fleet. This would transform performance in autumn conditions; something that costs the railway around £100 million per year. It was

Rail Engineer | Issue 194 | Jan-Feb 2022

71

72

FEATURE first demonstrated in 2017 and yet the contract for the first fleet fitment was only placed in early 2022. This is an example where current incentives are unaligned.

Network Rail is responsible for adhesion issues, yet the cost of equipping trains with DVRS currently falls to TOCs or ROSCOs, although applications can be made to the NR Performance Improvement Fund. GBR should explore incentivising such innovations and, in particular, transitional decarbonisation initiatives that also offer fuel savings. However, although profitable, such investments will require funding which may not be available from the public purse. GBR should pursue opportunities for private financing of such initiatives.

Fundamentally, GBR provides a system-wide optimisation opportunity to unlock innovations across the current contractual train/infrastructure divide.

Customer service Providing customers with improved ticketing and information is one of GBR’s key objectives.

Freight customers also require better systems to plan their operations and track shipments.

GBR provides the focus for the development of customer-focused systems which require improved telecoms connectivity, open data and the required sensors on trains, stations, and the rail infrastructure.

This will provide new opportunities to integrate rail data into passenger-facing apps and connect data across systems. Such services will require GBR to support the government’s ambitions for 5G connectivity and the development of the railways’ digital infrastructure.

To provide seamless transfers between rail and other transport modes, GBR needs to work with other stakeholders to develop Mobility as a Service systems to encourage modal shift from car to public transport.

Rail Engineer | Issue 194 | Jan-Feb 2022

A whole-system future The above gives an indication of the philosophy of IMechE’s response to the GBR transition team’s call for evidence, which will be more detailed than this short article.

The key message is the benefits of whole system thinking and how GBR offers potential for significant improvements in this respect.

However, it will take some years before the GBR organisation is in place. Prior to then, any opportunities for whole systems thinking across the infrastructure/rolling stock divide need to be grasped.

This needs engineers on either side of this divide to consider whether anything could be done in relation to their activities that benefits the other side of this divide. Perhaps one example, mentioned elsewhere in this magazine, is the hot axle box detector (HABD) that was not configured to raise an alarm when it detected hot wheels, and so did not prevent the serious derailment at Llangennech.

It is clear that GBR will offer more opportunities to deliver railways that are better engineered for the customer. In the meantime, the requirement is for engineers to be more aware of the opportunities for whole system thinking.

FEATURE

Professional Engineering Institutions

IET

the

PAUL DARLINGTON

1880, the STE was renamed as the Society of Telegraph Engineers and of Electricians. In 1887, it was decided to change the name to the Institution of Electrical Engineers (IEE).

Following mergers with the Institution of Electronic and Radio Engineers (IERE) in 1988 and the Institution of Manufacturing Engineers (IMfgE) in 1990, the IEE had a worldwide membership of around 120,000. It is well known for publication of the IEE Wiring Regulations (also known informally as the ‘wiring regs’) which continue to be written by the IET and to be published by the British Standards Institution as BS 7671.

R

ail Engineer 192 (Sept/Oct 2021) looked

The modern IET

at the benefits of being a member of

Today the IET is governed by the president and Board of Trustees with the IET Council serving as the advisory and consultative body, representing the views of the members and offering advice to the Board of Trustees. Several prominent engineers have served as the IET president, the current president being Sir Julian Young KBE CB FREng. As with other institutions, the IET helps represent the engineering profession in matters of public concern and assisting governments to make the public aware of engineering and technological issues.

Professional registration by the IET of IEng is roughly equivalent to North American Professional Engineer designations, with CEng set at a higher level. Both designations however have far greater geographical recognition. This is made possible through a number of networks for engineers established by the IET including the Professional Networks - worldwide groups of engineers sharing common technical and professional interests.

a professional engineering institution and covered the Institution of Railway

Signal Engineers (IRSE). In this issue we cover the larger Institution of Engineering and Technology (IET). The advantages of being a member of a professional engineering institution include career development support and guidance, seminars and conferences, monthly journals, and the award of post-nominals once registered as a professional engineer.

The IET has a 150-year history, is registered as a charity, and is a multidisciplinary professional engineering institution. It was formed in 2006 from the combination of the Institution of Electrical Engineers (IEE), formed in 1871, and the Institution of Incorporated Engineers (IIE) dating from 1884.

The institution now covers far more than just electrical engineering and its membership is in excess of 158,000 drawn from 153 countries around the world.

In the UK, the IET has a licence from the Engineering Council to establish professional registration for the titles of Chartered Engineer, Incorporated Engineer, Engineering Technician, and ICT Technician.

Membership Today, members of the IET include telecoms engineers and they can trace their heritage back to the Society of Telegraph Engineers (STE) formed 17 May 1871. On 22 December

Career support The IET has an important educational role, seeking to support members through their careers by offering advice and guidance at all levels to secure the future of engineering. It accredits degree courses worldwide in subjects relevant to electrical, electronic, manufacturing and information engineering, and secures funding for professional development schemes for engineering graduates including awards scholarships, grants and prizes.

Rail Engineer | Issue 194 | Jan-Feb 2022

73

74

FEATURE category. Student membership is open to persons studying to become professional engineers and technicians.

Awards

Its website provides information to the general public on topics such as solar power, nuclear power, fuel cells, micro-generation and the possible effects on health of mobile phones and power lines. The IET also runs the bibliographic information service Inspec, a major indexing database of scientific and technical literature, and publishes books, journals, and magazines such as Engineering & Technology to members.

Over 80,000 technical articles are available via the IET Digital Library.

IET.tv is an online resource of multidisciplinary engineering and technology information.

It comprises presentations, lectures and training videos.

With a range of search and user functionalities, IET.tv enables online video access to a range of topics and expertise. IET.tv also has a YouTube presence, where it publishes a wide variety of content related to engineering and technology.

The IET is also the lead organisation in charge of designing and delivering the UK Cyber Security Council, alongside 15 other cyber security professional organisations collectively known as the Cyber Security Alliance.

Levels of membership The IET has several categories of membership, some with designatory postnominals.

Honorary Fellow (HonFIET) refers to distinguished individuals whom the IET

Rail Engineer | Issue 194 | Jan-Feb 2022

awards to honour services rendered to the IET. Fellow of the Institution of Engineering and Technology (FIET) refers to a person who has demonstrated significant individual responsibility, sustained achievement, and professionalism in engineering.

Member (MIET or TMIET) is for professional engineers (MIET) and technicians (TMIET) with suitable qualifications and involvement in areas relevant to the interests of the Institution. MIET is a regulated professional title recognised in Europe by the Directive 2005/36. Associate Member is for persons with an interest in areas relevant to the interests of the Institution who do not qualify for the Member

The IET Achievement Medals are awarded to individuals who have made major and distinguished contributions in the various sectors of science, engineering and technology.

The medals are named after famous engineers and persons, such as Michael Faraday.

The Faraday Medal is the highest medal and honour of the IET and is awarded for notable scientific or industrial achievement in engineering, or for conspicuous service rendered to the advancement of science, engineering and technology. It is awarded not more frequently than once a year.

The J J Thomson Medal for Electronics was created in 1976 by the Electronics Divisional Board of the Institution of Electrical Engineers (IEE) and is awarded to candidates who have made major and distinguished contributions in electronics. The Ambrose Fleming Medal for Information and Communications were first awarded in 2007 to Professor

FEATURE

Simon Kingsley. It was named after John Ambrose Fleming, the inventor of vacuum tubes, and is awarded to candidates who have made outstanding and distinguished contributions to digital communications, telecoms, and information engineering.

The Mensforth Manufacturing Gold Medal is awarded to candidates who have made major and distinguished contributions to advancing the manufacturing sector. The Mountbatten Medal celebrates individuals who have made an outstanding contribution, over a period of time, to the promotion and application of electronics or information technology.

Introduced in 2015, the IET Volunteer Medal is awarded to individuals for major and outstanding contributions voluntarily given to further the aims of the IET and, since 1978, the IET has awarded the Young Woman Engineer (YWE) award to top female engineers in the UK to recognise the contribution they make, and to encourage young women to consider engineering as a career.

Scholarships The IET offers Diamond Jubilee undergraduate scholarships for first year students studying an IET accredited degree. Winners currently receive between £1,000 to £2,000 per year, for up to four years, to help with their studies. IET also offers postgraduate scholarships intended for IET members carrying out doctoral research. The postgraduate scholarships offered by the IET assist members with awards of up to £10,000 to further research engineering related topics at universities. The IET Engineering Horizons Bursary is offered at £1,000 per year for undergraduate students on IET accredited degree courses in the UK and apprentices starting an IET Approved Apprenticeship scheme, and for those UK residents who have overcome personal challenges to pursue an engineering education.

Inspiring the next generation about the importance of science, technology, engineering and maths (STEM) is something that IET believes

to be essential. It supports this by running fun and engaging initiatives for children to get involved with, exciting them to think about engineering and technology as a possible career.

The IET worldwide The IET has a number of region-specific branches which it refers to as ‘Local Networks’.

These include: the Australian Local Network of the IET, which has representation in all the states and territories of Australia, including the state branches, their associated Younger Members Sections, and university sections in Australia; the IET Canadian Toronto Network, which covers IET activities in the Southern and Western areas of Ontario and has approximately 500 members; the IET China office, which is in Beijing and started in 2005 with the core purposes of international collaboration, engineering exchange, organisation of events and seminars; and the Hong Kong Local Network which has representations in the Asian region and provides a critical link into mainland China.

The IET Italy Local Network was established in 2007 with the purpose of representing the aims and services of the IET, locally. An IET India Office was established in 2006 and has eight Local Networks: Bengaluru, Chennai, Delhi, Kanyakumari, Kolkata, Mumbai, Nashik and Pune.

Local Networks are also present in Kenya, Kuwait, and Malaysia, among many other locations.

The IET also has a number of technical communities, including the IET Railway Technical Network. The Railway Technical Network is currently running a webinar/seminar series showcasing railway construction projects around the world. The objective of the series is to give audiences an understanding of various engineering challenges and solutions experienced when constructing a new railway.

The presentations last 20 to 30 minutes, followed by 15 to 30 minutes Q&A and can be viewed on the IET On Demand platform.

For further information visit www.theiet.org

Rail Engineer | Issue 194 | Jan-Feb 2022

75

76

FEATURE

M

uch of the UK spends the Christmas and New Year period in a state of either revelry or recovery, more so in 2021 following the washout that was Christmas 2020. However, Network Rail makes the most of the holiday, tackling some of the more extensive and challenging projects required to keep the country moving.

The final two weeks of the year provide a great opportunity. The drop in demand for rail travel, along with the closure of the network on Christmas Day and Boxing Day, means that substantial work can go ahead with replacement bus services only having to handle half the passengers they would at other times of the year.

Between 24 December 2021 and 4 January 2022, Network Rail and the rail supply chain delivered over £133 million of engineering works. Teams worked on over 4,500 worksites across more than 1,900 possessions, delivering major enhancements, core renewals, and maintenance works across the rail network. For the second year running, Covid-19 caused major challenges but, by all accounts, these obstacles were well-navigated, and delivery of the works was another great success.

RED-ranked projects Forty-two projects covering a total of 77 worksites delivering infrastructure upgrades were identified as ‘RED’ through the Delivering Work Within Possessions (DWWP) standard.

These projects were judged to carry a greater risk of possession overrun and/or a more significant impact in the event of an overrun.

Although it’s not possible to comment on all of these works, the next few pages aim to give a taste of the projects completed by the rail network’s dedicated engineers over the holiday period.

Rail Engineer | Issue 194 | Jan-Feb 2022

Eastern Region Twenty-one programmes of work took place across the Eastern Region, with highlights including the renewal of the Spital Ladder on the East Coast Mainline at Peterborough. Three programmes of work also took place to advance the multi-billion-pound Transpennine Route Upgrade project.

Spital Ladder Renewal – The work carried out at the Spital Ladder in Peterborough involved the like-for-like Switches and Crossings (S&C) renewal of the scissors crossover between the Down Slows, March Independent line, and the Down Fast. Issues were encountered with panel relaying, with the Kirow crane being slower than expected due to transit time to collect some of the panels from the lay down areas and the

FEATURE

complexity and time required to manoeuvre the large diamond panel around various lineside structures. Time was also lost with additional preparation required for the crane outrigger pads. However, this time was mostly recovered throughout the overall programme.

SPC6/26A Cranfleet Cut Structure Renewal – The existing single span Underbridge that carries the Up and Down Slows lines over Cranfleet Canal, near New Sawley, Long Eaton, was removed and replaced with a new Twin U Deck structure. The existing structure was found to have inadequate capacity due to its poor condition with extensive corrosion, primarily at the connections between the Main and Cross girders. The work required 17 lifts with a 1,000 tonne crane and was completed in a 54-hour period.

Kentish Town Slab Track Stabilisation Phase 3 – Completion of these works brings an end to three phases of stabilisation works in the Kentish Town area. Between the early hours of Christmas Day and before the first service on Wednesday 5 January 2022, engineers removed older track – installed in 1979 – which has reinforced concrete slab underneath it. New ballasted track was then installed with stones and sleepers to support it. Two faults were raised regarding the poor condition of existing OLE and installation

of baseplates on existing slab took a lot longer expected due to sheer amount of manual work required.

Sundon Feeder Station Decommissioning – Stage F1 of the London 2 Corby electrification project includes the removal of the existing Sundon Feeder Station (FS) from the overhead line equipment, and permanent removal of the feeding capability of the FS to the Midland Mainline. Works completed over Christmas included the recovery of bare feeders; cutting away and removal of Sundon FS risers; modified bypass switching to allow bypass function on all 4 roads; removal of associate masts and foundations; undertaking of bonding works; and the removal of the FS substation operating diagram.

Tyneside Recontrol – The Tyneside re-control project successfully re-controlled the current Integrated Electronic Control Centre (IECC) Classic VDU based Signalling Control System (VSCS) workstations onto new Westcad VSCS workstations, which control approximately 1,000 Signalling Equivalent Units (SEUs).

Working with delivery partners Siemens, the recontrol to the new modular building was successfully completed on time with all new VSCS workstations now fully operational and controlling the railway.

All about people

people working in public transport...people like you! less than

20p a day

Health, welfare and financial help in times of need, hardship and distress. £1.25 a week covers you, your live-in partner and dependent children.

0300 333 2000 | help@tbf.org.uk | www.tbf.org.uk Transport Benevolent Fund CIO, known as TBF, is a registered charity in England and Wales, 1160901, and Scotland, SC047016.

Rail Engineer | Issue 194 | Jan-Feb 2022

77

78

FEATURE Transpennine Route Upgrade (TRU) Leeds Station – Phase 3b of the £126 million Leeds Station Capacity Programme was delivered during a series of full and partial closures aimed at keeping passenger disruption to a minimum. During this time, the track layout at Leeds station was amended along with associated changes to the overhead line and signalling. Platform 7 at the east end of the station was extended to enable four-car working, further increasing capacity at the station. In addition to these works a new six track under track crossing (UTX) to the west of the station was installed to increase cable route capacity.

Despite losing a number of key staff who tested positive for Covid-19 during the works, control measures and contingency plans meant that the project continued as planned.

TRU - East of Leeds – TRU is split into two defined project areas which are to be delivered in phases. The first project in the East of Leeds section (Project E1) relates to a stretch of line between Church Fenton and York Station.

Project E1 requires a series of interventions.

Works over Christmas 2021 works included TAD tamping and OLE adjustments north of Colton Junction and signalling works between Church Fenton and Colton. The full scope of the OLE work was not completed, and 28 non-critical works were descoped to be planned later in 2022.

TRU - West of Leeds – Works at the Eastern side of Manchester Victoria Station were the next stage for TRU W1 leading to signalling recontrol and ultimately line speed increases planned for June 2022 for W1. Christmas saw the renewal of S&C on the Up and Down Rochdale Slow Lines; signal base works and the installation of signal MN709BR; and cable tray installation on Up and Down Ashton Lines. New Year 2021/22 saw the re-ballasting of S&C at the Eastern side of Manchester Victoria Station and follow up track works from the Christmas possession. Eight hundred metres of overhead line wire runs were reinstalled and BTET signage was commissioned.

Rail Engineer | Issue 194 | Jan-Feb 2022

North West and Central Region Birmingham New St Area Re-signalling Phase 7 – This project, programmed to be commissioned at Christmas 2022 in a 54 hour all lines possession, will see the closure of Birmingham New Street power signal box with the control of signalling system transferred to the West Midlands Signalling Centre. To support the final commissioning the project has been split into multiple stages, this Christmas saw a variety of works, including signal rehearsal, stage 02 on the Stour Lines and the inclusion of Bromsgrove on to the Birmingham New Street network management system.

DCL/178 Stratford Upon Avon Canal Bridge – The original structure of this canal bridge had failed assessments, with significant corrosion and loss of section to critical structural elements identified. The bank holiday works consisted of the removal of track and existing bridge deck followed by the installation of a new deck with track reinstated. This was a complex operation requiring two Kirow cranes and a mobile crane in a field 500 metres away to lift in the new bridge components and remove the old components.

Despite issues encountered in the works, resulting in a possession overrun of 2 hours and 30 minutes, the team was able to reinstate track at the planned 50mph TSR, to be removed in following weeks.

FEATURE Coppull Hall Track Renewal – This was a renewal of the Up Main on West Coast Main Line, with a line enhanced permissible speed of 125mph for tilting trains . The existing rail and sleepers were removed and loaded into trains for removal. After excavating to 450mm, sand was installed prior to the ballast, sleepers, then rail. The site was fully welded then tamped and handed back at 60mph. There were several issues with train drivers and key staff having to isolate due to Covid, but close communications with SCO and site staff prevailed and all works were completed successfully.

Acton Bridge Drainage – The remit for this project required the Central Rail Systems Alliance to install new drainage throughout Acton Bridge station to improve drainage flow and help with track quality. Installation of new catchpits and pipe was also required. The works completed over the holiday period saw 328 metres of drainage renewal on the WCML through Acton Bridge station; a total of 10 new catch pits installed; and a UTX carried out to take the drainage from the 6ft to the down cess then through to the outfall. All works were carried out safely, on time and within budget.

West London Junction Track Renewal – West London Junction is located on the busy West Coast Main Line, 5 miles north of London Euston servicing freight, local commuter and national services. Works completed included plain line Track Renewal (Cat 14), with 138 metres completed, fully welded and stressed; and drainage works (Cat 15a) with 130 metres drainage installed of a planned 292 metres.

The drainage run was curtailed renewal due to multiple machinery breakdowns and poor ground conditions due to weather.

Southern Region Three projects took place in the Southern Region, with the greater focus on projects supporting the Victoria resignalling and recontrol project, a four-year package to modernise track and signalling on the line into Victoria Station.

Courthill South three-line Crossover and Courthill Loop North Junction – Work on these assets involved the renewal of 11 units of S&C eight units at Courthill South (four switches and two switch diamonds) and three units at Courthill North (two switches and one fixed diamond) together with associated plain line renewals 140 metres at North and 480 metres at South.

All works were completed in three stages over the Christmas-New Year period.

Victoria Phase Three Re-signalling – This 10-day, 14-part possession saw the renewal of signalling assets between Clapham Streatham and Streatham Hill, and the recontrol of the area, including the West London Lines, to Three Bridges Rail Operating Centre. The blockade was a critical install phase, working towards the VIC3 commissioning at Christmas 2022. Problems encountered during the works included an oversized road crane being delivered and set up, blocking Road Rail Access Points (RRAP); damage to a Track Circuit Interrupter; and a water bowser, which was left close to the open line on the Down Brighton Slow, being struck by a Freight Train.

Pouparts Junction – The South Rail Systems Alliance (SRSA) renewed the two turnouts (278 and 279pts) at Pouparts Junction as part of the Victoria Re-signalling blockade. All works were completed in the 10-day blockade. However, due to the multi-part nature of the blockade the site experienced some periods of stand down when moving from one part of the blockade to another as they were required to sign in/out with the lead worksite engineering supervisor. This led to some delays to the programme, though this was recovered. Additionally, a welder was injured when exiting a van, suffering a sprained ankle.

Rail Engineer | Issue 194 | Jan-Feb 2022

79

80

FEATURE

Wales and Western Region RED-ranked works took place at 12 locations across the Wales and Western region, including track renewals at Lipson Down, OLE works in Reading, and signalling renewal and enhancement in Bristol. What follows are just a few of the projects that took place over the period.

Wem Road Underbridge – A busy route into Wem was closed as Network Rail replaced a life expired railway bridge which passes over Mill Street. The project involved the removal of existing track and ballast; demolition of the existing structure and excavation; the installation of the new bridge; backfill, drainage, waterproofing and collision beam; reinstatement of the track and ballast; and tamp, stressing and welding. The project saw numerous lessons learnt. For example, knowledge of incomplete drainage should have been shared with Shropshire Council before the blockade, as complaints were attracted when the road flooded after the possession.

Paddington Line 3 Track Renewal – Works involved the completion of a renewal to reduce the risk of future speed restrictions and improve track quality. The works completed included a Cat 13 renewal (formation, sleeper and reballast) with a 100mm sand blanket. Covid-19

safety compliance was an issue, with minibus drivers not wearing or insisting staff wear masks between access and the site.

Paddington Train Detection – This project between Paddington and Airport Junction on the Western mainline saw a large number of life expired and obsolete Reed track circuits replaced with Frauscher axle counters. Work completed included Stage T Commissioning, delivery of 12 Relocatable Equipment Buildings (REBs), 700+ axle counter heads, new power and telecoms systems, and the introduction of new technologies in the form of Supervisor Track Sections and Counter Head Control.

Thames Valley Signalling Centre (TVSC) saw the provision of four new scalable systems for the infrastructure changes and reconfiguration of interlocking and control systems, plus five new workstations. No issues were reported.

Ocean Canal Underbridge – This work saw the replacement of a bridge over the Ocean Canal in Stroud. The work took place to enable a canal restoration being led by Stroud District Council and the Cotswold Canal Trust. Works completed included the replacement of the bridge and drainage of the canal to enable the works.

The new bridge sections, the largest of which weighed 64 tonnes, were lifted into place using a 1,200-tonne crane. All work was completed on time, other than the stressing of the track which was listed as curtailable prior to the blockade.

Strong local and regional communications throughout the project were praised.

Parsons Tunnel North Portal – A new rock fall shelter is being installed to mitigate the impact of poor weather on the operation and safety of the railway between Dawlish and Holcombe in south Devon. The project is due for completion in September 2022. Six of 18 piles (33%) were installed during the Christmas works (preauger and casing installation only). Set up and breakdown of the auger was a time constraint, and the work proved a learning curve for future installations.

Scotland Work took place on just one RED-ranked project in Scotland, at Uddingston Junction, situated on the WCML between Motherwell and Glasgow. All works were completed per scope and the site was handed back at 50mph to plan.

Work over the holiday period included: » Track: the renewal of 2 x point ends, 41pts, 42pts at CAT 71; renewal of 2 x point ends, 43a & 43b pts at CAT 70; and renewal of 567y CAT 14; Renewal of 472y CAT 1. » S&T: TPWS Enhancements for signals GMN182, GMN183, GMN193; upgrade of track circuit to double tailed; and disconnection of boxes where required. » OHL: OHL registration works throughout.

Rail Engineer | Issue 194 | Jan-Feb 2022

FEATURE

Performance and handbacks Of the 1,985 network wide possessions, 17 service-impacting possession overrun incidents occurred over the period, five of which were linked to delivery of major ‘red ranked’ schemes.

These were: » Eastern - Leeds Station Capacity − a 10-minute possession overrun occurred, generating 21 delay minutes due to delays picking up worksite marker boards as a result of possession staff shortages. » Eastern - Sundon Feeder − complications with the installation of an electrical bond saw an overrun of 37 minutes. This incurred 16 delay minutes to an empty coaching stock service. » Eastern - Crossrail Anglia & OLE Renewals − an overrun of 146 minutes occurred, generating 424 delay minutes, caused by failure of the recovery unit on the wiring train during the early stages of the work causing the programme to shift. » Wales & Western - Filton East Curve − the late removal of detonator protection by possession staff during an interim handback on 27th December resulted in an overrun of 11 minutes, incurring 82 delay minutes.

» Southern - Victoria Phase 3 Resignalling − upon moving from part 10 to part 11 of the possession, protection boards had been left in place causing 166 overrun related delay minutes.

Non-service impacting minor possession overruns also occurred at Bletchley and Manchester Piccadilly, as well as an agreed 170-minute extension at Lapworth. In total, 889 minutes of possession overrun delays were incurred, considerably less than for the equivalent period during recent years.

Safety As ever, safety was a priority on all project sites across the network. However, over the period there were nine reported accidents, one reported environmental incident, six reported general incidents, and three reported operational close calls. Of the nine accidents, two were minor injuries with no lost time, five were minor injuries with lost time, and two were classed as being RIDDOR reportable.

The first RIDDOR reportable accident occurred on Boxing Day during signalling recovery works in the Paddington area when, during the removal of pipework, a member of Alstom staff suffered a laceration above the left eye, caused by a piece of ballast. The second reportable accident took place on New Year’s Eve at the Uddingston Junction S&C renewals site in Scotland. Here, the individual in question suffered an injury after losing his balance while removing Fastclips.

Thank you Rail Engineer thanks all the dedicated professionals involved in these works for giving up their precious time over the Christmas period to ensure the network continues to run smoothly.

Congratulations on a job well done!

Rail Engineer | Issue 194 | Jan-Feb 2022

81

82

CAREERS

Is leading, motivating and inspiring people your thing?

Depot Manager Neville Hill - Leeds Join us as a Depot Manager in Leeds and you’ll get to do just that. We’re on a new journey at Neville Hill, which is now solely run by Northern, and we’d love for you to join us on it. This role is all about managing, motivating and inspiring your team to meet safety, quality and performance targets.

You’ll need a background in depot management, along with experience of railway vehicle engineering and production management, and perhaps even an engineering degree. You should be excited to modernise and keen to work collaboratively.

In return, we offer a huge range of benefits - a salary up to £75,000, an oncall allowance, free travel on our services for you and your family, a great pension, generous holidays, and much more.

Ready to go do your thing? northernrailway.co.uk/careers.

GREAT OPPORTUNITIES AVAILABLE ACROSS THE UK Contact us to find out more and visit our website to apply!

POWER ENGINEER York

PRINCIPAL TECHNOLOGIST ENGINEER Hatfield

ADVANCE-TRS.COM

Rail Engineer | Issue 194 | Jan-Feb 2022

LEAD PROJECT MANAGER Cambridge

PROJECT ENGINEERING MANAGER Derby

01483 361 061 | info@advance-trs.com

Are You Tired of Digging Ballast?

Are you COSS and ES qualified?

Do you still want to work in rail but fancy a career change to Structures Examinations, S&T or Specialist Rail Infrastructure Engineering?

Do you want to work for a reputable business with nationwide contracts, have a stable future with attractive pay and benefits?

If the answer is yes - then please get in touch, email your CV to recruitment@bridgeway-consulting.co.uk or give our recruitment team a call on 0115 9191111 to discuss your future career at Bridgeway!

(3E)S

2

=

Exceeding Expectations Everywhere Safely & Sustainably

Shaping Melbourne Australia Are you interested in joining the project team at Metro Trains Melbourne (MTM) that is involved in multibillion dollar city-shaping infrastructure projects?

Did you know? Metro Trains Melbourne is part of the MTR family, with global reach across Europe, Asia, Australia and the Middle East.

Can you bring your wealth of experience to help us support the delivery of Melbourne’s three largest rail infrastructure projects?

THE METRO TUNNEL PROJECT The A$11 billion Metro Tunnel will untangle the city loop so more trains can run more effectively across Melbourne. The Metro Tunnel scope includes twin nine-kilometre rail tunnels, five new underground stations as well as new high capacity signalling. The Metro Tunnel Project is being delivered in three work packages, with a programme-level team assisting each package. The three work packages are: Rail Systems Alliance, Rail Infrastructure Alliance and the Tunnels and Stations Public Private Partnership.

THE MELBOURNE AIRPORT RAIL PROJECT Melbourne Airport Rail is a transformational public transport project connecting Melbourne Airport to Victoria’s regional and metropolitan train network. Trains will run from Melbourne Airport through to Sunshine Station, then into the Metro Tunnel and the heart of the CBD, before continuing on to the Cranbourne and Pakenham lines. This eagerly awaited project will connect people from the airport to where they need to go – be that work, home or Victoria’s key tourism destinations – via a rail service for the first time.

> MELBOURNE METRO TUNNEL & AIRPORT RAIL PROJECT ROLES: » Signalling Project Engineer

» Head of Operations

» Signalling Project Manager

» Operations Definition Test Manager

» Testing and Commissioning Managers - Dynamic testing & CBTC

» Operations Delivery Manager

» Testers in Charge

» Operations Resource Coordinator » Operations Integration Manager

THE LEVEL CROSSING REMOVAL PROJECT The Level Crossing Removal Project (LXRP) was established by the Victorian Government to oversee one of the largest rail infrastructure projects in the state’s history. LXRP is part of the Major Transport Infrastructure Authority and our projects fall under Victoria’s Big Build.

Central to the project is the elimination of 85 level crossings across metropolitan Melbourne by 2024, in addition to other rail network upgrades such as new train stations, track duplication and train stabling yards.

> KEY LXRP PROJECT ROLES: » Testing & Commissioning Managers

» Signalling Design Review Engineer

» Testing & Commissioning Engineers

» Signalling Design Managers

» Signalling Project Engineers

» Testing & Commissioning Review Engineer

www.metrotrains.com.au

Melbourne: Australia’s sporting and culture capital.

if f e r AD

e nce

e Deliver a great passenger experience OUR VISION

EA

S

Connecting people and places for a growing Melbourne

E G I C F O CU

ri Ca ng

Zer

o Ha

Support rail transformation

OU

OUR MISSION

We work smarter every day to be Australia’s most respected city railway

Empower and engage our people

RF O

UR

S T R AT

One T e am

OU R V A L U E S

R SA

De pe nd ab le

ke Ma

Be a sustainable business long term

rm OUR FOUNDATION

Safety – Our goal is Zero Harm, because every injury is preventable

> FURTHER CAREER OPPORTUNITIES: Metro is a multi-award winning organisation, and we pride ourselves on our team of honest, high performing professionals who are talented, inclusive and safety focused and who are at the core of our success. You will be joining an organisation that is known as a global leader in its field but also prides itself on being dynamic, embracing new technologies and focused on customer service. Our aim is to promote work/life balance, allow team members to bring their best to work and to truly be focused on a common goal which is to provide a world-class railway service.

> OFFICE OF THE CHIEF ENGINEER ROLES:

> SIGNALLING STRATEGY TASKFORCE ROLES:

» Signalling Assurance Managers

» Signalling Data Designers

» Senior Signalling Support Engineers

» Principal Testers » Testers in Charges

INTERESTED? If what you’ve read resonates with your values, experience and career aspirations then we want to hear from you.

Successful candidates and their families will be offered sponsorship and be provided with relocation assistance as part of the MTM’s Global Mobility Framework.

To register your interest, contact Kyle MacLean (Talent Partner) on kyle.maclean@metrotrains.com.au with your CV and contact details, or for more information, see:

mtm-careers.com

No matter the project you’re working on, we can get you up to speed with industry best practice. We’re an independent body that makes collective industry knowledge freely available to our members. Our tools, resources and engineering services allow the railway to be safer and more sustainable.

We also offer consulting, training, research and events.

RED ASPECT APPROACHES TO SIGNALS (RAATS) TOOLKIT

SAFETY MANAGEMENT INTELLIENCE SYSTEM (SMIS)

An online tool that helps you to plan better timetabling, performance, and reduce the chance of signals being passed at red.

A powerful tool that delivers invaluable safety intelligence to help you better understand risk and make safety-related decisions.

Learn more at rssb.co.uk/up-to-speed

FATIGUE RISK MANAGEMENT Essential guidance and tools to help you manage the risk of fatigue in rail workers, including planning, rostering and fatigue risk management systems.