Rail Engineer - Issue 200 | January-February 2023

by

200 ISSUES AND 2,900 ARTICLES LATER...

Rail Engineer magazine reaches its 200th issue milestone, join us in looking back on progress made within the industry and looking forward to what is to come.

LAYING TRACK TO LEVENMOUTH

CAPITAL DELIVERY –A SYSTEM APPROACH

rail engineers for rail engineers

David Shirres examines the project to re-open Scotland’s Levenmouth line in 2024.

Eoin O’Neill discusses working closely with suppliers to better manage resources and deliver projects.

20|

24|

Are passengers getting a good ride?

Modern trains have been criticised for their ride quality. How do they compare to older models, and can they be improved?

Mersey Electrics – Class 777 and system upgrade

Merseyrail was known for operating the oldest fleet in the country but has now introduced its Class 777s.

Improvements to freight wagon maintenance

Malcolm Dobell reviews the work that has been done to prevent derailments such as that at Llangennech in 2020.

Mining data

Data was the theme of RIA’s Unlocking Innovation event held on 7 December at University of Birmingham.

30|

Station stops –something to dwell on?

Many factors must be carefully considered for an effective timetable. Paul Darlington considers dwell time at stations.

44

36|

42| Capital Delivery – a system approach

Network Rail’s Eoin O’Neill spoke to Rail Engineer about working more collaboratively with suppliers and with a greater ‘systems’ approach.

Preserving historic stations with modern, sustainable materials

Twinfix has been using its expertise to restore the entrance of Watford High Street Station to its former glory.

56|

Laying track to Levenmouth

The re-opening of the Levenmouth branch in 2024 will be the fifth Scottish rail re-opening in the past 20 years.

44| 52|

Safely delivering railway structure examinations

Joanna Thompson from Inspire (Structures) discusses the challenges of bringing people into the structures examination industry.

48|

Fibre Optic Movement Sensing (FOMS)

Rail Engineer examines Focus Sensors Ltd’s new system which could revolutionise remote condition asset management of earthworks and track.

Shining light on earthworks asset management Laura Boote from GeoAccess looks at how earthworks management has changed in the past 10 years.

64|

National ETCS Test Laboratory

Atkins has worked with Network Rail to commission the National ETCS Test Lab, to test products from different suppliers for compliance.

Santa’s little helpers

Once again, Network Rail used the Christmas break to tackle challenging works and keep the country moving. 68|

Signalling expertise on heritage lines

A recent IRSE Minor Railways Section talk examined signalling solutions on the UKs heritage lines. Clive Kessell reports.

Looking back

TO 2004

Welcome to the 200th edition of Rail Engineer, which was first published in November 2004. At that time, Network Rail had recently taken maintenance back in house, the Channel Tunnel Rail Link was being built to St Pancras, the West Coast Main Line was being upgraded, new trains were replacing Mark 1 ‘slam door’ rolling stock, and the Crossrail hybrid bill had just been put before Parliament.

In this issue, we summarise railway engineering since then, with reference to earlier features. These include new trains, innovations, impressive projects, and emergency work to reinstate rail infrastructure following increasingly frequent severe weather events. Our writers have enjoyed researching this 18-year look back and hope that you enjoy reading it.

While most of our features are good news features, we have also highlighted the lack of a coherent strategy that was also a problem in 2004 when a government White Paper identified “a lack of clear strategic direction” with “no-one to take a balanced view of the costs and benefits”. The paper proposed abolishing the Strategic Rail Authority and passing its strategic responsibilities to the Department for Transport (DfT).

In 2021, the Williams-Shapps report concluded that this 2004 solution had failed by noting that “railways lack a guiding focus on customers, coherent leadership and strategic direction”. Its solution was the creation of Great British Railways (GBR).

In his George Bradshaw address on 7 February, Transport Secretary Mark Harper acknowledged the hiatus from last year’s political and economic turbulence but stressed that there will now be a quicker pace of rail reform for which GBR will provide the right arm’s length guiding mind.

GBR will hopefully be allowed to take the required balanced view of costs and benefits. Currently the Treasury receives income from train operators whilst the DfT controls costs. The Treasury has also decided that the large-scale rolling electrification programme recommended by the Traction Decarbonisation Network Strategy is unaffordable.

Yet, this denies GBR its role as an arms’ length body that can take a considered view of the most cost-effective whole-system approach to rail traction and de-carbonisation.

Malcolm Dobell’s feature on ride comfort gives an example of the required “guiding focus on customer”. He describes how British Rail took effective action to improve the ride quality of Mark 4 coaches and wonders whether GBR might be able to provide a similar guiding mind to resolve the much-criticised ride comfort of the Class 80X trains.

A good example of a whole system approach by an effective guiding mind is the introduction of Merseyrail’s Class 777 units and their associated infrastructure enhancements. This was the result of the Devolution Agreement that Liverpool City Region Combined Authority secured for its railway. The level boarding made possible by these low-floor trains and platform alterations will no doubt reduce dwell times at stations. We describe this complex issue which is affected by many factors.

Since 2004, almost £30 billion has been spent on new and enhanced lines in London such as the Elizabeth line, Crossrail, and extensions of the Docklands Light Railway which provide much needed capacity improvement. Yet, this spend is in stark contrast to the lack of plans for Manchester’s congested Castlefield corridor. One reason for this is that, in 2017, the then Transport Minister considered that digital signalling could be the solution.

Whilst digital signalling offers significant benefits, it has been overhyped with wildly over-optimistic delivery promises. In 1995, Railtrack bet its future on ETCS Level 3 moving block signalling being in operation on the West Coast Main Line by 2004. Nearly 20 years later this is still not available.

A 2016 Transport Select Committee report concluded that Network Rail had made over ambitious capacity improvement claims for digital signalling with publicity showing moving block signalling. Another misleading claim was that “digital deployment on Thameslink will allow 24 trains an hour to run” with no mention of the additional viaduct, dive under, and additional platforms at London Bridge that made this possible.

In our 200th edition supplement, Clive Kessell provides a comprehensive review of the development of the digital railway programme since April 2005 when we published our first feature on this topic entitled “How long before the ERTMS Revolution?”

In 2012, we reported that Russian Railways had 30,000 vehicles using the Russian equivalent of ETCS. This indicates that, rather than the technology, the most difficult aspect of ETCS implementation is its stakeholder management which is not an issue in Russia. This problem is recognised by the East Coast Digital Programme which is a deep industry partnership of 30 organisations working to jointly defined principles.

Making the best use of digital technologies was the theme of a Railway Industry Association Unlocking Innovation event on

which we report. One particularly promising innovation is Fibre Optic Movement Sensing which uses seismic principles to enable existing cables to detect earthworks changes. Improving data sharing was another key theme of this event. As an example, Network Rail is to supply its Wheel Impact Load Detector (WILD) data to train operators. In another feature we explain how better use of WILD data together with significant improvements to facilities and culture is needed to improve freight wagon maintenance.

Having a greater ‘systems approach’ to deliver projects in accordance with Project SPEED is the subject of Paul Darlington’s interview with Eoin O’Neill, capital delivery director Network Rail North West & Central region. We also report from Scotland on how track is being laid on the project to re-open the Levenmouth branch.

The branch lines that make up many of the UK’s heritage lines present particular signalling challenges which require competent personnel to maintain and install signalling equipment that is both old and new which, as we describe, includes digital technologies.

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.hazell@railengineer.co.uk bob.wright@railengineer.co.uk clive.kessell@railengineer.co.uk david.fenner@railengineer.co.uk graeme.bickerdike@railengineer.co.uk malcolm.dobell@railengineer.co.uk mark.phillips@railengineer.co.uk paul.darlington@railengineer.co.uk peter.stanton@railengineer.co.uk

Advertising

Asif Ahmed 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

DAVID SHIRRES RAIL ENGINEER EDITOR

Christmas and New Year saw the delivery of 90% of the planned £120 million work bank delivered over 1,589 possessions nationwide with planners rescheduling engineering trains at short notice due to strikes. Many of those on site were faced with bad weather as the rest of us enjoyed our festive break. The review of this work by Matt Atkins shows why everyone involved deserves our gratitude.

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

RIA's Parliamentary reception strikes a positive note

On 17 January, the Railway Industry Association (RIA) held its Parliamentary reception at the House of Commons. Against a background of strikes, service cuts, and uncertainty about rail reforms, RIA’s CEO, Darren Caplan, gave an upbeat assessment of the industry’s future. He noted that, despite the current conditions, passenger numbers had risen this year to 90% of pre-Covid levels with passenger revenue back at record levels. Despite fears that major projects would be cut, Government remains committed to major projects such as HS2 and East West Rail. Furthermore, instead of being cut, the CP7 settlement was slightly more than that of the last control period.

Nevertheless, more needs to be done. RIA is campaigning to ensure the implementation of rail reforms and for the publication of the Rail National Enhancement Plan (RNEP) which was last updated over 1,000 days ago. RIA also had no doubt that HS2 and Northern Powerhouse Rail (NPR) needed to be built in full and that a rolling programme of electrification is required to meet the net-zero target.

Shadow Rail Minister Tan Dhesi stressed that there cannot be managed decline as rail recovers from the pandemic. He felt that as rail businesses need the certainty of a pipeline of work, it is unacceptable for RNEP not to have been updated since October 2019. He noted that the ORR considered that over 400km of track per year needs to be electrified to meet rail’s net-zero target. Missing this target would be unacceptable especially as European neighbours have far more electrification than the UK.

He advised that a Labour government would have a rolling electrification programme and that his party is committed to building NPR and HS2, including its eastern leg, in full. He felt this was the best way to maximise the economic potential east of the Pennines. Declaring a conflict of interest as MP for Slough, he also felt it important that a western rail link to Heathrow should be built.

The new Chair of Transport Select Committee Iain Stewart mentioned that his passion for transport had been ignited by watching the line ahead through the glass screens of Glasgow’s blue trains. He acknowledged the issues raised by previous speakers and advised that these would be considered by his committee. Indeed, the next day he was to question his predecessor, Rail Minister Huw Merriman, and wondered if he should ask him “If you were still in my chair, what question would you be asking?”

He believed that as well as investigating problems, his committee had a role to look ahead. In this respect he announced the launch of a new inquiry to consider ‘Our future transport’ for which individuals and companies are invited to submit ideas. Those on the shortlist will then be invited to pitch their ideas to the committee at a Dragon’s Den style hearing.

Rail Minister Huw Merriman reassured Iain that he was doing a good job and set out his priorities. These were: i) settle the industrial disputes and see the agreed productivity measures introduced; ii) implement rail reforms on which he is to make a

keynote speech on 7 February; iii) publish RNEP, he agreed that it is pretty shocking that it had not been updated for over 1,000 days; iv) oversee HS2 which he felt was a fantastic project offering decarbonisation benefits, although costs had to be kept under control; and v) drive train operators performance improvements which will also be good for freight.

He felt there had been far too many promises recently for which there was no funding and felt that it was essential that we are honest about what we can and cannot do.

Like all other speakers he thanked those present, in particular RIA for the great work it does for the industry.

The reception also hosted the Rail Fellowship Programme awards ceremony which recognises the contribution of the 2022-23 class of politicians who have taken part in the programme. This sees MPs visit rail suppliers for a ‘hands-on’ experience of what is being done to run the network. MPs given awards at this ceremony included Grant Shapps, Ed Miliband, and Tan Dhesi.

DAVID SHIRRES

Rail Minister Huw Merriman addresses the reception.

Newcastle exhibition marks bicentenary of Robert Stephenson's company

DAVID SHIRRES

23 June sees the bicentenary of the founding of the world’s first locomotive works - Robert Stephenson & Co, in Newcastle. To mark this, an exhibition is being held in the Map Room, Neville Hall, Newcastle which is close to the station. This is open up to 25 March and has been organised by the Robert Stephenson Trust.

with young Robert’s abilities and so the 19-year-old Robert became the company’s managing partner when it was founded in 1823.

Its first locomotive, Locomotion, was built for the S&DR’s opening in 1825. This was assembled on the track bed by the future site of the Hitachi plant at Newton Aycliffe. Six tons of the various bits that made up the locomotive were delivered there from the Newcastle workshops on horse-drawn wagons.

In 1829, the company built an experimental locomotive, Rocket, for the Rainhill trails on the Liverpool and Manchester Railway. This had several innovations including a multi-tube boiler, fire drawn by a blast-pipe exhaust, and cylinders directly driving the wheels, and became the template for almost all future steam locomotives. Rocket won the Rainhill trials at the then unprecedented speed of 30mph.

The company’s workshops were established at Forth Street in Newcastle and continued to lead the development of steam locomotives. A particularly important innovation was the Stephenson link valve gear which can vary steam cut off into the cylinder, enabling a small amount of steam to be used expansively and so significantly improving efficiency.

By 1899, the company had supplied around 3,000 locomotives. To expand its operations, it opened an additional works in Darlington in 1902. By this time most UK railway companies built their own locomotives so most of the company’s output was for export.

In the 20th century there were various mergers and, with the decline of the British locomotive industry, locomotive building at the company’s Newcastle works ceased in 1961 and at Darlington in 1964.

The remarkable achievements of Robert Stephenson and his company make this bicentenary exhibition well worth a visit.

Robert Stephenson was born in 1803 and, at the age of 16, became an apprentice mining engineer at Killingworth Colliery. In 1822 he spent six months at Edinburgh University to study the properties of gases with the aim of improving the design of steam locomotives. He then had to help his father George with the construction of the Stockton and Darlington Railway (S&DR) for which, having surveyed the route, he was the designated engineer.

At this time, George Stephenson suggested the formation of a company to build locomotives for which he felt there would be considerable demand. The S&DR directors were impressed

Robert Stephenson.

Sectionalised replica of Stephenson’s Rocket at the National Railway Museum.

There has been much criticism of the ride comfort of the most recent trains brought into use on the British rail network such as the class 8XX Inter City Express Trains (IET). Critics compare them unfavourably with older trains which, they say, deliver a superior ride. When travelling around the UK in 2022, your writer particularly noticed that IETs sometimes rode well and sometimes were extremely rough, so this is probably not entirely a train issue. Critics have also complained about uncomfortable seats (Issue 176 - July 2019), and these are clearly part of the perceived problem.

Passengers’ perception of ride comfort arises from a combination of their reaction to the accelerations they feel in three dimensions, and other issues such as noise and temperature. Ride comfort may be more subjective than objective, but there continues to be research to understand the contribution of the various factors to a ‘comfortable ride’ – vertical, lateral, longitudinal

accelerations and jerks, together with noise. Illustrating this with one scenario, which does the passenger perceive as worse – general disturbance of the vehicle traversing points at speed or the same with much clattering from somewhere underneath the vehicle? This article is in three sections. First, a case study of a 30-yearold fleet that was criticised for a poor ride when new but was

improved; second, exploring some of the factors that might explain why we achieve a less good ride on modern trains compared with, for example, those in the case study; and third, what can be done to improve the new trains.

Case study: Mark 4 coaches

Mark 4 coaches were built by Metro-Cammell in the late 1980s and featured SIG type BT41A bogies. In service, the fleet was criticised for poor ride. British Rail management of the day accepted the criticism and determined that something needed to be done. As far as Rail Engineer is aware, the specification/requirements had been complied with, but it was clear from contemporary commentators (Roger Ford

MALCOLM DOBELL

et al) that the ride was not good at 125mph, although there were reports that all was fine at the specified 140mph. Investigation involved measuring accelerations using tri-axial accelerometers and recording equipment (such as is used for measuring the ride comfort of IMechE Railway Challenge locomotives) at various locations along the vehicle floors. This equipment is simple and straightforward to use. The analysis of the data indicated two problems.

First, there was a great deal of relative lateral movement between coaches especially noticeable if negotiating the inter-car gangway. This was the first time that the two halves of the gangway were physically connected and there were no friction-mating faces that would have provided a level of friction damping. The problem was resolved by fitting a transverse hydraulic damper

underneath the gangway with one end connected to one coach and the other end to the next coach. The damper also improved the overall lateral ride.

Second, it was found that the yaw dampers mounted on both sides of the bogies were exciting the first vertical body bending mode. This is illustrated in the diagram showing the original orientation of the dampers as a red line and the body bending represented by the yellow dotted line. Engineers investigating this believed that if the damper mounting location could be changed slightly, the problem would be reduced or rendered ‘mostly harmless’. The agreed modification was for the bogies to be turned though 180 degrees, meaning that the yaw dampers faced toward the coach centre rather than the end (the green line on the illustration). With the

support of the supplier who had the models, the solution was ‘tested’ using vehicle dynamics multi-body computer modelling and shown to be effective. Simulations are often part of the solution, and they can really only be done by the supplier, the organisation that understands how the suspension works, the detail of which is key to effective simulation.

It was necessary to reposition the yaw damper body mounting bracket from the outer to the inner side of the body bolster, a comparatively straightforward modification. This is the configuration that will be seen on the remaining mk 4 coaches in use today, although observers will note that the shorter Driving Van Trailers retain the original yaw damper layout as they react to the yaw damper differently from the longer passenger cars.

Mk 4 Coaches as delivered.

PHOTO: JIM CARTER

MK4 Coach elevation showing the change to yaw damper position.

Why do we achieve a less good ride today?

There are three main reasons: compliance culture, organisational complexity, and lack of a guiding mind.

Compliance culture

Engineers ‘of a certain age’ often say “standards are for the guidance of wise men [appropriately dating the saying] and the blind observance of fools.” These days it is apparent that demonstration of compliance with the requirements (procurement specifications, National Specifications, Standards etc), is all that’s required. Requirements are generally SMART - Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Relevant, Time-bound –whereas aspects such as seat and ride comfort are subjective.

As an example, the original UK Government IET specification called up sections of line on which a specified ride quality was to be achieved (although, curiously, this included a section where the trains were not required to operate).

The various specifications and standards permit the ride quality requirements to be demonstrated by simulation, as providing a track for physical testing that actually meets that specified at procurement is fraught with its own issues. This begs the question whether simulation adequately replicates all the factors involved in delivering ride comfort (see panel). But can it be said that this fully replicates what the passenger experiences? Does simulation model seats and noise paths, for example?

Organisation complexity

In the case study above, there were just two parties: British Rail and Metro Cammell. By comparison, the original IET contract involved the following players:

» Specifier and Procurer: Department for Transport

» Supplier: Hitachi

» Owner: Agility Trains

» Infrastructure Manager: Network Rail

» Operator: LNER and GWR

Along with these were a number of roles provided by one or more independent organisations (often procured by the train supplier) to certify compliance with:

Technical Specifications for Interoperability (as was the regime of the day) – Notified Body; Notified National Standards – Designated Body; and Common Safety Methods (risk evaluation and assessment; monitoring; safety management system requirements; supervision; common safety targets; conformity assessment)

– Assessment Body.

Which of these organisations feels the pain sufficiently to commit management time and funds in order to investigate and deliver a fix? One can imagine the operator going back to the supplier, being told that the train is good as

Mark 4 coach after modification.

it has been independently certified as compliant with requirements, pointing to a possible track problem. Conversely, an approach to Network Rail will show that its track is consistent with the specified quality. Inevitably a multi-party investigation is required but, with the current contract structure and financial constraints, is anyone likely to be able to get permission to fund the investigation, let alone any modifications?

A multi-party investigation did take place with the IET bolster/ lifting pad cracking issue, and it seems that the parties only come together jointly to resolve a problem when there is a safety issue.

Lack of a guiding mind

In BR’s day, one of the guiding principles of the organisation, certainly by the late 1980s, was delivering quality for passengers. This would have infected the culture of the place and, when the issue with the Mark 4 coaches was identified, one can imagine that the InterCity director of the day would simply have told the project engineer to sort it out, although remembering some of the engineers involved, they were probably already on the case. The project engineer would have involved the train supplier and the track engineers and would have been able to rely on the support of BR Research

experts. But who would do it today? One might expect the train operating company (TOC) to be the organisation that wants to delight the passenger but even prior to Covid, when franchising contracts were still recognisably revenue/profit driven, the TOCs concerned were not in the driving seat. Their contracts effectively said that they would operate the trains that had been purchased and approved for them. They were unable to influence seat comfort, for example.

What could be done?

Part of the cure is to acknowledge that the best simulations in the world and compliance with standards only get you to the starting gate. When the train starts running on the track, reports of poor ride, from staff or passengers, need to be taken seriously – an acknowledgement that something is wrong. From there, work can proceed to diagnose the problem. This would probably start with the same measurement methods that were used on the Mark 4 coaches. Only when that data set is available can engineers start to understand what is causing the poor ride and what might be done about it. It might be that the train is sensitive to particular track features and some work on the track might be cost-effective. Equally, a train fix could be as

simple as tweaking damper rates. The information would also help to understand why the simulation did not predict the problem, for instance if there was a deficiency in the specification or that someone made a mistake.

Another simple improvement would be to make the seats more comfortable at the first occasion when they need recovering. It is possible to have comfortable seats on these trains; those on the Lumo trains seem to be well regarded, for example.

The question is whether there’s any possibility that this will be done? Even the outline proposals for Great British Railways (GBR) are unclear whether it will be GBR itself or its contracted operators whose role it will be to delight passengers and hence have the incentive to make

University of Huddersfield's THOMoS ride assessment rig in operation.

improvements to passenger comfort. But, if the aim of GBR is to re-unite the wheel and the rail, we could argue that part of the demonstration of a good wheel/rail interface is passenger comfort.

Conclusion

While this article sets a fairly gloomy tone, there is hope for the future. We have already seen complaints about ‘ironing board seats’ prompt research into objective ways of specifying seat comfort, albeit still with a level of subjectivity involving a passenger assessment process. The standard on ride comfort, EN12299, provides tools and methodology to investigate ride comfort issues when applied in an appropriate way.

One also hopes that University of Huddersfield’s work with THOMoS (Issue 195 - March/ April 2022) will lead to better understanding of the impact of particular track/suspension interactions on passengers’ perceptions of good and bad ride, and that suitable requirements can be framed to achieve better results.

Panel

There are a lot of elements that contribute to ride comfort: track geometry; wheel profile; primary suspension (springs/ dampers/bushes); bogie stiffness; secondary suspension (vertical and lateral); yaw dampers; body stiffness and bending modes; inter-vehicle effects (longitudinal coupling stiffness and yaw between vehicles); anti-roll bars; traction and braking jerk control; and noise paths.

A smooth stable ride can only be achieved through careful optimisation of all the components between the track and the passenger’s feet or buttocks. Vertical, lateral, longitudinal, yaw and roll all work towards this objective. But there are often competing objectives (staying within gauge for example) that prevent the designer simply optimising the suspension for the best ride.

If the track is smooth, the train’s suspension has an easy time. If the track is less smooth, a good ride can still be achieved but softer springs might be required. But softer springs bring more suspension movement which might mean the body has to be a little

smaller, which, in turn, might affect the accommodation. Softer springs in the vertical direction lead to more roll on curves, and anti-roll bars might be provided to control roll, particularly on vehicles where pantographs are fitted. But anti-roll bars can also introduce a transmission path for noise and higher frequency vibrations if the selected bushes are not perfect.

Computer simulations to demonstrate vehicle safety and stability are sophisticated but inevitably they do not take account of absolutely every factor and do not account for noise transmission at all. Car bodies and bogie frames might be assumed to be rigid, for example. Yet, as the case study explains, car bodies are flexible, and this can affect ride with longer vehicles tending to have lower bending frequencies more likely to be detectable by passengers. Depending on exactly where attached, component mounting points can have an impact on the overall ride performance.

Finally, ride quality is a system property and not determined by the train alone.

the

MALCOLM DOBELL I

n Rail Engineer 184 (May/June 2020), Paul Darlington described the upgrade of the Merseyside rail network in and around Liverpool, which involved new trains, upgraded infrastructure, power supplies and depots, together with a network wide train-infrastructure Wi-Fi system. To recap, MerseyRail is the largest third-rail electrified network outside London and the South East, has extensive underground running and is largely self-contained. Pre-Covid, the network carried 110,000 passengers on weekdays and a total of 34 million passengers per year along its 75 miles of route with 68 stations.

Six stations and 6.5 miles of route are underground. It is also unusual that, since 2002, the Liverpool Region Combined authority, through its Merseytravel arm, is the franchising authority for the network. It is currently operating the oldest fleet of any main line operator in the country but is on the cusp of a transformation. During a visit to Kirkdale depot in November 2022, David Powell, Merseytravel’s Project Director, briefed Rail Engineer about the Class 777 trains and the various system changes to enable their operation prior to the first train entering service which took place on 23 January 2023.

Before describing the trains, it’s worth remembering the benefits that were identified at the start of the programme in 2012:

» Improved safety, especially at the platform train interface having regard to the James Street fatality in 2011

» 10% journey time reduction

» 50% higher passenger capacity to meet rising demand

» Improved passenger facilities

» Future-proofed to operate beyond third-rail infrastructure

» The most accessible heavy rail network in the UK

» More reliable than Class 507/8

» Reduced operating and maintenance costs

» Reduced carbon footprint

Liverpool was in a position to fund the new trains for itself without recourse to a ROSCO. This allowed Liverpool to specify a train solely to meet its own needs without needing to think about residual value issues. The resulting finance model uses the council’s own reserves plus loans from the Public Works Loan Board and the European Investment Bank (one of the last loans to UK following Brexit).

Driver's desk.

Bespoke solution

Following competitive tendering in 2016, Stadler was selected to design and manufacture the trains and it was also decided to contract Stadler to maintain the trains - Stadler’s first maintenance contract in the UK. One of the benefits of choosing Stadler is that it specialises in bespoke solutions and Liverpool’s is a completely new design. Initially 52 x 4-car, 65-metre-long units were procured with an option for up to another 60. Since then, one additional train has been ordered. The rolling stock design was completed in 20 months following extensive interaction with passengers to determine key interior design features. David Powell described them as “Metro style units designed to mainline standards”. Bodyshells are made in Hungary, bogies in Spain, with final assembly in Switzerland and Poland. Dynamic testing was carried out at the Siemens facility in Wildenrath, Germany. The first unit was delivered to the UK through the channel tunnel in January 2020. Not all the trains have yet been delivered to Liverpool which will be explained later in the article.

David said that right from the beginning and throughout the design process, customers were invited to express their desires for the new trains in work carried out by the research arm of Transport Focus. One key passenger requirement was for level access from platform to train in order to allow people with wheelchairs, buggies, and other mobility impairments to board and alight easily. This led to an early design decision to lower the floor from the usual 1100mm (approximately) to 960mm and use extending panels to bridge the gap between train and platform. These have ultrasonic sensors fitted which stop the extending panels approximately 35mm away from the platform edge. This and other features meant that a number of infrastructure changes were necessary which are covered later.

Features

The train’s outline specification can be seen at the end of the article, but notable features include open wide gangways throughout the unit, air conditioning, 240V 13A & USB sockets at every pair of seats, and line maps displayed on LCD screens. Research indicated that customers like to know that the security CCTV is working, so images from the saloons are also displayed on the LCD screens. On each unit, there are two storage areas for three bicycles. The cab design is unique. The nature of the tunnels is such that there needs to be a means to evacuate passengers from the front of the train. But there was also a desire to improve sightlines for the driver which meant larger windscreens compared with the old trains. So, unlike the old Class 507/8 units, rather than in the centre of the cab front, detrainment is via a sliding plug door fitted on the right-hand side. This is accompanied with an angled ladder which runs from this doorway to the middle of the track (a straight ladder might have ‘landed’ right above the conductor rail). In the event that a train-to-train detrainment is required, clearly the detrainment doors will be on opposite sides of the coupled units, and for this a series of platforms and barriers are deployed to provide a safe gangway.

Articulated motor bogie Saloon interior.

Each passenger door is monitored by its own external CCTV camera and two monitors, each displaying views from four cameras, provided in the cabs. It is planned to operate the trains with the driver controlling the doors and a train manager will look after the customers and perform a platform check at stations.

For maintenance, Kirkdale depot has been extensively modernised. With pit roads and highlevel platforms to access roof mounted equipment (antennae, air conditioning packs, dynamic brake resistors, etc). In passing, the end cars have panelling on the roof to smooth the flow of side winds over the body. Modelling had shown that there was a risk of overturning in the presence of side winds specified by standards. This was not a risk on the shorter intermediate vehicles. David said that he hopes, in time, to justify their removal as they are an impediment to maintenance. The depot has three-phase shore supplies to power the units’ auxiliaries, but movement in and out of the sheds is powered by the train’s limited movement batteries.

BEMU

Merseytravel has ambitions to extend the MerseyRail network, and, with ORR ‘presuming against extensions of third-rail systems’, provision was made on the trains for 25kV supply or batteries with space under each end car. At Rail Live 2021, Stadler demonstrated a prototype battery-powered Class 777 unit with batteries weighing 2.5 tonnes. This was used to explore practical range on the Liverpool network, resulting in Merseytravel varying the order to increase the order to 53 trains, seven of which will have three tonnes of batteries on each end car, together with an additional power converter (increasing the tare mass by approximately 6%). The batteries will be Lithium Titanate Oxide type with a total capacity of 320kWh. These give a good combination of energy and power density and have an inherent resistance to thermal runaway. The initial offthird-rail section will be a one-mile extension from Kirkby to a new station at Headbolt Lane, but David says that there is an ambition to extend to other locations such as Wrexham. The first production Class 777 BEMU delivered an encouraging 135km range which shows what is possible.

Infrastructure

Having resolved to have lower train floors, clearly the platforms needed to be compatible. The aim was to deliver platforms at or close to the standard 915mm height and 730mm offset. David reported that 92 platforms at 56 stations had to be modified for height, offset, or both. This programme was managed by Network Rail, and David praised the way the work was delivered on time. In general, the work was carried out in line blockades with a number of platforms being tackled simultaneously. Other changes, including moving signals at the ends of some platforms, are being undertaken. To satisfy the ambition to run 8-car, 130-metre trains, some platforms and the turnback siding in the underground section at Liverpool Central need to be extended.

Power supply

At 2100kW peak power output at the wheels, the new trains demand about three times the power of the existing train. The power supply was upgraded to address existing volt drop issue and to raise the maximum current draw from 4000 A to 5400 A. This was achieved by providing three new bulk supply points (from the regional electricity company to the railway), eight new substations and extensive cable upgrades.

Wireless connectivity

The last element of the upgrade is the wireless connectivity system. David said that the business case for upgraded comms was based on: obtaining data from the trains to enable predictive maintenance; reducing workload on the drivers; ability to access both live and recorded CCTV both in the operations and British Transport Police control rooms; to update passenger information in real time; and to send emergency alerts to the Sandhills control room (where Network Rail, MerseyRail, and Stadler personnel are colocated). It was these features that gave a positive business case but, as a by-product, customers get access to on-train Wi-Fi too. The technology is Wi-Fi throughout, rather than the more usual on-train Wi-Fi connected to the infrastructure via 4/5g mobile modems. Panasonic is providing the system and David mentioned the 120km of trackside cables that have had to be installed.

Kirkdale depot: roof access staging.

Extended gap filler.

Introduction into service

As described above, fleet introduction, initially on the Kirkby line started in midJanuary 2023. From there a complex cascade starts. With 59 old trains, 53 new ones, and only 70 unit stabling/siding spaces, David’s extended project team has prepared a detailed plan to manage hand back of the old fleet to Angel Trains (Class 507/8 ROSCO) whilst training all the staff who will interact with the new trains, bringing more and more trains onto the network and ensuring that fault free running has been completed, whilst managing

Class 777 features

» Four-car articulated unit.

» Bogie arrangement: Trailer – motor - motor –motor – trailer.

» Lightweight carriage body made of extruded aluminium profiles.

» Newly developed motor trailer bogies with internal bogie frames, pneumatic suspension and wheel tread friction brakes; motor bogies under articulated joints.

» Modern vehicle control system.

» Automatic front coupler for multiple operation.

» Plug sliding doors and sliding steps for level entrance.

» AWS/TPWS/tripcock train protection and Automatic Selective Door Open system.

» Prepared for later retrofit of ETCS and 25 kV power supply equipment.

» Train batteries allowing depot movements independently of power supply; units are designed to allow later installation of much larger batteries, implemented on the 7 BEMU units ordered.

Comfort:

» Bright, passenger-friendly interior with an iconic design

» Six entrance doorways on each side for rapid passenger flow

» Level access at all entrances

» Spacious multifunction areas and wheelchair spaces

» Modern passenger information system and CCTV

» Powerful HVAC system

the inevitable modifications that all new trains require, especially after being exposed to passenger operation for the first time. Finally, David paid tribute to the teams who have worked on this programme. Vital to the programme has been cross organisation teamwork including: willingness to share information, recognition of each other’s perspectives and, above all, compromise.

With thanks to David Powell, his assistant Jane Brimage, and to Stadler’s Alex Maher for their assistance with this article.

Personnel:

» Spacious cab with excellent driver sight lines

» Ergonomically designed driver’s desk

» Automated cab side doors for comfortable access

Reliability/Availability/Maintainability/Safety

» Three IGBT three-phase drive systems; one per pair of motors (ABB)

» Force cooled traction motors (TSA)

» Remote vehicle diagnostics to support condition-based maintenance

» Automated front bridging system for movement between units for evacuation

Supply voltage: 750 VDC

Number of units: 53 with options for another 59

Seats (one class only): 182 (Class 507: 192)

Tip-up seats: 8

Standing capacity (4 pers./m2): 302

Floor height: 960mm (Class 507: 1100mm)

Doorway width: 1300mm

Unit length: 64980mm

Vehicle width: 2820mm

Vehicle height: 3828mm

Bogie wheelbase: 2400mm

Wheel diameter, new: 760mm (similar size to Underground tube stock)

Power output at wheel: 1500kW [Continuous] (Class 507: 650kW)

Power output at wheel: 2100kW [Maximum] (350kW/motor)

Starting tractive effort: 162kN (up to 46km/h)

Starting acceleration: 1.1m/s²

Maximum speed: 120km/h

Tare mass: 100 t (Class 507: 104.5 t)

WAGON MAINTENANCEImprovements to freight

When publishing the report into the 24 August 2020 freight train derailment at Llangennech (Issue 194 - Jan/Feb 2022), Simon French, the outgoing chief inspector of the Rail Accident Investigation Branch (RAIB), made this hard-hitting comment:

“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 10 investigations, including maladjusted suspension, undetected frame twist, and worn bogie pivot liners.”

RAIB’s recommendations were aimed at a number of different organisations including the wagon owner and maintainer, as well as the equipment supplier, the certifier of the

Entity in Charge of Maintenance (ECM), Network Rail, and RSSB. The reports and comments pointed to a culture that needed changing rather than the particular events leading to the Llangennech derailment. Subsequently, the RAIB has commenced an investigation into the derailment at Petteril Bridge Junction, Carlisle on 19 October 2022, where the immediate cause – a severely flatted wheel with a false flange that derailed the train on points – was similar to that at Llangennech.

MALCOLM DOBELL

Flatted wheelset with false flange found on site at Petteril Bridge Junction, Carlisle.

PHOTO: RAIB

To illustrate the work done to prevent such derailments, this article is in two parts, firstly reviewing the work being carried out by the Rail Wagon Association (RWA) to improve the facilities and culture for freight wagon maintenance. Many of these activities started before the Llangennech report was published. The second part covers two innovations that have been developed by the University of Huddersfield as part of their work with RSSB.

The Rail Wagon Association

The RWA is an industry group comprising almost all the various parties involved in rail wagon operations: owners, builders, lessors, entities in charge of maintenance, maintainers, operators, Network Rail, users (freight customers), certification companies, and component suppliers. This list of stakeholders illustrates the complexity of today’s freight operations. Rail Engineer talked to The RWA’s general manager, Steve Taylor and vice chairman Les Bryant, who is a rail veteran of 44 years, Davis Group’s

engineering director, and chairman of RWA’s Engineering Committee, a group of senior representatives from all parts of its membership.

A key task of the engineering committee is to consider relevant incident reports, investigation recommendations and, where appropriate, set up working groups to address issues identified, e.g. following the derailments at Angerstein and Ely. They have also identified the need for research and were one of the sponsors of the recent research project on wheelset coatings (RSSB T1226, available on RSSB Spark). The Llangennech accident led to the RWA setting up three working groups examining: task analysis, training and competence (T&C), and safety critical components. The RWA sees these three topics as inter-related and crucial to delivering a sound maintenance regime.

The task analysis group started at a very basic level to ‘decide what task analysis is’ in order to develop guidance for RWA members. Any task analysis has to include the

required competence level of the people carrying out the work, so it in turn becomes a major input to the training and competence work.

Best practice

Les said that the training and competence work activity is ongoing. It aims to professionalise the wagon maintenance workforce, whilst recognising that wagon maintenance is often carried out in less-than-ideal conditions, and the comparatively low level of technology that has to be dealt with. Against this background the group has, so far, commenced a review of a sample of members’ T&C systems, with the aim of identifying a best practice model using the best of already developed courses to support qualifications for wagon maintainers. This work will lead to a framework for basic skills foundation training and further development.

Finally, a safety critical component list for a generic wagon has been established from available guidance. It comprises: axles, wheels,

PHOTO: LES BRYANT

PHOTO: LES BRYANT

This graph shows that when the acceptable criteria for lateral imbalance and for longitudinal imbalance are examined together, the combined acceptance area is much lower – the area under the solid black line.

bearings, bearing end caps, bogie frames, suspension and damping, axle boxes, brake rigging, slack adjusters, and valves on tanks. This list is important as it identifies the components for which enhanced record keeping and traceability is required. By comparison, in the EU the Technical Committee of the VPI (European umbrella for organisations like the RWA) recommended that only the wheels and axle of a wheelset should be considered as safety critical components.

RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT

Uneven loading

quantitative understanding of the relationship between the two factors. Their work bridged that gap leading to an updated method of assessment in GB Standard GMRT2141 issue 4; specifically, the requirement is for acceptance testing of new wagons, and only applicable to container-carrying vehicles.

Scrap in container in the Camden Road West derailment 15 October 2013: a) as found after the derailment and b) as repacked to replicate original weight distribution.

Les also reported that guidance has been offered to the National Freight Safety Group on what an optimal maintenance facility might look like (previous RAIB recommendation) and is working with Network Rail to capture, for analysis, incidents reported in control room logs that do not make it into industry shared alerts, i.e., NIR reports.

Les considered that RWA members recognise their safety responsibilities, provide industry experts to focus on technical and engineering issues for freight and concluded that “we work well together”.

Several incidents have been caused, at least in part, by wheel unloading issues caused by wagon defects or by uneven loading. RSSB commissioned research from the University of Huddersfield (UoH). This work, largely carried out by Phil Shackleton, sought to understand how much unevenness might be acceptable and, based on input from organisations that load wagons, to provide guidance on preventing uneven loading. Their paper, presented to the 2022 World Congress of Railway Research, identified that the derailment risks of uneven loading and of wagons operating on twisted track were understood individually, but there was no

The adjacent graph shows modelled situations where there is a wheel lift of 6mm for various conditions of vehicle lateral and longitudinal imbalance. The Duddeston, Camden, and Angerstein cases feature track geometry which is recreated from post-derailment site measurements, while the assault course cases are idealised track forms based on the requirements of vehicle acceptance standards. In principle, longitudinal imbalance is more tolerable than lateral imbalance, but it is impractical to control lateral imbalance on container wagons. As described below, Freightliner managed the un-controllable risk of lateral imbalance by controlling the longitudinal imbalance, shifting the point on the imbalance map to where there is greater tolerance in lateral imbalance. Freightliner’s guidance to help manage imbalance was as follows:

Container handlers know the mass of each container, but not the weight distribution. However, during interviews researchers gained an understanding of how containers are loaded. For example, where containers are being used for transporting scrap, a 20-foot-long container might be placed on its end and scrap lowered into the up-ended container from a crane or grab. This often means that the load is concentrated at the opposite

end from the doors and it might be a heavy load, such as a scrap transformer.

Previous guidance, to minimise risk of tampering, was to place containers on wagons with the doors inboard as this ensures that the doors cannot be opened in transit. In these circumstances, it might lead to the load being outboard of the bogie and thus a significant longitudinal imbalance. So, supported by a risk assessment, new guidance enabled the placement of containers carrying scrap with the doors facing towards the nearest buffers which would place the load inboard of the bogie, a very simple risk reduction measure.

Predictive wagon maintenance

UoH’s Phil Shackleton has also investigated the use of data from the wheel impact load detectors (WILD) installed at strategic locations on the network. This work was also presented at the WCRR in 2022. WILD was initially installed to detect serious wheel defects such as flats that might harm the track.

As originally installed, these provide an alert identifying which train/wheel has generated the high impact, but UoH was commissioned to explore whether WILD data could also be used to detect wagon defects, such as a twisted vehicle frame, twisted bogie frame, or abnormal suspension behaviour (for example wheel unloading due to incorrect suspension packing) or a broken spring. The important point to make is that WILD was never intended to provide measurements for this purpose, so it was important to develop a robust process that used the available data and a statistical approach to identify wagons that need attention.

UoH reported that WILD measurements were supplied by Network Rail for use in the project. The dataset represented 18 months’ traffic from June 2019 but only the data related to wagons fitted with radio

frequency identification devices (RFID) tags were used. Around 2.4 million axle passes were recorded in the data set which equated to roughly 600,000 vehicle passes. 2855 unique wagons of 90 different wagon types were represented in the data set. A broad range of information was included in the WILD data set, such as the wheel load measurements and a number of derived metrics, date and time, vehicle identification, train information, WILD site identification, vehicle ownership and operator, etc.

As the researchers put it, “due to the significant uncertainty in individual measurements in the WILD dataset a statistical analysis strategy was adopted, with the aim of identifying statistically meaningful anomalies in measurement distribution for a specific vehicle compared to other vehicles of that class in the dataset.”

Results

Having developed a robust method for using the data, the researchers presented results

for vehicle diagonal imbalance for a fleet of the same vehicle type. This shows the range of data points for each vehicle with the blue boxes showing the statistically significant results and clearly highlighting the few vehicles that might need investigation.

The data showed the impact of scheduled maintenance – a step change in the diagonal imbalance following scheduled maintenance. Whether the wagon is loaded or tare is another factor that helps to identify the likely nature of a defect.

Recently, it was announced that all 15,000 wagons will be fitted with RFID tags which will allow alerts to be related to the particular wagon (noting that some are already fitted). Fitting RFID tags is the key to adopting the results of UoH’s work and its research findings have been shared with the freight industry with a view to this being adopted on a business-as-usual basis.

Rail Engineer will, no doubt, return to this topic.

This chart shows the range of data obtained from individual vehicles, with the rectangular bar areas showing the statically significant results; in simple terms, the higher the bar, the more likely the wagon requires investigation.

Time history of vehicle diagonal imbalance measurements where the effect of scheduled maintenance interventions are clearly seen.

Mining data

DAVID SHIRRES

The phrase “data is the new oil” was coined in 2006. Like oil, data is of little value unless it is extracted, refined, processed, and distributed. This metaphor also alludes to the case of Standard Oil which, in the early 20th century, the US Supreme Court ruled to be an illegal monopoly. Today there are similar concerns about companies such as Google, Amazon, Apple, and Microsoft dominating the data marketplace. Yet data should be easily shared if the best use is to be made of it.

Data was the theme of the Railway Industry Association’s (RIA) Unlocking Innovation event ‘Intelligent Railways’ held on 7 December at the University of Birmingham UK Rail Research and Innovation Network (UKRRIN) centre of excellence in digital systems.

The event consisted of keynote presentations, also available online, which were followed by presentations by various companies at their exhibition stands and tours of the UKKRIN laboratories. It was hosted by RIA’s innovation director, Milda Manomaityte, who advised that the focus of the event was better use of data. She encouraged delegates to complete RIA’s

questionnaire seeking views on data and digital capabilities in respect of skills, organisational change, commercial arrangements, open access, standards, cybersecurity, and digital twins. Readers are also encouraged to complete this questionnaire by scanning the QR code.

Rail Data Marketplace

Claire Morrissey and Jez Smith are respectively the commercial and project leads for the Rail Delivery Group’s Rail Data Marketplace (RDM) project which started in September 2021. They explained how this aims to simplify access to rail data to make it more widely available to improve the customer experience, efficiency, and to stimulate innovation. With many data providers, there is no clear view on what data is available or its quality and formats. Hence accessing data is rarely straightforward.

The RDM will not host data. It will be a portal on which data publishers provide a full description of their datasets, including any conditions of use, so that potential users can see what is available. In this way, RDM aims to be an honest broker bringing data publishers and consumers together with data sharing agreements. RDM will also facilitate a ‘frictionfree’ license agreement in a way that does not deter data use.

It seeks to achieve a balance of open and free datasets alongside chargeable commercial datasets to encourage and drive innovation. RDM will provide guidance to data publishers on the best practice in data and cyber-security as well as advising how data can be accessible. Publishers will be required to tag their data according to best practice and the RDM’s categorisation scheme, and be encouraged to follow Government guidance on web-based application programming interface (API) standards to ensure ease of data transfer.

The RDM service is not prescriptive about the standard or format of the data but will enforce governance if it is clear that there is not an appropriate level of data governance. RDM is now in its private beta phase being trialled with five publishers with eight data sets and 10 data consumers. It is anticipated that it will enter the public beta phase in April and go live in October.

ENRICH

The Enhanced Network Rail Information and data interchange (ENRICH) project will put all Network Rail data onto standard business platforms. Its sponsor is Amanda Hall who is Network Rail’s engineering expert (systems). She explained that ENRICH will support RDM by resolving the problems within Network Rail of the plethora of data formats, shortage of documentation, poor data quality and heavyduty systems that limit agility.

Amanda advised that ENRICH will develop new Network Rail standardised systems for sharing data with standard simplified legal arrangements based on the open government licence. She was confident that this would shift the focus from data collection to data analysis. In its initial phase, ENRICH is to assess the benefits and validate technical and commercial outputs from the following three first use cases:

1. Track Centreline data supplied open data to users

2. Wheel Impact Load Detector and Fibre Optic Acoustic Sensing data sets merged and supplied to train operators

3. Infrastructure Monitoring by train operators (e.g., on board OLE monitoring) for use by Network Rail

Amanda advised that she welcomed new ideas and appealed for early adopters and contributors to become involved.

HS2’s digital twin

HS2’s vision is to develop a virtual railway during design and construction so that a digital twin of the built asset can be handed over to operations and maintenance at least two years before the start of physical running. James Daniel, HS2’s head of digital engineering explained how this vision requires committed, competent people using the right technology and data which is formatted to link data sets together. This is supported by the BIM upskilling portal (www.bimupskilling.com) that HS2 has developed, which has an introductory video on its site overview page.

With 350 construction sites collecting data for this virtual model, this is now being put to the test. James advises that the virtual model of the construction of Old Oak Common station is now giving a three month look ahead. However, achieving this requires cultural change for which lots of conversations were required.

Digital twin of Old Oak Common station.

He explained that, compared with the analogue way of working in sequential steps, using the digital space offers far more opportunities for collaboration with consequent cost, time, performance, safety, environmental, and reputational benefits. It offers wider business benefits. For example, visualisations enable human resources to recruit school leavers and operators can practice emergency situations in a virtual environment.

Northern Trains

Northern Trains operates 2,200 services a day with its fleet of 364 trains which are a mix of electric and diesel units, the latter includes over 150 diesel units built in the 1980s.

Christine Lefroy-Owen, Northern’s innovation manager, explained how the company is innovating to solve its business challenges of accessibility, safety, reducing environmental impact and the use of data. One such initiative is its connected trains. Between 2017 and 2021, Northern refurbished 240 of its older trains in a £100 million programme delivered by Arriva TrainCare. From a passenger perspective this offered a much-improved environment which included free Wi-Fi and improved passenger information.

It also includes a raft of digital systems to improve maintenance and train performance. This work was supported by Icomera which used its X-series connectivity platform to manage on-board cyber-security and connect the various applications. These include passenger counting, energy metering, remote condition monitoring, and a driver advisory system. In this way, Northern’s older trains now have the connected systems that come as standard with new trains.

Christine advised how these systems have proved useful, for example in improving availability, although finding the best use for much of this data was work in progress.

The Thales view

Andrew Hunter is head of technical solutions for Thales Ground Transportation team in the UK. He explained that the Thales digital culture required: empowerment rather than control; data instead of opinions; testing and learning rather than plans; collaboration instead of being protective; considering people to be users rather than customers; and accepting failure instead of not trying. In respect of this last point, he felt that an entrepreneur who has only failed once has not done anything.

He stressed that this type of culture was essential if digital technologies are to be used effectively. He then described how enabling technologies could unlock other innovations as the iPhone has done.

One such example is Radio Based Limited Supervision (RBLS) which was developed as proof of concept following a Network Rail challenge issued in 2019 that asked whether existing train protection systems were fit for purpose given ETCS implementation timescales. RBLS was the result for which Thales is developing its Train Protection and Warning System – Continuous Supervision (TPWS-CS).

TPWS-CS continuously updates a train’s position to warn the driver of approaching speed restrictions or engineering possessions, applying an emergency brake if necessary. It has a robust train positioning system which uses GPS, radar, an inertial measurement unit (IMU), and positioning sensors. Having a reliable train positioning system also provides solutions for other requirements such as enhanced safety at user worked crossings.

‘Hearing’ what is happening on the railway with fibre optic acoustic sensing (FOAS) is another enabling technology. Although this is not a high integrity system, it can be combined with other sensors to offer significant benefits such as the detection of trespass, rockslides, and the length and speed of passing trains.

Rail data management was Andrew’s third enabling technology. Although the industry is making progress with initiatives such as the RDM, he felt that legacy systems such as TRUST and DARWIN were costly and inefficient. As these had been heavily modified since they were first developed 30 years ago, they needed to be modernised.

Andrew concluded his presentation by emphasising that embracing technological change is as much about people and ways of working than the technology itself. Hence, norms and assumptions need to be challenged to get the best from what is available.

GCRE

The Global Centre of Rail Excellence (GCRE), under construction in South Wales, will provide a ‘one stop shop’ for rail innovation. It will consist of two electrified loops. One is of 6.9km with a maximum speed of 180 km/h, the other is 4km with a maximum speed of 120 km/h. When the centre opens in 2025, the longer loop will offer high speed rolling stock testing whilst the shorter loop offers high quality infrastructure testing. It will also have a digital twin to facilitate the monitoring and control of operational testing.

Kelvin Davies, GCRE’s head of innovation advised that this facility was the missing piece of the jigsaw for rail and infrastructure

testing. When open, it will lower the cost of rail innovation and provide a testing facility that is unique in Europe.

The previous issue of Rail Engineer (Issue 199 - Nov/Dec 2022) has a full description of GCRE and how it will support UK rail innovation.

Example FOAS outputs.

PHOTO: FOCUS SENSORS

Meeting the innovators

The next part of the event took place in the exhibition area where those who had stands gave a brief explanation of the benefits of their company’s innovations. Milda explained that rather than have participants sitting down in a

lecture room, it was better to take them to the innovators who had the products on display.

The companies who gave presentations were:

Unipart Rail work with around 80 SMEs to promote their innovations. Three such SMEs had products on their stand. Monirail’s speciality is an in-service train data analytics platform that uses an IMU to provide continuous monitoring of track and train. In Scotland six of these units have been fitted to passenger trains. Tended uses wearable technology with behavioural psychology for safe working high-risk working environments and was displaying its high precision geofencing technology to improve track worker safety. EAVE demonstrated its FocusLite smart ear defenders that provide both hearing protection and situational awareness and collects noise data.

Amygda’s focus is on the visualisation and analysis of different data sources to provide a data-driven insight to business challenges. The company is currently working with Porterbrook to build machine learning models that predict engine health so that resources can be directed to the tasks that offer the greatest benefit.

Modux offers cybersecurity solutions, initially for the defence sector, and consider on-board train systems to be particularly vulnerable. It has developed several UK Rail innovations including OmniMachina, a software interface to extract data from legacy On-Train Data Recorders in real-time, and forwarded onto onboard systems (e.g., DAS/SPSO) and cloud analytics platforms. Complete Cyber also offers cybersecurity solutions for which the company demonstrated its OT Railway Vault product which uses a risk-based engine to

prioritise vulnerability threats to railway infrastructure to ensure compliance with the Network and Information Systems Regulations.

Fugro’s RILA Track system can be fitted to almost any train in less than two minutes. It collects geo-referenced rail position data and videos of railway assets to create a 3D model of the railway corridor and measure absolute track position and geometry.

Mobius provides Sim cards that offer ultra-reliable mobile data connections between items of equipment by duplicating every system connection to give an availability of at least 99.96%.

CrossTech specialises in infrastructure analytics systems and automated infrastructure inspection and fault detection using Intelligent Vision. Network Rail uses its automated digital lineside inspection platform, Hubble, to give front line teams more efficient and safer asset inspections across various asset domains including vegetation, overhead line, safe cess tunnels and signal sighting. Hubble is a next generation inspection system when compared to manual video based inspection systems.

The National College for Advanced Transport & Infrastructure (NCATI) is a further education college with teaching campuses in Birmingham and Doncaster which were formerly the National College for HighSpeed Rail. Working in partnership with the University of Birmingham, NCATI provides technical, business, and projectmanagement skills from Level 2 through to Level 7 as well as training apprentices from various companies including Network Rail and Siemens.

OneBigCircle developed its Automated Intelligent Video Review (AIVR) system which uses on board video that can be transmitted by 4G to make it instantly accessible.

CrossTech’s presentation in the exhibition area.

AI software for breakthrough transport safety and efficiency

Experts in real-time edge infrastructure monitoring systems

Leading automated digital lineside inspection system

Proven collaboration-first approach with industry partners

AIVR provides an intuitive dashboard for safe effective monitoring of the lineside environment. This includes, for example, measurement and annotation tools and has variation application including signal sighting and detection of changes over time. To date, users have spent 120,000 hours reviewing the AIVR dashboard, potentially saving 960,000 hours on site.

UKRRIN labs

The 12,000 square-metre UKRRIN facility at Birmingham opened in 2020 and spans five floors. It specialises in digital railway engineering research such as railway control and simulation, data integration, cybersecurity, condition monitoring, and sensing. To support this work, it has laboratories for cybersecurity, electronics fabrication, robotics, railway systems as well as a simulation control room and simulation suite.

The final part of this Unlocking Innovation event was a tour of these laboratories. The robotics laboratory demonstrated how robotics could be used to facilitate inspections including those of wheelsets. The systems

lab was considering alternative ways of powering switches and crossings as well as the use of a sonar array on HS1 for track monitoring.

In the simulation suite there was a demonstration of metro power demand requirements, and of platform docking at Birmingham New Street. There was also a simulation to determine whether movements of HS2 stock from the Washwood Heath depot to Curzon Street station would benefit from Automatic Train Operation.

The train driver simulators in the simulation suite can be used to assess driver workload, ergonomics, and Driver Machine Interface (DMI) designs. They also gave participants an opportunity to practice their train driving skills.

Understanding data

UK heavy rail has 31,209 single track kilometres on which, each year, 15,277 passenger rail vehicles operate eight million passenger train services, and there are 200,000 freight trains. This infrastructure and its trains generate a huge amount of data. Much has been said about how the rail industry can benefit from better use of

this data, yet exactly how and for what purpose is not always clear.

The ‘Intelligent Railways’ Unlocking Innovation event showed the benefits of better data sharing and the barriers that need to be overcome. It was also a great showcase for initiatives which will make better use of rail data as well as the various digital technologies that are already available. RIA’s innovation events always offer fresh insights into new developments and this one was no exception.

The next Unlocking Innovation event concerns Rail Freight and will be held at the UKRINN innovation hub in Doncaster on 22 February. Rail Engineer will be there.

UKRRIN’s driver simulation suite.

Station stops

SOMETHING TO DWELL ON?

Issue 197 of Rail Engineer (July/August 2022) featured timetabling and described why at the heart of every railway there must be a good, efficient timetable. There are many factors which must be carefully considered for an effective timetable, and this article looks at train dwell time at stations.

A train stopping for longer than timetabled at a station is a common cause of train delay. Most of these delays are small and are ‘subthreshold’, meaning they do not go through the delay attribution process. But even delays of a few seconds can, when aggregated, adversely impact the overall performance and capacity of the network.

Train dwell time is the time a train spends at a scheduled stop without moving, while passengers deboard or board the train. This can be a complicated subject and depends on many factors. These include station and platform design, train design, passenger type and volume, and human factors / passenger behaviour. Interactions between passengers, stations, and trains, as well as interactions between passengers themselves, all make dwell time one of the most challenging factors in train operation, particularly in very busy railways such as metros.

Peak hour train service frequency in many rail systems can be limited by dwell times. Signalling technology has improved to enable trains to run closer together and more frequently, but this in turn creates more passenger volume, which then affects dwell times leading to possible conflicts at junctions and effecting signalling and traffic management. This can have a detrimental effect on the timetable. Factors such as train overcrowding, poor train design, and poor station layout can lead to excessive dwell times at multiple stations.

PAUL DARLINGTON

Station dwell time

Dwell time is defined in the IEEE 1471.1 Standard as “the time a transit unit (vehicle or train) spends at a station or stop, measured as the interval between its wheels stopping and starting”.

The time includes train door opening and closing times, passenger alighting and boarding times, door clear checking times, and any scheduled additional stopping time in the timetable or which may be required for train regulation purposes. In some railways it also includes time for Platform Screen Door (PSD) opening and closing. Normally there is a minimum dwell time to ensure that passengers can board and alight without getting hit by the closing doors.

Dwell times can vary according to type of railway and route. The train doors could close and the train departs when passengers have finished boarding, or the dwell time is set to a specific minimum time at a station or on the whole route - even if all passengers have not boarded (typical in busy metros), or the train doors are closed well in advance of scheduled departure time, so the train can depart exactly as per the timetable. On some railways and routes, say where trains generally wait for connecting passengers to board, dwell times can vary between different stations on the line and at different times of the day.

Design of trains and stations

Design factors affecting dwell times typically include:

» The number of trains on a route needs to accommodate the predicted passenger demands, otherwise overloaded trains will not meet dwell time targets. Sometimes train overcrowding, and greater dwell time, can be caused by cancelled trains due to poor rolling stock reliability and availability. This also includes train crew availability.

» We are all living longer and become less mobile as we age, so trains need to be designed so that passengers with mobility issues can still easily board and alight. The

number of train doors and the internal design of trains will affect boarding and alighting times for everyone. Different train types, door positions, and small platforms may mean boarding passengers cannot keep clear of the doors to allow passengers to alight first.

» Busy trains need wide opening doors, but modern, safer, more crash resistant trains generally have fewer and smaller door openings than older trains. A ‘one way in, one way out’ train design with separate exit and entrance doors, as on some buses, would assist train passenger alighting and boarding, but this would be very difficult to implement and manage.

» Where train crew /drivers manually close the doors, they need to be able to clearly observe or obtain assurance from the platform staff that the train doors are clear of passengers. Where train crew may be carrying out other duties, such as checking tickets, they must be able to access the door opening controls when required. It is not unknown on some busy routes for a member of the train crew to have to push their way back through a busy train to their cab to open the doors, with the train stationary in the platform and passengers waiting to alight and board.

» Station entrances and exits along busy rail routes should ideally be varied to ensure more even train loading. Passenger flow modelling should be undertaken to ensure that passengers alighting from one train do not delay passengers boarding another. This is important where large numbers of passengers transfer between two trains at an island platform or where escalator capacity restrictions create large numbers of passengers on the platforms. For existing stations it may be possible to make modifications to ease the situation. Stopping door positions of trains should be easily identified and marked so passengers can ideally wait clear of doors.

» If a platform is lightly loaded with waiting passengers, then generally they stand back and leave space for alighting passengers. But if the platform is busy there can be a tendency for people to ‘move to the front of the queue’ in order to improve their chance of obtaining a seat. This may then affect passengers leaving the train and adversely impact the dwell time.

» Platform Screen Door (PSD) designs, while providing safety improvements and the ability to operate fixed dwell times, can add to average station dwell times. The door opening times can add two or three seconds and door closing times an extra five or six seconds. This can be a problem with trying to run frequent headways on some railways and may raise concerns with providing PSD’s. With railways that operate Automatic Train Operation (ATO), poor ATO accuracy may result in trains not aligning with the PSD doors, and requiring additional time for the train to align.

Station operation, passenger information and human factors

Some railways may have station staff available to make announcements to direct passengers to lightly loaded carriages and assist with train loading. In some parts of the world staff are provided to ‘greatly assist’ passenger loading –such as the white gloved ‘passenger pushers’ on the Tokyo metro. Announcements can also be made to inform passengers of service changes to assist loading, such as advising to wait for the next train if the expected train is very loaded.

Encouraging alighting passengers to prepare early by moving to the train doors prior to arriving at the station can help station dwell times. Regular commuter passengers are more likely to assist with this, although the days of ‘slam door’ stock and passengers opening the doors and alighting before a train has come to a standstill are no more. However, from a safety perspective, should passengers be encouraged to stand and move before a train comes to a stand? Leisure train users, who may also have large items of luggage, are more likely (but not always) to remain in their seats till the train comes to a stand anyway.

Train crew changes at station platforms will affect dwell times. If a guard arrives to open the doors just before a train departs at a terminal station, this can affect dwell times. Other factors, including passenger expectations, culture and behaviour need to a be considered. For example, the acceptable number of passengers per square metre varies around types of railways and the world. On some routes where there are long times between services, passengers may hold the doors open for others rather than wait for the next train, which increases dwell times.

Signalling and train control

Signals in conventional signalling are placed such that the signal design headway can be achieved within the line constraints without delaying the train, while allowing for signal sighting, equipment operation, and the specified station dwell times.

For timetabled services, the signal design will take into account operational differences, including extended dwell times, differences in driving styles, and different train types. The traditional way to cater for longer station dwell times is to design for the peak hour conditions for the predominate rolling stock. This should be based on real or predicted dwell time data for each station and not nominal, or there is a risk that the signalling may not achieve the specified line capacity.

Stopping patterns must also be considered with dwell times, and changing a station signalled as non-stop into a stopping station can affect overall line capacity. To achieve tight line headways, the signals approaching the station may need to be very closely spaced, placing additional speed restrictions on rolling stock with poor braking characteristics, which can further impact dwell times.

So, what can be done?

The Rail Safety and Standards Board (RSSB) IntelliDwellTime (IDT) demonstrator project developed a software solution that generates and analyses dwell data to a high level. The tool displays dwell time at every station stop on the network to the second, and breaks it down into three phases:

1. Wheels stop to doors open

2. Doors are open

3. Doors closed to wheels start

The tool provides the ability to drill down to see dwell time variation across a wide range of parameters, such as by station or service. The development of the IDT tool was led by Porterbrook, in collaboration with Abellio ScotRail, data science company Elastacloud, and the University of Southampton. The Abellio ScotRail data showed that over 40% of dwell time arises in the third phase, which interestingly means there is more time between doors closing and wheel start than between doors opening and closing.

IDT also correlates dwell time data with other factors, to help identify the root causes of delay. The tool could also be used to compare options and support operational or infrastructure alterations.

RSSB also did a feasibility study towards the development of a real-time digital twin to reduce dwell time variations on the Thameslink route. This project used simulations to establish correlations between delays and the flow and density of people at key nodes, such as ‘bottleneck’ stations. It opened a technical path for industry to improve dwell time performance through real-time passenger flow prediction and crowd management. Details of all the RSSB’s research work on dwell times is available on its Research Catalogue website.

Improving dwell times is not easy, but very often better measurement and management and making small changes to existing practices can make a difference – and much more cost effectively than redesigning stations and trains.

A study 10 years ago by the CoMET metro benchmarking group, identified that the key passenger issues on dwell times were: people boarding trains not letting people get off first; passengers holding or blocking doors; passengers crowding doors and vestibules; and passengers bunching on platforms.

Traditional solutions to these problems included publicity campaigns, signs, and announcements. However, people soon get bored with static signage and repeated

announcements, which blend into the background and are ignored. So, the messages must be dynamic and campaigns regularly changed, and announcements must use a variety of phrases that are appropriate to the situation. Effective platform and train staff can make announcements to reduce crowding and the risk of repeated door closures, to encourage more efficient passenger movement, and they can assist passengers with reduced mobility. Technology and signage are also evolving to persuade passengers to change their behaviours. More real-time data enables a better understanding of train loading and crowding, allowing more to be done to improve things. Systems to show the space available on trains in each carriage are also now available, which can provide passengers with increased confidence that they will find a seat and aid them in doing so. This could mean moving down the platform to a less busy part of the train or waiting for the next less busy train.

Summary

Train dwell times at stations is a complex subject with many factors, and even a delay of a few seconds at multiple stations can have a dramatic effect on a timetable. It is a subject that needs a system approach, including station and train design, signalling, passenger information, human behaviours, communications, operations, new technologies, and ways of working to minimise the impact on the operational railway.

Capital delivery is an important feature of delivering a safe and efficient railway. It is essential that best use is made of all the resources available, in order to promote consistency, continual improvement, and to inspire creative and innovative solutions.

Rail Engineer recently met with Eoin O’Neill, capital delivery director Network Rail North West & Central region, to discuss how he and his team are working to enable Network Rail and their suppliers to work more collaboratively together, and with a greater ‘systems’ approach. This is to enable everyone involved in projects to better manage their resources and supply chains, and to help deliver the right project solutions and SPEED (Swift, Pragmatic and Efficient Enhancement Delivery) to halve the time and slash the cost of railway investment.

Eoin explained that, historically, the cost and time to deliver projects was not challenged as effectively as it could be, and that specified outcomes were not adequately scrutinised.

The Covid-19 global pandemic exacerbated these inherent issues and there is now a need for reforms across parts of the rail investment process - especially as the challenges of Control Period 7 (CP7) are fast approaching.

The region is changing from being a collection of business functions, that have largely operated and measured performance in isolation of each other, to being a more integrated ‘one team’ organisation. One that is better aligned and makes best use of its knowledge and expertise to achieve the best investment outcomes.

Eoin accepts this will take time to mature and he acknowledges the region is in the foothills of its journey to improve, which is why the region is taking the initial steps to be a more safe, effective, and efficient organisation as the railway approaches CP7 and beyond.

We discussed the need for a greater ‘systems approach’ to deliver a safe and efficient railway, on time and more cost effectively. The railway is a ‘system of systems’ and needs all the component parts and its people to work together and to support one another. No one or any particular asset is more important than another. A railway infrastructure manager’s role

is simple, and is to provide a safe and efficient train path from A to B. But to do this requires earthworks, structures, track, signalling, power, communications, buildings, and stations; not forgetting managing the interfaces with neighbours, train operators and other parties, and the people who operate the railway. The railway is more ‘connected’ than ever so, a system approach is vital, and people and organisations can no longer operate in their ’functional silos’. Otherwise, it simply won’t work. Train operators and the supply chain also need to be part of the railway team, and not thought of as ‘contractors’. The supply chain also needs visibility and a steady stream of work. ‘Boom or bust’ helps no one, and it just increases costs and project delivery risks.

PAUL DARLINGTON

Eoin O'Neill, capital delivery director Network Rail North West & Central region.

The 2021 Williams-Shapps report said: “Wider industry transformation is already moving towards an environment predicated on ‘whole system thinking’. It recognises that existing adversarial relationships are the key reasons for high cost, low value, and inefficiency in the sector”.

Eoin’s spend of £1 billion - £1.5 billion, looking forwards to year 5/CP6 and average through CP7, sounds a lot, but the NW&C region is large, and is nearly a quarter of the whole GB network. The region is the ‘backbone of Britain’ and the economic spine that links major cities. It runs from London Euston and Marylebone in the south, through the Chiltern and West Midlands regions, the Northwest of England and Cumbria before joining with Scotland at Gretna. The West Coast Mainline is the busiest mixed-use railway in Europe, serving London, Birmingham, Manchester, Liverpool, and on to Edinburgh and Glasgow. The region has 8,000 employees, delivers 246.5 million annual rail passenger journeys, and moves 700,000 tonnes of freight every week. Even in the current challenging times and following Covid-19, over the next few years passenger

growth is expected to rise by 12% and freight by 18%. Major railway upgrade schemes in the region to cater for this growth include East West Rail, Midlands Rail Hub, Euston station redevelopment, Crewe Programme, and interfacing with HS2 as well as renewing the existing infrastructure. The asset base requiring interventions includes 571 stations, including the four managed stations (Birmingham New Street, Manchester Piccadilly, Liverpool Lime Street, and London Euston), 712 level crossings, 7,100 bridges, 150 signal boxes, large sections of AC and DC traction systems, many delicate earthworks, some of the longest tunnels in the country, and the underground Mersey Rail system of Liverpool.

Railway Investment Systems cogs.

System intelligent requirements

For the huge capital programme for the region, Eoin and his team need to work closely and openly with the route and train operators to get the right access and provide affordable value-based requirements, which Network Rail’s new Minimum Viable Product (MVP) value management process drives at. They need the asset managers and sponsors to deliver timely and fit for purpose ‘intelligent’ remits. These should not be too detailed and prescriptive, and they need to be output performance based. Just specifying in detail what has been supplied before stifles innovation and creativity. The remits and specifications need to be performance based and to ensure that suppliers new to the railway understand the outputs required and limitations.

So, for example electrical and electronic systems need to work in the harsh electromagnetic environment of the railway by limiting the unintentional generation, propagation, and reception of electromagnetic energy, which may cause unwanted effects such as electromagnetic interference or even physical damage to operational equipment. Suppliers new to rail may not appreciate the requirements, but they may well have novel ways of achieving them.

If a footbridge is requiring renewal, then the asset managers remit should not be a detailed design for a new bridge. A performance requirement to allow a number of people (including those with limited mobility) to move from one location to another may allow for another public right of way and an existing underbridge to be used. Even if this is not possible, a performance-based remit will allow for new ways of construction and delivery.

The capital delivery team and its suppliers also need to step up and perform more collaboratively in a system engineering approach and not in a ‘silo’ way, simply ‘passing the baton’ problem on to someone else. Maintainers and operators know their areas in great detail and

can help projects to deliver better. They should not be brought in right at the end of the project, but need to be involved from the beginning. Everyone in rail is on the same team, including suppliers, and the real competition is road and air transport.

To illustrate an example of a system engineering approach, Eoin described a requirement to introduce new rolling stock which needed more electric traction power. The traditional engineering solution would be to immediately start building more infrastructure and a new power supply system to operate the new trains. But a systems approach would be to see first if it would be possible to operate the railway differently with a revised timetable and train acceleration curves, which may not need more power. Even if this was not possible it may reduce the power requirement and the associated cost.

In such projects it needs everyone, including operators and suppliers, in the same room very early on in a project to identify collaboratively and collectively what needs to be done to deliver the required system outcome, and at the lowest and most affordable cost.

Smarter work allocation

The internal Network Rail Works Delivery group is now an integral valued part of Capital Delivery, and there will be a ‘smarter’ defined work allocation process to ensures projects are allocated to the optimal framework of delivery, based on values and complexity. This will also allow a tailored work categorisation approach that recognises the differences between project and work types to remove a ‘one size fits all’ approach. This will also provide a more appropriate contracting strategy, pricing mechanism, incentivisation, and assurance activity to be used by project type. The more tailored work categorisation will also allow for a more diverse supply base with clear entry channels for Small Medium Enterprises (SMEs).

The Project Delivery Relay Race

The direct relationships will allow for development opportunities for SMEs resulting in improved longer term market conditions and a coherent approach and process across Capital Delivery, and supplier management and development will be constant across all parts of Capital Delivery.

Capital Delivery System

The Capital Delivery System (CDS) covers everyone in the capital delivery process who can influence capital investment outcomes. To get the very best outcomes requires everyone to be effective, aligned, and working together effectively.

This is analogous to a relay race, with the winning team being the one where each individual runner’s performance is effective, as is the quality of the handover from one runner to another. If one runner underperforms

or the handover is ineffective, then the team’s overall performance suffers. Another metaphor is a cog system, which describes the same spirit in so far as everyone being effective, aligned and working together, whilst additionally recognising that projects are complex with various parts (cogs) all needing to work at the same time.

CDS will promote consistency, economies of scale, and greater agility of resource deployment. It will address overlaps with the supply chain and Network Rail, which is often wasteful and degrades ownership of issues, learning and improvement. The new approach will remove duplication to deliver projects more efficiently. Enhancing staff capability, and rationalising and improving the assurance framework will also be targeted to support driving greater efficiency.

Very large bespoke projects

There are many difficult and challenging projects ahead in the region and they include some very large bespoke projects:

» Birmingham New Street resignalling was finally completed over Christmas after 17 years and many stages, due to the fact that the West Midlands area is so large and complicated. Crewe is another huge signalling area and renewing Crewe and Birmingham at the same time has not been possible due to the huge resource, cost, and access required. With Birmingham now complete the focus is now on Crewe.

» Crewe’s last major resignalling took place in 1985 with the creation of the Crewe Signalling Control Centre (SCC). While this was an extensive resignalling it did not include the freight Independent Lines, nor Crewe’s other fringes and only covered the station area and junctions. Basford Hall on the approach to Crewe from the south dates from 1897, and other signal boxes from 1901 and the signalling last renewed in 1936, with some modernisation with electrification in the 1960s and various life extension works. The connection with HS2 is another requirement which all adds to the complication of the project ahead.

» Other major projects in the pipeline are the West Coast Main Line North (WCML North) upgrade and the line between Bolton and Wigan electrified. This will see almost 13 single track miles of new electrification and lengthen the platforms between Lostock and Wigan. The project will provide 427 new overhead line equipment stanchions, and modifications to 17 bridges and two-level crossings. Platforms will also be extended at Hindley, Westhoughton and

Ince stations to cater for six-carriage trains in the future. Eoin and his team are committed to identifying the most efficient way of delivering the electrification and learning from the various electrification projects which have taken place over the last few years.

» The Midlands Rail Hub programme aims to improve rail connectivity and boost economic growth across the Midlands and towards the South-West through a series of projects across the region. The programme proposes to increase capacity at Birmingham Moor Street station, which will be adjacent to the new HS2 station at Curzon Street, and to reduce overall congestion on key rail corridors radiating from Central Birmingham. A new line is planned to connect the Camp Hill line to the Chiltern main line which will allow more trains to use Birmingham Moor Street station. The project is subject to ongoing work to maximise value for money and affordability.

It is clear that Eoin is committed to working with colleagues and partners across the system, both internally and externally to find new ways of working in line with the company’s approach to project delivery, focusing on the right solutions at the right cost, delivering faster and more efficiently, and providing value for money for taxpayers. The system engineering approach, with the one team cooperation, collaborative behaviours and commercial focus will encourage more effective contracting and use of appropriate internal resources. It will also help to improve how Network Rail develops designs, and plans projects in the region to deliver better outcomes for both passengers, freight, and funders.

Rhomberg Sersa Rail Group

Operating throughout the project lifecycle, we deliver solutions including track renewals and maintenance, overhead line, tunnel refurbishment, gauge enhancement, and specialist on-track plant in-line excavation and material handling systems.

We are Europe’s leading slab track design and build specialist and our solutions are complemented by a wealth of experience from our global business.

Innovation is at the heart of our business and our focus is on customer-oriented and tailor-made solutions working collaboratively with our clients and suppliers.

Preserving historic stations with modern, sustainable materials

Twinfix has been utilising its skills and expertise to restore part of the historic Watford High Street Station, returning the station’s entrance to its former glory.

By using its Multi-Link-Panel Non-Fragile glazed with 6mm solid Georgian wired effect polycarbonate glazing system, it has brought this landmark up to date with sustainable materials, while keeping the look and feel of the original.

Watford High Street Station was originally opened over 160 years ago by the Watford and Rickmansworth Railway (W&RR), offering services from Watford Junction to Rickmansworth. Over its lifetime, the station has been owned by several rail companies including the London and NorthWestern Railway (LNWR) and London, Midland, and Scottish Railway (LMS).

In the early 20th century additional rail services were added. These include a branch line to Croxley Green in 1912. In 1917, the Underground Electric Railways Company of London extended its Bakerloo line through this station to Watford Junction and, in 1922, LNWR completed the Camden to Watford Junction Line linking Watford High Street to London Euston via the Watford DC Line (shared with the Bakerloo line). In 2007, the line was brought under the control of Transport for London (TfL), which today operates it as part of the London Overground network.

To the east of the railway is the site of the Benskins Brewery, the building which is now the location for the Watford Museum. The brewery was rail-served by sidings until 1956. The station is situated in a deep cutting covered by a single platform canopy. The roof of the canopy is connected to the concrete-sided cutting by ornamental metal trusses. Outside the front of the station, is a distinctive glazed entrance canopy providing shelter from the weather and a historic landmark for the town.

After decades of use, the old entrance canopy and glazing were showing signs of age. The wood framing around the glazing was rotten and decaying, the plaster work was broken and missing, and the whole canopy needed a refresh. With the glazed canopy being such a long-standing landmark, it fell to Twinfix to replace the distinctive glazing panels with something hard wearing, sustainable and modern but without losing the period look.

Twinfix supplied its Multi-Link-Panel

Non-Fragile (NF) glazed with 6mm solid Georgian wired effect polycarbonate glazing system, and the innovative system was installed by RailX UK Ltd. A slight redesign of the original allowed access hatches to be installed, making maintenance easier. Once installed it’s almost impossible to detect that modern materials that have been used to bring this important structure back to life. The polycarbonate will resist ageing and UV degradation and, along with the aluminium support frames, the system is completely recyclable.

Vicky Evans, director at Twinfix, said: “We are proud of the finished product and that we were able to offer a long-term solution that delivers the aesthetic charm of the old roof, increases light levels for passengers, improves safety for all using the station, and offers a sustainable, future proof outcome. We look forward to being part of delivering more excellent results for our clients in the future.”

Innovative, quick to fit, safe roof glazing

Multi- Link- Panel Non- Fragile

Twinfix are designers and manufacturers of the Multi-LinkPanel, which is a non-fragile roof glazing system. Over the years, Twinfix have supplied these modular polycarbonate panels for use as rooflights in many railway stations and depots.

The Multi-Link-Panel is an innovative polycarbonate glazing product that due to its ‘fix and link’ method of installation, is incredibly quick to fit, making it an excellent choice for installation in stations, as well as an excellent long-term solution to improve the longevity and safety of station roof glazing.

The Multi-Link-Panel system features the following benefits:

Fast installation

Non-Fragile

Modular pre-assembled panels

Virtually unbreakable polycarbonate

Recyclable

For more information contact us on:

Long lasting and durable glazing

Light weight

UV coated polycarbonate

Suitable for Heritage Sites

Safely delivering

RAILWAY STRUCTURE EXAMINATIONS

To safely deliver railway structure examinations the industry needs qualified, competent people. One of the highlights of being a railway structures engineer is the opportunity to work on a wide variety of structures which exist on the network, but this also provides a challenge when bringing new people into the industry.

The UK railways were generally constructed in the mid-to-late 1800s which means that many of our structures are constructed from older materials such as wrought iron, cast iron, timber and masonry, and in forms not built today, such as arch bridges. These materials and structural forms are not typically covered in academic Civil Engineering courses which means that as an industry we have a responsibility to bridge the knowledge gap.

Join the industry and become competent

Network Rail has a competency standard for structure examinations (NR/ SP/CTM/017, soon to be replaced by NR/L2/CIV/1000) which sets out a range of structure examination related

competencies and the knowledge and experience an individual requires to be competent. These competencies are:

» STE1: Manage structures so they remain fit and safe for person (this is being replaced by SNG01, SNG02, and SNG03).

» STE2: Review results of structures examination and recommend actions where necessary.

» STE3: Visually examine Minor Structures.

» STE4: Examine the condition of Structures.

» STE5: Examine the condition of Buildings.

» STE6: Examine the condition of Tunnels and Shafts.

» STE7: Examine the condition of Underwater Structures.

JOANNA THOMPSON

These standards require a combination of formal training and mentoring, followed by a competence assessment by an accredited Assessor.

Formal training

Two of our most popular courses are ‘Appreciation of Structures’ and ‘Examination of Structures’.

The Appreciation of Structures course is three days long and is designed as an introduction for non-technical staff. It provides fundamental knowledge such as structure types, examination requirements, and how to plan an examination.

Without a course like this how can we expect a manager to know which competency is required for which structure examination? How can a planner book track access if they don’t understand what is involved in the task?

The Examination of Structures course is four weeks long, though often delivered as two, two-week blocks – the first

covering masonry, concrete and timber structures, the second metal and composite structures. Attendees on this course are typically those working towards an examiner competence (STE4, STE5, STE6, STE7) as it provides full training on structures and materials found on the railway. The decisions taken by the engineers and examiners involved in structure examinations have a direct link to the safety of our railways. We must provide them with the skills to understand the significance of a defect and take appropriate action. When an examiner/ engineer identifies such a defect they report it as an Urgent Defect. Hundreds of these are reported each year – each one an opportunity for action to be taken to protect the safety of our infrastructure and the users.

Mentoring

The next stage in the training process is Mentoring and this element is the responsibility of the employer. It is essential that

an individual gains experience on a wide variety of structures whilst under the close supervision of a competent person. The period of mentorship varies dependent on the opportunities for experience, but typically is six to 12 months for a STE4 competency.

At Inspire (Structures) we are fortunate that we can provide our trainee examiners and engineers with a vast array

Training course.

of experience as we work all over the UK undertaking examinations on all structure types, from culverts to tunnels, and using a variety of access methods including rope access, diving, confined spaces working and CCTV.

Competence assessment

A competency assessment is undertaken by a qualified assessor and includes gathering a range of evidence such as reviewing the examinations undertaken by the individual, a knowledge check, and observing the individual carrying out examinations on site.

This then enables a decision by the assessor on whether the individual meets the criteria for the STE competence, so allowing the individual to work unsupervised.

Maintaining competency

One of the key changes in the new standard NR/L2/CIV/1000 (implementation date 4th March 2023) is that structure examination competencies have been aligned to the Network Rail Skills Assessment Scheme. The Skills Assessment Scheme has six regimes (1 to 6) that are ranked according to risk. The STE competencies are in Regimes 3, 4 and 5, and must be renewed every three years. Although we have some brilliant examiners and engineers this will highlight any skills gaps which can then be addressed through our experienced inhouse training team. At Inspire

(Structures) we have developed a robust Renewal Assessment Process which is currently being rolled out.

In my opinion this is a positive change which will ultimately upskill the industry.

Career pathways

As an industry we are experiencing a shortage of skilled staff; at Inspire (Structures) we are addressing this by investing in our team to develop future examiners and engineers. It is important to provide opportunity beyond the examiner role. We do this via a career pathway which provides a route from trainee examiner, to examiner, and then onto either an engineering pathway or a management pathway. Both pathways include a fully funded apprenticeship scheme resulting in either a HNC / HND in Civil Engineering, or a Level 5 Diploma in Leadership and Management.

Professional qualification

Professional qualification through a body such as the Institution of Civil Engineers (ICE) provides an internationally recognised mark of an individual’s engineering skills, knowledge, and experience. At Inspire (Structures) we provide support for routes to Engineering Technician (EngTech), Incorporated Engineer (IEng) and Chartered Engineer (CEng) from our existing professionally qualified

engineers who are approved ICE Mentors.

In summary, our industry needs a small army of competent and dedicated examiners and engineers to ensure the continued structural integrity and safety of the vast array of structures on the network, from newly built to 1800’s heritage structures, incorporating some of the country’s most iconic structures.

If you consider forging a career which brings new challenges every day, then this could be for you...

Article by Joanna Thompson MEng CEng MICE, Founder and Managing Director, Inspire (Structures) Ltd.

Fibre Optic Movement Sensing (FOMS)

PAUL DARLINGTON

Remote conditioning monitoring of assets is now an essential part of any asset management strategy, which can include monitors for earthworks and track formations. Fixed monitors are great, but they can only monitor the area where they are located. They also need power and a communications link, which can be problematical in some locations. Similarly, monitoring equipment attached to trains has provided enormous benefits for such applications as track and traction contact system asset management, but monitoring by trains only occurs when the train passes any location. This can be weeks apart in the case of a dedicated monitoring train, and it can’t easily monitor and assess earthwork movements near to the track until it is too late.

Fibre optic monitoring provides a third option for remote condition monitoring of earthworks and track formations, including switches and crossings. It can be used to perpetually monitor, 24 hours a day, 365 days a year, providing ubiquitous live data along a length of a section of railway, and not just at the location where the system is deployed. This is because fibre optic monitoring can use the extensive network of around 20,000km of fibre cables already installed along most rail routes in Great Britain. Rail Engineer recently spoke to Focus Sensors Ltd to learn more about its novel and most promising and

exciting Fibre Optic Movement Sensing system (FOMS), which could revolutionise remote condition asset management of earthworks and track.

FOMS

Based on seismic principles, FOMS has already proved very capable of detecting and characterising ground stability issues beneath rail supporting structures. By structures we mean anything physically supporting the railway and not just ‘hard’ structures such as viaducts and bridges. A number of trials have been executed on sections of track with known ground stability issues and the results have been correlated and verified with traditional

fixed monitoring techniques. The system has also been deployed on areas of track where no known problems were previously detected, and ground stability issues have been detected that had not been identified using traditional methods. The trials have also successfully demonstrated that FOMS can monitor changes in ground stability over time and distances much more safely and efficiently than current remote monitoring methods, and requiring no local power supplies or communications connectivity.

A fibre optic cable consists of one or more very fine strands of glass, each of similar thickness to a human hair and referred to as a fibre. The centre of each fibre is called the core, which provides the pathway for light to travel. The core is surrounded by a layer of glass called the cladding, which reflects light inward to avoid loss of signal and allows the light to efficiently pass through bends in the cable. The light transmission is used to transmit very high rates of data and all modern telecoms networks use fibre optic cables.

Fibre sensing uses another characteristic of fibre. This is when light is reflected or ‘backscattered’ as it propagates through the fibre in response to a change in temperature, a bending or pulling force to the cable, or by mechanical waves in the fibre’s proximity. The change in backscatter is detected allowing the location and cause of the change to be determined. FOMS can detect the change in mechanical waves produced by infrastructure issues to a linear accuracy of one metre along the fibre.

Seismic principles

Focus Sensors Ltd has developed all the required hardware and software to capture and process the data for FOMS. The data being processed by the system is huge and challenging, and is typically 50Mbps. Focus Sensors has had to develop its own software platform to turn the raw data into useable information. The company’s background and experience is with seismic investigation in the oil and gas industries using optical sensors. Seismic investigation involves using such things as air guns and sticks of dynamite to create what are known as ‘sources’ and to monitor how the source is reflected and transferred through the ground.

FOMS for rail uses the same principles, but with the train as the active source which is used to quantify a transfer function with the optical fibre, which includes the rail, sleepers, and the supporting ground. A method has been developed using seismic principles to separate the source effect of the support ‘structure’ under the train from the signal the train is generating itself, and the result is FOMS.

As a train moves along a track, its weight creates sources which go through the rail, sleepers, and ground, and into the fibre. But when the supporting structure or

earthwork is not as ‘stiff’ as it should be, the direction into the fibre is different, which can be detected and reported. An effective user-friendly way has been developed to quickly show asset managers and infrastructure maintainers issues on a map overlay display. This allows the instigation of further targeted interventions or further monitoring. Colours are used to represent the severity of the support structure failure - red being the most severe and poorly supported, with blue representing a firmly supported structure.

INDUS™

The FOMS system is part of the company’s family of INDUS Distributed Optical Sensing System products and can be deployed in a number of ways. One way is a temporary installation typically in an equipment room with a fibre distribution point. The equipment consists of a small

2U equipment rack requiring less than a 100W and a Wi-Fi or 4G cloud connection, which can typically be deployed in less than four hours and no track access is required. A FOMS monitoring point can typically monitor up to 40km (80km bidirectional) using a spare ‘dark fibre’, although Focus Sensors says it may be possible at some point in the future to also use active ‘lit’ fibres carrying telecoms data with no interference.

A number of successful tests have been demonstrated on a 13km section of live railway. Most of the route was blue, which was fantastic, with the railway well supported, but there were some issues identified with areas shown not in blue. Some embankment slips were identified and shown in red, along with a number of old disused mine shafts. Voids under the track and worn switches and crossings were also identified in red. A

number of the identified risks were issues the infrastructure manager already knew about and was successfully managing, but others were new and had not been previously identified. The FOMS system was proved to be able to monitor a section of track every time a train passes and highlight when any structural stability issue changes.

An example was with a disused mine shaft that the asset manager was aware of as it was creating some instability issues, but they didn’t know exactly where it was located and, as typical in such cases, no records existed. The traditional way of identifying the exact location of the shaft would have been to dig lots of trial holes, but FOMS was able to locate the shaft with an accuracy of one metre and only one hole would be required to inspect the old shaft.

Some trials were done on another section of track over three years. One location was recorded as experiencing some movement in the first year, excessive movement in the second year (suggesting something had changed around the area), but then very little movement in the third year. It turned out that in the second year the maintainer had identified that the track needed to be lifted and tamped. So FOMS had detected an emerging issue which got worse but was then successfully resolved.

FOMS has also successfully identified voids and wear with

Switches and Crossings (S&C) and identified a blocked culvert causing localised flooding and an area of movement, followed by good stability once the culvert had been cleared.

Benefits of FOMS

When the rail network was built nearly 200 years ago, thousands of earthwork embankments and cuttings were quickly constructed. Many were poorly built and without the knowledge of soil mechanics and geotechnical engineering that exists today.

A report by Thomas Telford in 1829 said that many railway earthwork embankments were largely formed by the ‘end-tipping’ of material down the formation. It was a process he disapproved of as it would “delay consolidation and increase the tendency for slipping”.

Today, the main rail network still has over 190,000 of these earthwork assets and remote condition monitoring is an important tool to manage any

instability issues. But fixed monitors can’t be installed everywhere and FOMS is a new technique for monitoring ground stability, using optical fibres which are already installed next to the railway. FOMS has been successfully used to monitor issues such as embankment slips, disused mineshafts, track voids, S&C condition, and drainage problems.

The monitoring can be put in place in a few hours and up to 80km of route can be safely monitored continually from one location, with results presented via a user-friendly web interface or as regular survey reports to the maintainer and asset manager.

FOMS can be considered to be similar to a track patrolman walking the track and observing any changes to critical infrastructure which may require more investigation and intervention. However, with FOMS it can detect changes before they are visible and can observe safely 24/7, 365 days a year if required.

SHINING LIGHT ON

Earthworks Asset Management

GeoAccess is a bespoke asset management company on the Earthwork Examination

Framework for Western, Wales, Wessex, Kent & Sussex routes for Network Rail. The 100th edition of Rail Engineer was published in February 2013, 10 years on it is interesting to look at how earthworks management has changed since then, also looking at the new challenges that we face.

GeoAccess currently examines over 17,000 earthwork assets each season using a team of highly skilled earthwork engineers. Earthwork examinations are undertaken in sections of fivechains (110 yards). Depending on the condition of the earthwork, the slope face will be traversed every two chains in the five-chain section. This is required as it is also necessary to inspect the crest of cuttings or the toe of embankments to produce a compliant examination.

In order to examine the earthwork, we first produce a programme. There is now a great source of previous exam data available, captured over the last 10 years, which allows us to effectively produce this programme. Following initial assessment for early non-compliance, we use the data to complete a comprehensive desk study of the workbank provided to it by Network Rail. By utilising the multiple years of available data in the JBA Database it is then able to build a pro-active list of sites requiring roped access, vegetation clearance (Standard, Enhanced, Bespoke), and line blocks/possessions, which will then be put forward to be discussed and agreed with the Network Rail route representatives. If required, reconnaissance and pre-site visits will also be planned ahead of the inspection.

The use of technology has also advanced over the years and earthworks inspections are now being undertaken using the latest handheld technology, currently an iPad. All data including

LAURA BOOTE

Early morning roped access inspection of a steep soil cutting in the Southern Region.

the categorisation and condition of the earthworks asset is recorded onsite and is available to view on the database the next day. This allows any defects to be reviewed quickly and dealt with. The earthwork engineers have all the previous asset information to hand on the device so any change in the condition of the asset can be picked up.

We have also used technology to reduce the amount of paper we use as a company. We give the engineers access to an app where we can upload paperwork they may need to reference on site, such as work package plans. They can also complete forms using the app to record urgent defects and close calls which can then be emailed directly to the client. This has saved us using over 40,000 sheets of paper in the last 12 months. We have also undertaken drone surveys for difficult-to-reach sites and used the AiVR software to remotely view sites before we visit them.

Over the last 10 years there has been an increase in the number of sites needing vegetation removal before the asset can be examined effectively. The earthworks

season has traditionally been October to March as it is felt that the vegetation dies back over the winter so an effective examination can take place. This has not been the case in recent seasons. There have not been the heavy frosts needed to kill off the vegetation sufficiently and, in some cases, it is starting to grow again from February onwards. With 2022 being one of the hottest year’s on record this trend is likely to continue going forwards (Met Office, 2023).

As a result of the increase in vegetation, and the need to remove it, there is also now more of a focus on ecology issues. We desk study our workbank and check for any sites that may have ecology constraints. We also provide basic ecology training to our earthwork engineers, so they know what to look out for when inspecting the assets.

If a site has ecological issues, for example dormice present or rare plants, we consult with our ecologist and then produce a bespoke plan for that asset and apply for the appropriate licences.

Another way we help to manage the assets is by providing a 24/7 365 days a year on-call service to respond to earthwork

Asset Management Specialists

WE COLLABORATE WE INNOVATE WE SOLVE

0333 772 2309 | info@geoaccess.co.uk | www.geoaccess.co.uk

issues raised by Network Rail Control. Following an earthwork incident or issue on site, Network Rail will initiate a callout via the GeoAccess on-call duty manager, who will establish with Network Rail Control the safest most appropriate timeframe /

Roped access inspection of the rock cuttings along the Dawlish coastline.

method of access and inspection. Over recent weeks we have seen an increase in the number of call outs, particularly in the Southern region due to the heavy rainfall. Across all routes we have already attended 59 call outs since October compared to 23 in the same period last year.

In an already challenging environment, walking and working around the infrastructure is becoming increasingly difficult due to safe track access, and so we came up with the alternative access approach. This entails access to the off-track assets via differing means compared to the traditional methods of track walking. Now we look at access through third-party land, removing boundary fences and using technology.

There are all sorts of different ways to get to where we need to and, using these techniques, we do not need to go anywhere near the track to get there. This means that the work gets done without the need for line blocks and possessions, making it much easier to plan a programme of works, much cheaper, more efficient, and keeps workers safer. It is win-win for everyone.

Although the overall earthwork asset inspection process has not changed much in the last 10 years, the ways in which the data is captured and categorised has. Many more external factors impact earthworks asset management. We look forward to continually developing new ideas and using the latest technologies to improve the asset management of earthworks in the future.

Laura Boote, Senior Project Manager, GeoAccess

Using the handheld PDA and GIS software for the data collect of an earthworks inspection.

Earthwork inspection of a fully netted and reinforced rock cutting with a soil upper slope.

DAVID SHIRRES

Levenmouth LAYING TRACK TO

The re-opening of the 9km Levenmouth branch in 2024 will be the fifth Scottish rail re-opening in the last 20 years. Previous re-openings were the Larkhall branch (5km) in 2005; Stirling to Alloa (21km) in 2008; Airdrie to Bathgate (22km) in 2010; and the Borders Railway (49km) in 2015.

These projects built a new railway on an abandoned track bed which had some bridges removed and obstructions built on the line. In contrast, the Levenmouth branch was never formally closed. Although its passenger services ceased in 1969, freight traffic to the Cameron Bridge distillery ran until 1998.

Since then, the line had no regular traffic and was not maintained as, although

still owned by Network Rail, it was declared out of use under Short Term Network Change provisions. Hence, Parliamentary powers were not required to reopen the line. For many years, the Levenmouth Rail Campaign pressed the case for the line’s re-opening to serve the largest community without a railway in Scotland. Its case was favourably received at a Scottish Parliamentary

debate in September 2017 at which the Levenmouth Sustainable Transport study was announced. In May 2019, this concluded that a direct Leven to Edinburgh rail service would enhance the local economy with better access to employment and education.

The Scottish Government announced the lines reopening in August 2019.

Work starts

By June 2020, option selection work concluded that the line is to be doubletracked with two stations at Cameron Bridge and Leven, and built to W12 loading gauge for rail freight. As part of the Scottish Government’s Rail Services Decarbonisation Action Plan, the line will be electrified although it will not be energised until the Fife electrification scheme is complete a few years later.

In January 2022, the Scottish Government announced that the railway will open in spring 2024 at a cost of £117 million. Work to clear vegetation started in September 2020, followed by site investigation work early in 2021 and track removal from July 2021.

In March 2022, Thornton North Junction received heavy maintenance to provide a connection to the branch. This is a single lead junction which did not need to be remodelled. Though technically operational, this junction last saw regular use for coal traffic on the first kilometre of the line in 2015. March also saw the first mile of track from the junction being laid and the establishment of the first construction compounds.

At this time the five river bridges were being repaired. These were generally in good condition though they needed grit-blasting back to bare metal, recoated with a special paint system and new timber decks installed. This work required the bridges to be fully encapsulated.

Rail Engineer issue 197 (Jul-Aug 2022) provides more detail about the project and how it is being delivered. This article reports on progress since our site visit in May.

Stations

In December 2021, there was a community engagement exercise on possible sites for the new stations at Cameron Bridge and Leven. Due to the Covid situation, this had to be done online. Following this exercise, the locations of the stations were finalised. The selected Leven station site is the most southerly option and is next to the bus station and leisure centre. At Cameron Bridge the only possible option was the most easterly option, off the busy A915 road. This was determined by the Control of Major Accident Hazards (COMAH) regulations which require a minimum distance from the Diageo distillery which is a lower tier COMAH site.

Cameron Bridge station consists of two 196-metre platforms with a footbridge and lifts. Its car park will have 125 spaces, including 12 for electric cars. There is space for a further 300 spaces should these be required once the railway opens. This could be quite likely as the new station will be a railhead for the East Neuk of Fife. There will also be storage for 16 cycles. With 8,000 living within 2km of the station, active travel routes will be provided as described later.

(Left top) Cameron Bridge September 2020 and (left bottom) December 2022.

Cameron Bridge station location.

Work on the station started in January and will take about 10 months. Although planning permission, which was submitted in October, has yet to be received, permitted development rights and prior approval enables work to be done within the railway corridor.

Leven has a single 7-metre-wide, 210-metrelong island platform accessed by a ramp beyond the buffer stops. Its car park will have 134 spaces, including 12 for electric cars. The waiting shelter incorporates space for 16 cycles and train crew welfare facilities. To create a quality public realm, the area around the station is the subject of a placemaking study which is considering a central boulevard and waterfront path from station to town.

Beyond Leven, the old line continued over the River Leven to Methil docks which was once the largest coal exporting port in Scotland. There are currently no plans to extend the line beyond Leven.

Earthworks

The original line opened in 1854 as a singletrack railway and was doubled in 1909. After it lost its passenger services it was singled in 1972. Its solum and bridges were therefore built for a two-track railway. However, the current formation is not necessarily acceptable as all rail re-opening projects require earthworks constructed to current standards which, at some locations, requires the purchase of some parcels of land.

The branch has no major earthworks although it follows the Rivers Ore and Leven for almost all its length. At some locations the line is quite close to these rivers and has some steep slopes above it. The largest slope at Tullybreck (1980 to 2170) had to be regraded to a 1 in 2 slope. Slope profiling was also required at Kirkland (6800 to 6950).

River works included a new retaining wall (3230 to 3380) and scour protection which required riverbanks to be established and voids filled before positioning 2,000 tonnes of locally sourced rock armour. This required precautions to be put in place to limit silt, such as in-river bubble curtains which form a barrier to block its spread. The largest scour work at Leven (8940 to 9110) required the river to be dammed around it.

Note: figures in brackets are metres from Thornton Junction.

Leven station location.

(Below left) Regraded slope at Tullybreck. (Below right) Scour work at Leven.

Track laying

In August, the first kilometre of track that had been laid in March was commissioned. In the same month, the switch at the start of the double track section, 1.2km from the junction, was installed. Track laying recommenced in October. During our visit on 5 December, track was being laid at Tullybrek, 1.8km from the junction. Three kilometres of ballast had also been laid and was being levelled in advance of track laying. Drainage work was also completed in advance of track laying.

Whilst on site, part-driven OLE piles could be seen. The piling work started in October using a track-mounted vibrating piling rig. Those piles that cannot be fully driven in this way are later hammer driven.

In May 2021, Thornton Yard took delivery of the 16,000 sleepers needed for the project and became a virtual quarry for the 80,000 tonnes of ballast needed by the project. Every two months or so a train delivers 32 x 216-metre lengths continuous welded rail (CWR) which is dragged ahead of the track laying. At the time of our visit, sufficient CWR to lay 1.6km of double track had been dragged ahead of the rail head.

At 06:35 every weekday, an engineering train laden with sleepers is scheduled to enter the branch to travel to the rail head on the Down line which is 220 metres ahead of the Up line rail head. Once plant and manpower are on site, track laying is planned to start at 08:00. This is first done by an excavator fitted with a spider that can carry seven sleepers positioning sleepers on the Down line in front of the train. These are lifted from a large dumper truck which is occasionally loaded with sleepers by another spider-fitted excavator. To do so, the truck travels on formation of the unlaid Up line between the relaying site and the train.

At about 12:00, after four hours, 220 metres of sleepers have been laid on the Down

line. Once these have been laid, the excavator that has laid the sleepers is fitted with a thimble position to place 2 x 214-metre lengths of CWR onto the sleepers. These are then clipped using a Rosenqvist CD400SP self-propelled clipping machine that can clip 30 sleepers per minute. This job is planned to be completed by 13:45. It takes about one hour and 15 minutes to place and clip the rails.

Whilst this is being done, the spider-fitted excavator that was loading the dumper track positions sleepers on the Up line. As this excavator is working adjacent to the train, the dumper truck is not now required. As a result, laying 220 metres of sleepers on

the Up line is done in half the time it took to lay the Down line. Hence, Up line sleeper positioning is planned to be completed by 14:00 after which the train can be moved clear. After re-positioning equipment as required, all plant and men are planned to be off site by 16:30. In this way a kilometre of double track is being laid each week. To accommodate other work, the track is being laid in five phases of which the current phase is the second. It is anticipated that the track laying will be completed by mid-August with the remaining project work completed by early December. After a few months of driver training, the line will re-open in Spring 2024.

Levelling ballast ahead of track laying. Loading dumper with sleepers from the train.

Excavator lifts 7 sleepers from dumper. Spider-fitted excavator.

Rosenqvist CD400SP clipping machine.

Dragging CWR ahead of track laying.

Other work

During our visit, the original Cameron Bridge station platforms by the distillery were being removed to clear the way for the new double track railway. The rubble from these 210-metre-long old platforms totalled approximately 5,000 tonnes. This is to be used as infill for the new Cameron Bridge station platforms which are being built 200 metres to the east.

Utility work was also underway at the 75-year-old Bawbee Road bridge which crosses both the Leven station site and the river Leven and is used by 18,000 vehicles each day. This bridge is subject to an 18-tonne weight restriction due to chlorine contamination and corrosion. This requires the bridge to be closed whilst its deck and abutments are replaced at a cost of £8 million.

Due to the interface between this work and the rail project, it was agreed that the bridge renewal is best done by rail project on behalf of Fife Council. The bridge is soon to be closed with traffic diverted over a temporary road which includes a bridge over the river Leven. As yet, there is no completion date for this bridge work which need not be completed before the railway opens.

Revitalising Levenmouth

The Leven programme brings together public bodies, businesses, and community organisations to develop projects to improve the area. One such project is the River Leven Park which aims to create gardens on abandoned land along the river between Cameron Bridge and Leven. Another is a river restoration project.

The programme’s flagship project is the Levenmouth Connectivity Project. This is funded by Sustrans Scotland and Transport Scotland and aims to provide walking and cycling paths to connect communities along the river. This project is working closely with Network Rail to ensure that this active travel network is linked to the two new rail stations. This will require some existing paths across the railway to be replaced with a footbridge or underpass. Its initial priority is to ensure these links are delivered in time for the station opening in 2024.

The project team is also working closely with this programme both to help it maximise the opportunities provided by the new rail line and to explore cost-effective opportunities for using its plant and manpower.

Bawbee bridge.

Unfortunately, in the thinly-populated area at the start of the branch, paths across the line at Doubledikes and Tullybreck will have to close. For understandable reasons, Network Rail is unwilling to create level crossings. Neither of these paths is a right of way or an adopted Fife Core path and the cost of footbridges is not felt to be justifiable.

The milestone 100th meeting of the Levenmouth Rail Campaign was addressed by Alex Hynes, managing director of Scotland’s Railway. He noted that when the project team recently gave a presentation to the whole of Network Rail Scotland about this project they didn’t talk about rail, sleepers, or ballast. Instead, they talked about how this project will improve the life chances of people in Levenmouth by creating economic growth, improving health and wellbeing as well as social cohesion.

He noted that Network Rail hasn’t been given over £100 million of Scottish taxpayers’ money for this project because they like railways. It’s because they like what railways do. Alex also

felt that “the Levenmouth Rail Campaign has done an amazing job and that they should feel exceptionally proud that we’re at this point.”

The railway will open during the campaign group’s 10th anniversary year. It takes time to justify and approve the large cost to re-open a railway and then to design and then build line.

There is certainly a buzz about this project which is quietly delivering a project which will certainly achieve the project team’s aim of making “Levenmouth a better place to live, work and play.” Rail Engineer thanks Network Rail’s Kirsty Ryder, Owen Campbell, and Joe Mulvenna for their help with this feature and helping us see the work that will achieve this transformation.

The project is one of a small number of Network Rail projects being delivered in accordance with the Project 13 delivery model. For the Levenmouth project, the enterprise partners are Transport Scotland as investor, Network Rail as owner, and AmcoGriffen, Atkins, Babcock, BAM, Siemens, SPL, Story, QTS, Rail Safety Accreditation Scheme (RSAS) as suppliers. Atkins is the designer and BAM is the principal contractor.

New paths around the railway.

TO 2023: ONE HUNDRED YEARS OF SUPPORT FOR PUBLIC TRANSPORT WORKERS DURING TIMES OF NEED.

TBF offers a wide range of health, welfare and financial benefits to support members during times of need, hardship and distress for less than 20p per day.

£1.25 a week covers you, your live-in partner and dependent children.

Three ways to lay track

laid track in 6km stages, which was found to be the maximum practical distance that CWR could be dragged along the new formation. The track construction machine lays track at 185 metres per hour.

Borders – sleepers first

In Scotland, the re-opening of the Levenmouth branch in 2024 follows the re-opening of the Borders railway in 2015 and that of the Airdrie to Bathgate line in 2010. The amount of track needed for the Levenmouth, Borders, and Airdrie to Bathgate projects is respectively 19, 65, and 46 single track kilometres.

Levenmouth – rails first

Before track laying on the Levenmouth branch can commence, 216-metre lengths of continuous welded rail (CWR) have to be left in position well in advance of the track laying. This requires sleepers to be lifted off an engineering train, positioned on the track bed using two excavators and a dumper truck. An excavator then thimbles the rails into position for them to be clipped up with a clipping machine. In this way, 220 metres of double track is laid in 8.5 hours, which is 52 metres per hour.

Airdrie to Bathgate (A2B) – rails first

Rails also had to be laid in advance for the A2B project which laid track using Balfour Beatty’s high output new track construction machine which carries sufficient steel sleepers for 1.2kms of track, less if concrete sleepers are used. This machine was also used for the recent Okehampton reopening. As it moves it lays sleepers in position at the rate of 12 per minute, feeds the CWR in place and clips it into position. The A2B project

Borders tracklaying used a technique developed by BAM Rail of Holland which was used on the construction of the Dutch high-speed line which needs sleepers to be in place beforehand. These were deposited on the track bed off lorries in piles of 20 and were then put in place by a spider-fitted excavator. The BAM process has four selfpropelled units which pull the CWR off its delivery train to place it on the sleepers. The four units are a main roller unit connected to the CWR train by a three-metre bar; a power unit, an auxiliary roller and winch unit; and a mobile rail positioning unit on caterpillar tracks. After the rails are in position, they are clipped up by Robel clipping machines. The BAM process was observed to lay track at 185 metres per hour.

Which is best?

Both the Balfour Beatty and BAM ways of laying track do so at the same rate of 185 metres per hour. The Borders project team, many of whom delivered the A2B project, felt that, for a new railway, there was little to distinguish between. Whilst these two automatic processes lay track at three times the rate of the Levenmouth track laying, this does not necessarily make them better. Levenmouth has much less track to lay than the other two projects so it may be difficult to justify this expensive plant, including its set up and transport to site.

Another issue is the importance of track laying speed to the project programme. Whilst track laying might be on the critical path for a new railway with a long length of track to lay, this is not the case for the Levenmouth project. Another issue is that using high output tracklaying plant locks the programme into its availability. Using conventional plant to lay track, as at Levenmouth, offers greater flexibility.

So, whilst it is interesting to compare these different techniques, there can be no definitive answer to the question of which is best as it depends on the circumstances.

Levenmouth track laying.

(Below left) Airdrie to Bathgate track laying.

(Below right) Borders track laying.

UK Rail is undertaking an unprecedented period of digital innovation and revitalisation. Infrastructure dating back to the era of the steam engine (and steam trains themselves) are being upgraded to create a modern, higher capacity network. It’s an exciting time of progress and digitalisation is accelerating. Yet novelty requires a focus on integrity to maintain and improve safety standards, requiring effective collaboration to efficiently deploy and test new technology. This rigour is essential to realising the potential of digitalisation – moving people and goods even more sustainably as we strive to deliver Net Zero.

Our railway constantly needs to evolve. From lowering cost and carbon to increasing capacity, safety and reliability, we’re being challenged to improve almost every aspect of rail. But our infrastructure is built on aging technology,

especially the signalling system. To meet this growing demand to improve capacity and reliability, the UK rail industry has embarked on a journey to digitalise the railway, including the transition from lineside signalling renewals

to digital signalling through the European Train Control System (ETCS). Pioneering the latest generation of this digital signalling technology across the route on the East Coast Main Line (ECML), one of the UK’s busiest rail routes, is revealing both the challenges and benefits of the digital signalling rollout. By validating and optimising it on a high-speed, mixed-use railway involving all operator sectors, ECML’s digitalisation establishes the pattern for other lines to follow.

Network Rail’s Long Term National ETCS Masterplan, supported by government and

industry, will enable digital signalling across the network. But effective independent testing is required to ensure multiple suppliers’ equipment compliance and compatibility. The UK Railway needs a common, repeatable testing capability and acceptance process to ensure these new products, and their software upgrades, are certified rigorously and efficiently – to enable and expedite the national ETCS rollout. That’s why Atkins has worked with Network Rail to commission the National ETCS Test Lab, where products from different suppliers can be tested for compliance with the GB Reference Design. Signalling equipment suppliers have each developed their own on-board and trackside ETCS solutions, and while these all accord with the European Railways Agency mandatory specifications, they must now be configured to the latest standards and UK specific requirements. Otherwise, we risk incompatibility, safety issues, and costly delays.

The lab opened in June 2022 and is available to provide testing services for ETCS Programmes, Signalling OEMs, and ETCS retrofit programmes for ROSCOs, TOCs, FOCs, Inspection Fleets, On Track Machines and Heritage & Charter.

real risk of integration failure, increased costs, and disruption to passengers. Network Rail has recognised the value of an impartial testing regime. To ensure consistent and seamless interoperability, and mitigate the dangers of incompatibilities, the path to

“As Head of Train Control Systems at the ORR I am delighted to see the introduction of these test facilities. They will undoubtedly accelerate the production of evidence that supports the authorisation of ETCS products for use on the GB network.”

Ian Maxwell, Head of Train Control Systems, ORR

One track mind Deploying ETCS demands a high level of confidence in novel technologies and how they integrate into the existing railway. Misalignments could threaten the integrity of the whole system and are more costly to resolve once commissioning is underway. Innovation alone is no silver bullet. Without an integrated and interconnected framework to assure innovation, there is a

progress must be paved with effective integration - and assurance that all technologies meet high standards.

Atkins is perfectly placed to guide and manage this process. Atkins’ Technical Investigation Centre (TIC), renowned historically for its excellence in independent forensic testing, specialises in investigating safety-critical signalling equipment failures that occur in operation. As

“We are delighted to have delivered yet another of the key enabling projects that pave the way for National ETCS transformation. This facility expands our capability through life – from R&D, through product acceptance, to in-operation fault diagnosis. The project has been a tremendously successful collaboration with Network Rail and our partner Multitel – delivering to schedule despite the challenges that Covid presented. We look forward to welcoming clients to the National ETCS Lab in 2023.”

Mark Fielding-Smith, National and Digital Services Director, Atkins

the UK’s signalling systems integrator and the Rail System Integration Partner on the East Coast Digital Programme (ECDP), Atkins has long been at the forefront of new approaches in digitalisation, collaboration, and innovation. With the opening of the National ETCS Test Lab at Egham, in partnership with Multitel, we have extended our test capability to provide national product acceptance services prior to entry into service.

Together, the National ETCS Test Lab and the TIC offer the ability to test

across the lifecycle – from R&D concepts, through to product acceptance testing and into in-service system level fault finding. In turn, this lab can support Defect Recording and Corrective Action System (DRACAS) investigations, helping to uphold high standards of safety and reliability. The lab includes a GB Reference virtual onboard and trackside system for carrying out operational compliance and interoperability test scenarios. This forms the central component of the National ETCS Test Lab facility

that has delivered an endto-end solution to navigate the complexities of ensuring ERTMS/ETCS compatibility.

The National ETCS Test Lab solution is unique in being the UK’s independent test facility for ETCS product and integration testing, providing Network Rail System Authority, ORR and OEMs with a dependable and repeatable reference point for future testing. From additional capacity adaptations to software upgrades to systems integration testing to cyber security testing, there’s a clear need moving forward

“The National ETCS Test Lab allows Network Rail to test changes to the GB Reference Design in a realistic application prior to being formally issued for use on live projects. Being able to test the changes before implementation on a live project minimises the project delivery risk and provides us with the confidence that the changes deliver what we need to operate the railway safely.”

Jonathan Hayes, Head of Programme Engineering and Systems Management, Network Rail

for a trusted and consistent evaluation process, and for providing objective unbiased diagnoses of problems and incompatibility issues. The independence of the lab enables a trusted diagnosis and fault finding when multiple OEM’s equipment are collaborating in the railway. Mutual assurance and trust in the testing operation, therefore, are critical to providing trusted evaluation and compliance assessments. Providing a standard repeatable testing service benefits ETCS Programmes, suppliers, infrastructure managers and railway undertakings by offering a trusted and predictable process for approvals, derisking potential retesting.

In rail we trust

The benefits of a trusted testing system are many and varied. On-site testing is expensive and timeconsuming. Any time interaction is required with the live system, there is potential for disruption to live signalling systems and the trains that depend on them. Although the rail industry has an exceptional safety record, there are clear safety benefits to minimising

on-site exposure to workers. Moreover, at the forefront of digitalisation, the National ETCS Test Lab is setting a precedent, establishing a blueprint for the continued national roll-out of digital signalling that will inform and guide the future of safety assurance and signalling acceptance.

As the digitalisation of the UK’s railways continues at pace, it’s important to keep these projects on track. The industry must continue to champion continuous, iterative improvement, whilst ensuring that the systems remain resilient. That’s why, alongside the National ETCS Test Laboratory, Atkins has created a technical innovation hub, uniting conventional signalling and ETCS/ERTMS technology to test signalling systems and focus on the challenges of successfully bringing UK rail into the digital age. This age will be defined by the gains of greater connectivity and centralised control of assets. So too will it need to address increasing concerns, such as data integrity and cyber security. A chain is only as strong as its weakest link, and so cybersecurity testing will be a cornerstone

of the national ETCS delivery and will form a key part of the work done at the National ETCS Test Laboratory. Atkins is also collaborating with the National Cyber Security Centre in the delivery of the Defect Recording and Corrective Action System (DRACAS), a system designed to manage, investigate, and solve systemic ETCS faults. These, and several other schemes, are vital to keeping progress on both track and secure.

All aboard Digitalisation is the direction of travel. The journey to transform the rail industry requires continued focus and orientation, to navigate the obstacles and opportunities ahead. The national ETCS Test Lab facility is a foundation that will support the transition to digital, underpinning and reinforcing that progress. As the first of its kind, it’s ushering in new standards and mode vital to unlocking the full potential of digital technology. By 2050, we’ll look back on this shift as momentous and groundbreaking. Yet to get there, we need to work together to propound and execute a clear, integrated vision, safely. That’s what impartial and independent testing is all about.

If you would like to learn more about the National ETCS Test Lab or explore booking testing services, please contact George Walker, digital rail director at Atkins, at George. Walker@atkinsglobal.com

“This facility is a key game changer for the roll-out of ETCS in the UK, building on the lessons from ETCS National Integration Facility (ENIF), Thameslink, and ETCS roll-outs in Europe. The facility allows supplier products to be tested to confirm that it complies with the GB Reference Design and can deliver the functionality and performance needed for the rollout of ETCS in the UK. The capability to test both onboard and trackside system in the ETCS test lab reduces the risk of issues being found during testing and commissioning and reduces the amount of disruption to passengers as it minimises the site testing required.”

Andrew Simmons, Head of Systems Authority, Network Rail

Santa’s LITTLE HELPERS

For most of us, the Christmas and New Year period is a chance to switch off from the regular routine, indulge in too much food and drink, and make a daily decision on whether to get dressed into anything more than our pyjamas.

But while we’re all making the most of our creature comforts, Network Rail is using the time wisely, taking on extensive and challenging works that will keep the country moving in the years ahead. With decreased demand for rail travel, and the closure of the network on Christmas Day and Boxing Day, substantial work can go ahead with minimal disruption for passengers.

In the closing days of 2022, Network Rail and the rail supply chain successfully delivered a considerable bank of works made more complex by the resourcing, planning, and logistical challenges imposed by industrial action. The majority of high value works went ahead successfully, thanks

to significant re-planning in the weeks leading up to Christmas. Of the original £119.7 million work bank, approximately 90% was delivered, with 1,589 possessions nationwide. Though there is not the space in this issue to comment on all the completed works, hopefully, you’ll get a taste of the scale of the programme over the next few pages.

Eastern Region

Thirteen programmes of work took place across the Eastern Region, with highlights including track remodelling at York North Junction. Work also took place to advance the multi-billion-pound Transpennine Route Upgrade project.

York North Jn S&C Renewal

This work renewed life-expired junction trackwork at the north end of York Station, which allows access to platforms 4, 5, and 8 to 11. This included the renewal of all associated signalling and points heating equipment. Although all renewal works were completed, signalling commissioning delays resulted in possession handback overrunning by 58 minutes. Other issues included the failure of a lifting strap during a Kirow K1200 panel lift.

Crossrail Anglia The Crossrail Anglia Project has been delivering the new Autotransformer (AT) +25kV traction power system to feed the Anglia Mainline from the new Pudding Mill Lane Feeder Site. Once in service, the AT system will provide sufficient power for Crossrail, Greater Anglia, and freight timetables, as well as improving system reliability and ready the May 2023 Elizabeth line timetable change. During the Christmas possession, work between Pudding Mill Lane

and Shenfield included OHLE, traction power upgrades, line of route and station works. There was one minor incident where a parked welfare van was struck with a refuelling bowser, causing no injuries.

BGK 1337 Three Colts Lane

This project replaced the life-expired bridge structure spanning Three Colts Lane. This involves removing permanent way (P way), demolishing the bridge, partial demolition of the masonry abutments, building the new bridge in situ, waterproofing, P way reinstatement and OLE adjustments. All this work was completed within a 10-day blockade.

Transpennine Route Upgrade

TRU Holbeck New Connection S&C The Holbeck new connection is a key infrastructure intervention to provide engineering access for the wider TransPennine Route Upgrade (TRU) East projects. This upgrades Holbeck Depot Junction, Leeds and provides

LNER Azuma train using the new tracks at York station

Work at Morley stationChristmas 2022.

Birmingham New Street new signals with Avanti West Coast train in background

a depot arrival road headshunt to eliminate Midland Main Line turnback movements to increase mainline operational capacity. Works completed over the Christmas period included the installation of a new scissors crossover as well as the commissioning of new signalling and track assets at Holbeck; nine lock out devices at Leeds station; and this crossover’s new points heating and junction lighting. No issues or incidents were reported.

TRU Morley Station PLTR

Railway improvement work between Dewsbury and Leeds City stations includes: track upgrades and remodelling; installing a new signalling system; electrification work; and station improvements. A new, accessible station is also being provided at Morley. These works will allow the station to be relocated approximately 75 metres to the north-east later this year. Over the Christmas period, the Up Huddersfield tracks towards Dewsbury were replaced; four under track crossings installed; and track drainage with a temporary drainage pumping system installed.

programme. A central control monitored progress and provided four-hourly reports. This work renewed life-expired signalling systems and trackside equipment in the Birmingham New Street PSB control area (New Street Station) and transferred control to the New Street Westcad Workstation at WMSC. Signaller observations raised during the work were checked against the design. On Platform 10 an RA and red signal displayed at the same time once a train had been dispatched which required a subsequent data change.

Bridge LEC1/9E Regents

North West & Central Region

There were 12 programmes of work in the North West & Central Region. These included the re-signalling and recontrol of the former Birmingham New Street Power Signal Box (PSB) into West Midlands Signalling Centre (WMSC), and the renewal of bridge LEC1/9E at Camden, where the West Coast Main Line crosses the Regents Canal north of Euston.

Birmingham New Street Area

Re-signalling Phase 7 Around 400 people worked around the clock during this 80-hour possession which followed many stage works including the previous two Christmas blocks and a platform closures

Canal This work was a renewal of the life-expired Bridge LEC1/9E over the Regents Canal in Camden. This required: the removal of track and the old bridge; E&P and S&T disconnections; installing the new bridge; track reinstatement; E&P and S&T reconnections, including OLE adjustments, bonding and points heating. Due to various issues the worksite was handed back 46 hours later than originally planned which resulted in train delays of 1,985 minutes.

Harlesden Plain Line Track

Renewal 322 yards of track were removed and replaced with new rail, sleepers, ballast, and formation on the Up Fast line. Due to industrial strike action, the central route was closed requiring significant revisions to the original haulage plan. Despite this, the work was completed in full.

Work at Morley stationChristmas 2022.

Carol Green / Berkswell OLE

HS2 Lowering of 400 metres overhead lie equipment (OLE) at this location is required for the construction of a new HS2 Overbridge. This was done within a 53-hour planned possession. Works completed included: The installation of four Tensorex units; the removal of six OLE masts and two twin track OLE portals. During the work, a historic spliced joint failed which bought down catenary wire throughout the section. However, after repairs all works were completed safely and possession was handed back two hours ahead of time.

Willesden Cathedral Substation Demolition This substation is one of 10 substations built around 1916 for the London & North Western Railway electrification. Its controlled demolition was done in a designed sequence. In this way the existing 750v DC sub 7 25kv substations, which were in close proximity, could remain operational during the demolition. Works completed included: soft strip and removal of hazardous material; OLE removal and enabling works; removal of third rail; track protection and demolition plant mat; full demolition and clearance of arisings; reinstatement of OLE and third rail.

Southern Region

Four programmes of work were completed in the Southern region. Of note was the renewal of 16 S&C units at Lewisham between 24 December and 3 January. Lewisham Junction –Lewisham Junction is located on the four track DC electrified section of track immediately west of Lewisham Station. The work renewed the junction which consists of 16 double scissors covering the junction’s

four lines. The work included: complete renewal of S&C layout and associated fixed diamonds; the renewal of 10 track isolator switches and 1,000 metres of conductor rail; 500 metres of platform cope adjustments; 1200 square metres of platform resurfacing; and 200 metres of ballast retention scheme. The site was fully stressed and welded tamped and handed back on time.

Victoria Re-signalling In a blockade commencing at 15:00 24 December, running until 03:00 03 January, this project resignalled the Clapham and Balham interlocking areas, and relocked the Victoria Eastern, Victoria Central Throat, and West London Lines. All control was moved from Victoria Area Signalling Centre to Three Bridge Regional Operating Centre. This renewed life expired assets in the area which was last resignalled in 1980. Issues included overrecovery of FDM cable in relay room causing multiple track circuit failures. A temporary lighting column was also blown into open lines.

Positioning new S&C panels in Lewisham.

Lewisham Junction.

Gatwick Station On 27 December, platform 5 and platform 6 at Gatwick Airport were signed back into operational use with the final install, test, and commission of its new track layout which improves the operationallyconstrained track layout at each end of the station and limited northbound fast line platform capacity. There were no safety or environmental issues and possession was handed back on time. However, the project enacted an agreed contingency plan to retain the fast lines signalling disconnection to address faults identified in testing.

Clapham Ladder S&C Abandonment This work renewed seven-hundredand-fifty metres of track and commissioned points heating on the new S&C layout. Alongside the renewal, signal gantrys and equipment were recovered for the VIC3 scheme. The site was tamped and handed back at line speed on time.

Wales and Western Region

Ten programmes of work took place in the Wales and Western Region, including the renewal of five S&C units at Stoke Gifford West Junction in the Bristol area.

Stoke Gifford Up and Stoke Gifford West S&C core This project involved plain line renewal on the Stoke Gifford Up Tunnel Line between Parkway and Patchway, and the renewal of five units of lifeexpired S&C at Stoke Gifford West. Civils works were also completed on platform 3 to improve gauging and stepping distances for passengers. The work had to be re-planned at short notice many times due to industrial action which led to the Stoke Gifford Up Plain Line renewal being cancelled. This work was done in bad weather conditions with continuous rain throughout the works.

Dawlish Lift Shaft/Footbridge Piling Works Preparatory work for the installation of a new footbridge with stepfree access north of the Dawlish station included: piling for the foundations of the lift shaft/bridge. Effective communications between the comms team and residents in local flats developed relationships, enabling bespoke arrangements for disabled residents affected by works.

Parsons Tunnel North Portal To improve railway resilience from cliff hazards, this work included cliff remediation and rockfall shelter construction (109 metres) and associated preparatory work. The construction works for a rockfall shelter on the Dawlish side of Parsons Tunnel included piling and superstructure works.

Scotland

In Scotland, preparatory work for the Carstairs junction remodelling work continued over Christmas. £100 million has already been spent on signalling and OLE work for this major work which requires 10km of track renewals and 27 new switches in a blockade which starts in March. With very limited access during the week, full advantage was taken of the Christmas and New Year period to undertake preparatory works.

London Overground track and equipment upgrades December 2022.

Engineer testing new signalling equipment.

Elsewhere there were track renewals at Slateford in Edinburgh and at Penmansheil which required the East Coast Main Line to be shut there from 23:00 on 24 December to 05:00 on 27 December.

Drainage work was also undertaken at Eglinton Street in Glasgow between 23:10 on 24 December and 09:00 on the 26 December.

In addition planned work was done to re-open two lines that had been blocked due to severe weather. On 19 December the line to Oban and the trunk road below it was blocked when around 200 tonnes of debris slipped 80 metres down Ben Cruachan’s slopes. The line was re-opened on 27 December.

Following heavy rainfall on 30 December which saw the River Clyde reach its highest recorded level, a 40-metre section of an embankment on the West Coast Main Line south of Carstairs was partially washed away. The line was reopened on 6 January after the embankment was rebuilt with over 300 tonnes of new stone and tracks re-laid.

Performance and handbacks

Of the planned 1,589 network-wide possessions that took place between 24 December and 3 January, only 12 service-impacting overrun incidents occurred, five of which were linked to delivery of a major ‘red ranked’ scheme. Three possession overruns accounted for 90% of the total delay minutes. These were:

3,631 minutes at Paddington on the morning of 27 December due to problems moving tampers out of a possession after a maintenance tamp in the Paddington area.

1,985 minutes at Camden during the 29-30 December following agreed possession extensions associated with delivering the replacement of bridge LEC1/9E.

1,043 minutes at Gatwick following issues encountered with 1713 points and a number of signals, which were rectified later in the day post handback. The 12 overrun incidents incurred a total of 7,357 minutes delay. As the total number of possessions was 1,985, this represents a successful possession hand back rate of 99.2%.

Safety

Over the Christmas/New Year period, there were two reported accidents. Of the two, one was classified as a minor injury with no lost time, and one was classed as being RIDDOR reportable.

The RIDDOR reportable accident took place in the early hours of Christmas Day near Maidenhead, where an operative changing an RRV attachment moved out of the way of the machine and fell into the four foot, dislocating their arm. The injured person was attended to by an ambulance crew and was taken by ambulance to a nearby hospital. The second accident took place at the Birmingham New Street Re-signalling site, where an operative received a minor electric shock (24 V) during project activities. No treatment was required.

Additionally, the period saw six reported general incidents, five reported operational close calls, but no reported environmental incidents.

Thank you

A big thank you goes to everyone involved in these works for devoting your time and energy to ensuring the network runs smoothly in 2023. Your dedication and hard work makes the whole industry proud.

Installing new track crossing at Holbeck, Leeds 3.

Close up shot of polystyrene blocks meeting the platform edge.

heritage lines

Rail Engineer frequently features articles on new and innovative signalling systems for both main lines and metros. ETCS (European Train Control System) and CBTC (Communications Based Train Control) represent the generation of technology that will eventually control railways in the UK, Europe, and the wider world. Even without these latest systems, resignalling projects continue to use more traditional solutions but with many innovative features to reduce cost and enable renewals to take place in a timely manner.

The engineers and technicians who design, manufacture, install, test, and commission such systems must be competent in the work they do and many of them have to hold a proficiency licence in accordance with the IRSE requirements.

So far, so good, but what about the heritage sector? Many of these lines need signalling systems to

control train movements and operations and require considerable knowledge and expertise from both paid staff and volunteers who give their time to ensure successful and safe railways. A recent talk given by the IRSE Minor Railways Section explained how the heritage community works together to provide the necessary technology and competence.

Scope and volume

The number of heritage railways in the UK has proliferated over the years and there are now about 150 lines spread across all parts of Britain, plus a further 150 miniature lines in parks and gardens. Ignoring the latter category, although a few of these do have significant signalling systems, most of the others, which include both standard and narrow gauge, carry passengers for many miles, and contain passing loops, level crossings, multi-platform stations and more than one train in operation on busy days. Although speeds are much less than on a main line, the number of passengers carried, especially during special event days, can number into the thousands.

All this requires a detailed knowledge of railway operations, the signalling of trains, and the safe management of stations.

On the engineering side, standards have to be in place for track and rolling stock which are generally in line with similar requirements for secondary and branch lines. But for signalling, the scope is much more varied and can embrace technology from the Victorian era right through to modern day electronics and computing. So how is all this managed to ensure an efficient and safe means of operation?

Types of signalling

In the main, most of the larger heritage lines have signalling systems comprising traditional signal boxes with lever frames, semaphore signals and points moved by rodding from the signal box. These require a knowledge and skill set for the locking within the frame, the installation and compensation of rodding runs, the provision of facing point locks, and the erection and sighting of signals including the regulation and provision of wire runs. Add to this the block shelf with block instruments and bells, the communication links to adjacent boxes, the need for track circuits, and the provision of a signal box diagram, all make for an expanding knowledge for the staff and volunteers involved.

It does not stop there. Many of the lines have relay interlockings, electric locks and circuit controllers on levers, power operated points and signals including colour lights and the ability to switch boxes out during light periods of traffic. All these require a power supply involving batteries and chargers.

Then there are level crossings. On the main line, traditional gates have largely been replaced by lifting barriers but on heritage lines wooden swinging gates prevail. These are often hand operated, but some examples exist where the gates are swung from a large wheel in the box and the associated mechanical connections.

Just occasionally, heritage lines branch out into the latest technology and use both radio and IT skills to develop systems that enable low cost and efficient operations. An example of this is the Token Exchange by Random Numbers (TERN) used on the Ravenglass & Eskdale narrow gauge line. The control of train movements is carried out entirely by radio with a clever way of using a numbering system to receive and deliver tokens. On the Swanage Railway, the latest in level crossing technology is used at Norden by employing the Schweizer VaMOS system that utilises a standardised Programmable Logic Controller (PLC) to control the barrier sequencing and flashing lights. One must not forget telecommunications. Heritage lines are as dependent as main lines on good communications between signal boxes, stations, and running sheds. Some still utilise electromechanical Strowger exchanges (another technology that has virtually died out in the country at large), often with just one exchange to cover the entire line but sometimes with tie lines to connect different exchange locations. Many signals, if remote from the box, require SPTs and an associated concentrator.

Miniature lever frame at Porthmadog.

A mention must be made about miniature lines. Many of these are operated on a commercial basis and are managed by business people. Their knowledge of modernday electronics and computing is usually pretty good, and they apply this knowledge to how the railway should be run. As such, traditional signalling techniques are not usually applied, being replaced by computer programming on PLCs, home-built control panels, and bits and pieces of electrical equipment acquired from various sources. An example is a car windscreen wiper motor being used for the movement of points. With even lower speeds, the risks to passenger safety are very small and if a derailment occurs, you just lift the locomotive or carriage back on!

Acquisition of equipment

With the renewal of signalling systems on the main line, a veritable ‘gold mine’ of equipment is made redundant. The simple stuff of point machines, signal posts and arms, block instruments, and ground frames have been easily acquired by the heritage lines when signal boxes are replaced on Network Rail or British Rail before that. In some cases, complete signal boxes have

been dismantled, transported to a new site, and re-erected. Such enterprise requires the participation of civil and electrical engineers as well. An interesting example of re-use is the recovery of the former signal box at Sprotborough on the erstwhile Hull and Barnsley railway that had spent years as a garden shed on an allotment. This is now being installed on the Yorkshire Wolds Railway. Not all equipment is second hand. The design for an internet-connected single line token machine by Park Signalling represents a commercial company having an eye on the heritage sector, where a new concept can be used to obviate the need for railways to invest in expensive lineside cabling. A completely

new panel has recently been provided at Brittania Crossing near to Dartmouth on the line to Paignton.

Some railways invest in modern off-the-shelf telecommunications equipment which is easy to use and install, and avoids the need for technicians with skills to set up uniselectors and two motion switches associated with Strowger equipment.

Where do the people come from?

There is no single answer to this. Many of the signal engineers and technicians work for Network Rail or the signal supply industry and volunteer their spare time because of their love for the job. Others are ex British Rail, Network Rail, or are industry engineers who have retired but wish to keep working in an enjoyable environment and where their hard-won skills can still be put to good use. A third category are people from all walks of life who have an interest in railway signalling and yearn to get their hands dirty.

A common factor for all of these is enthusiasm in what is normally a non-pressurised environment. Maintenance work is carried out generally when trains are not running, as are any new projects involving signalling alterations. Failures when trains are running require a prompt response so a signalling expert is usually

Control panel at Brittania Crossing.

Sprotborough box in allotment

on hand to put things right. Sometimes revised track layouts require new signalling designs having to be created, involving the production of new control tables, circuitry, locking charts, and such like. Much of this work can be carried out in a home environment.

Training and competence

With this wide mixture of people, how does a railway ensure that work is carried out correctly and to the required

standard? There is recognition that enforcing any form of licensing scheme into a largely volunteer workforce is a nonstarter. However, competence has to be assured. This was one of the reasons why the IRSE Minor Railways Section (MRS) was created with the aim of acquiring, assessing, and passing on of knowledge, standards, and methodology. Nine people were on the initial committee, but it has grown since then.

Many guidance documents have been produced and these can be accessed from the IRSE website. Park Signalling is one of the sponsors for these documents. Lots of networking takes place including on Facebook and YouTube forums, and 180 videos covering various signalling layouts are available on YouTube. A training course takes place once a year arranged via Signet Solutions for which engineers and technicians on heritage lines can attend at very modest prices.

An important element of competence acquisition is going out to see how other heritage lines set about the provision of signalling. Section visits have been made to many lines around the UK including the South Devon, Welsh Highland, Ffestiniog, Bluebell, Keighley & Worth Valley, Ravenglass & Eskdale, North Norfolk, and Severn Valley, the latter being a favourite location for the Section to hold its AGM at the Kidderminster

www.railuk.com

Over 15,000 rail articles.

Training new signaller.

headquarters. All these lines have signalling peculiarities, especially those that have a connection (sometimes with running rights) on to Network Rail infrastructure.

Clearly those staff who have or have had British Rail or Network Rail experience will lead the training of others and their specialisms are much valued. Most of the lines have been in existence for 50 years or more and the knowledge acquired during this period is extensive. No major incident due to a signalling failure has ever been recorded, so the track record is excellent.

Liaison with the authorities Pragmatism is the order of the day and good communication exists with the Office of Road and Rail (ORR). It is accepted that the Railways and Other Guided Transport Systems (ROGS) rules do not generally apply to heritage lines in the same way that they have to be interpreted for main line and metro railways. A guidance document on competence has been produced which has been endorsed by the ORR. Sometimes compliance with national rail requirements must be observed. Level crossing signage and telecommunications is one such area where changes to improve the understanding

of both pedestrians and road vehicle users are being trialled and are likely to go forward for universal adoption. Accidents do occasionally happen on heritage lines (sadly and very rarely with fatalities) and reporting such incidents to the RAIB must happen in the same way as if it were a main line. Any resultant findings and recommendations will be issued into the public domain from which other heritage lines will take note. Signalling will occasionally feature in these reports, but this is rare.

In summary

Heritage lines in the UK are a major part of Britain’s leisure industry. Each year heritage railways attract 13 million visitors each year, most of whom take a ride behind a steam engine, often in beautiful

countryside every year. They assume that the rail operation and the associated signalling will keep them safe. So good are the standards, maintenance, and workmanship that they need not worry.

The camaraderie amongst those involved is very good and sometimes expands to overseas rail heritage lines. International technical visits are arranged from time to time, the Netherlands being a favourite venue. Long may all of this continue so that our children and grandchildren can learn how railways were operated in the past and enjoy the experience.

Thanks are recorded to Dominic Beglin for giving the talk to the IRSE L&SE Section and for supplying many of the photographs.

Broadway new signal box.

New signal box at Porthmadog.

COVERING GREAT PROJECTS:

From the Nottingham Tram (Issue 1)

To Levenmouth (Issue 200)

ISSUE 200

(Issue

200

A

Since

(Issue

issues and 2,900 articles later… David Shirres takes a look at how Rail Engineer has reported industry developments in its 19 years of publication.

rolling stock retrospective: 2004 to 2003

its first issue in November 2004, Rail Engineer has provided a perspective on rolling stock developments.

Written-off! Stuart Marsh investigates the recovery of a GB Railfreight locomotive which derailed in bad weather.

(Issue 77 - November 2013)

London Bridge Station - another milestone Clive Kessell reports on the rebuild of London Bridge Station.

142 - August 2016)

The Hitachi 395s: an update Rail Engineer visited Hitachi’s Ashford depot for a closer look at its Class 395.

46 - August 2008)

The Digital Railway a decade on The term ‘Digital Railway’ came into being around 10 years ago. But what has been achieved in this time?

Over the Edge Graeme Bickerdike gets to grips with rope access, which has revolutionised structural monitoring and maintenance. (Issue 124 - February 2015)

200 issues and 2,900 articles later...

Welcome to our celebratory 200th edition supplement. In November 2004, Rail Engineer was born out of RailStaff, which itself is now 26 years and 283 issues old, and launched at Railtex. It was launched to satisfy a demand from railway engineers who wanted to know more about what was going on around the network.

Since the first issue we have published 2,900 major articles and printed over two million copies (775,000 at the 100th edition). The magazine has had four editors and 25 regular writers, all of whom are engineers and experts in their field. This general overview considers some of these reports as do two special features illustrating rolling stock and digital railway developments since 2004.

Our reports have included collapsed and rebuilt earthworks, new plant and equipment, demolished and reconstructed bridges, re-

opened lines, reconstructed stations, new trains, and the latest technology in signalling and telecommunications, surveying, and security. The team has also visited numerous project sites, attended various technical events, and seen train production lines in the UK and abroad.

We have also produced features that explain the basic principles of railway engineering aspects in language that can be understood by engineers from other disciplines. This includes articles such as Chris Parker’s April 2019 report on Risk-based CWR management and David Bickell’s March 2019 feature on the evolution of signalling. Clive Kessell’s October 2008 GSM-R feature provides a clear, comprehensive description of this essential system which is still relevant today.

Many of these features contain excellent photography as illustrated by features on repairing viaducts on Scotland’s remote Rannoch Moor in November 2008 and refurbishing Connaught tunnel for Crossrail in May 2012.

We have shown the impressive work done to resolve complex technical and project challenges and are glad to report such achievements which sometimes contrast with uninformed press

2008 graphic showing how GSM-R is an essential part of ETCS system.

comments. When we report things that have gone wrong, we try to put this in context.

For example, the cost and time overruns of electrification schemes were, in large part, due to the lack of a long-term UK railway strategy which resulted in boom and bust procurement of both rolling stock and electrification.

The cancellation of HS2’s eastern leg, which had been years in planning, on the spurious basis that the East Coast Main Line could be upgraded to provide the same capacity, is another such example as explained in our March 2022 feature about the Integrated Rail Plan.

Electrification

Rail Engineer has always campaigned for railway electrification as this provides a better railway however that might be defined.

In September 2006, we considered how British Railways had kept skilled electrification teams together through infill electrification projects and how opportunities for such projects were being missed.

Following the announcement of the North Western and Great Western electrification projects in 2011, two features in our December 2012 issue described how the Liverpool-to-

Manchester and Great Western electrification schemes were being delivered. That year, Network Rail held a conference with its suppliers to seek their early engagement in the many forthcoming electrification schemes. At the time it was considered that there would be 11 simultaneous major electrification projects by 2014. However, ramping up industry capability to deliver such a huge programme after delivering almost no electrification for many years proved to be an unrealistic aspiration. And so, in 2017, significant cost and time overruns led to curtailment of the Great Western and other electrification schemes.

To demonstrate electrification delivery at an affordable cost, in December 2017 Don Heath, ECML electrification project director, described ‘Electrification as it used to be’. In the March 2019 feature ‘Relearning electrification’, we summarised the Railway Industry Association’s (RIA) electrification cost challenge report. This noted that electrification was being delivered at an affordable price in Scotland and concluded that: “by having a rolling

programme of electrification, Scotland is benefiting from learning and experience being passed from one project to the next.”

Our May 2021 feature ‘Decarbonising Scotland’s railway’ described the work being done in Scotland to have a net-zero carbon railway by 2035. This stressed the benefits of electrification including replacing ageing diesel trains with cheaper higher performing electrics. It also showed how this is a fully integrated approach to the whole railway system by providing the required infrastructure and rolling stock to meet enhanced timetable requirements.

Graph shows inefficient nature of UK Boom and Bust electrification.

Major projects

Rail Engineer was launched in the same year that tunnel boring machine ‘Annie’ completed tunnelling on HS1 from Stratford to St Pancras. The decision that St Pancras would be the eventual Eurostar terminal was taken in 1994, the same year that Eurostar services started from Waterloo. These initially ran to the Channel Tunnel on the Southern third rail network. In 1996, work started on HS1, the first section of which opened in 2003.

In September 2005, Rail Engineer’s then editor, Colin Wheeler, reported that HS1’s tracks were complete to within a mile of St Pancras. When the rebuilt station opened with suitable ceremony, Colin was there and clearly enjoyed a great night as his December 2007 report ‘A Royal night of ‘Son et Lumiere’ at St Pancras International’ showed.

Looking at our early issues was a reminder of the long gestation period for major rail projects. The March 2005 issue reported on the Crossrail Bill being put before Parliament. It received royal assent in July 2008. Between July 2011 and July 2022, we published 24 features on the £18 billion Crossrail project. The first, in June 2011, was about the arrival of the tunnel boring machines, the last, in September 2022, was ‘Elizabeth line worked first time’. Thameslink was another long-running project which was originally being entitled Thameslink 2000. Its route was created in 1988 when services were restored through Snow Hill Tunnel that had not carried passengers since 1916. The resultant through north-south services across London then became seriously overcrowded. British Rail was developing proposals to alleviate this which were then delayed by privatisation, lack of funding, and two public enquiries.

In December 2007, Colin Carr reported that government had announced £5.5 billion funding for the Thameslink programme to increase train frequency to 24 trains per hour. His report outlined plans to rebuild Farringdon, Blackfriars, and London Bridge Stations, and provide a new viaduct at Borough Market. Our later Thameslink features also covered the Bermondsey dive under and the route’s telecommunications, signalling, and use of automatic train operation. Another major project was the Reading station area redevelopment from 2008 to 2014 which provided an additional five platforms, a new train depot, and extra capacity from an extensive track reconfiguration which included the provision of a 2km viaduct. This was the subject of various features including one on its approaching completion in April 2014.

TBM Elizabeth lowered into main shaft 25 October 2012

PHOTO: CROSSRAIL LTD

Other enhancements

The new Ordsall Chord featured in our January 2018 issue. As Mungo Stacy described in his July 2011 article ‘Manchester United’, this was built to improve capacity at Manchester Piccadilly. However, the Chord was only one part of this plan. The other part was relieving congestion through the Castlefield corridor by building extra platforms at Piccadilly. As these platforms were never built, the Ordsall Chord never delivered its potential and now only carries one train per hour.

The Castlefield corridor is one of the few areas that Network Rail has declared to be ‘congested infrastructure’. In contrast to Thameslink, there are no plans for infrastructure enhancements and its trains have been reduced from 15 to 12 per hour. The extra Piccadilly platforms were one of a number of cancelled projects after Network Rail was reclassified as a Central Government Body in 2014. As a result, it could no longer fund projects from capital markets and has to borrow from the UK Government, subject to Treasury limits.

The many capacity improvements on which we have reported include various East Coast Main Line (ECML) improvements including the Allington Chord (May 2005), Hitchin flyover (August 2013), Graeme Bickerdyke’s North Doncaster Chord feature (January 2014) and Bob Wright’s description of the

155-metre tunnel being pushed under the ECML at Werrington. Our most recent ECML feature was Colin Carr’s article ‘Clearing the throat and removing the hump’ about the remodelling of the Kings Cross throat, featured in our January 2021 issue.

On the West Coast Main Line, Colin Wheeler covered the Rugby station remodelling in October 2006, there were also various features on the Trent Valley four-tracking project which was completed in 2008 and the Norton Bridge flyover was covered in our June 2014 issue.

Projects to redouble lines included 30km on the Cotswold line as reported in June 2011 and, in August 2019, the redoubling of 26km between Aberdeen and Inverurie as part of the Aberdeen to Inverness improvement project.

We were also glad to report on the re-opening of the following lines: Larkhall to Milngavie (2005); Stirling to Alloa (2008); Airdrie to Bathgate (2010); Borders (2015); Okehampton (2021); as well as the opening of a new line to Barking Riverside (2022). Our reports on current re-opening projects include Mark Phillips’s July 2020 report on the Northumberland line as well as features on East West Rail and Levenmouth. Freight traffic enhancements included two features in February 2010 and March 2012 on gauge clearance for high cube containers for the strategic freight network. The Felixstowe branch serves the UK’s largest container port and carries the country’s highest freight tonnage. In July 2019, David Bickell described its new 1.4km loop which increased freight paths on the branch from 33 to 47.

Remedial work

Rail Engineer has featured various infrastructure damage repairs. Not all of this was due to severe weather. After the partial collapse of a tunnel being built above the railway at Gerrards Cross for a supermarket, due to uneven backfilling around the tunnel

Ordsall Chord Graphic.

report explains how this incident was managed.

We also reported on storm flooding in Somerset in February 2013, and the use of coffer dams to hold back floods to minimise further damage. In a March 2014 feature, Chris Parker considered what needs to be done to re-open the railway after it had been flooded. This included the need to consider bridge piers at risk from swollen rivers and described how an apparently sound bridge on the central Wales line had collapsed in 1987 with fatal results.

Serious unseen damage to the piers of Lamington viaduct closed the West Coast Main Line for two months was the result of the River Clyde being two metres above its normal level. Our March 2016 feature explained how this damage was repaired.

The steep rock cutting at Carmont needed to be stabilised after rock falls onto the track. Our report on this work, and the new cutting crest drain was in the March 2011 issue. The importance of constructing drains exactly as specified was, sadly, demonstrated nine years later when this drain caused the fatal Carmont derailment.

A slow-moving slippage of the ledge on which the Settle and Carlisle railway runs above the River Eden closed the railway for over a year. In his September 2016 feature, Stuart Marsh described how the repair required the removal of over 500,000 tonnes of material and the construction of a 75-metre long reinforced concrete track bed slab secured by 230 piles typically 18-metres long.

The 80 metres of the Dawlish sea wall washed away by storms in February 2014, which closed the railway for two months, was a particularly high profile event. Colin Carr’s reports in March and July explained how this breach was repaired and the immediate action that saved the houses behind the wall.

Mark Phillips quoted lines from Shakespeare’s King Lear in his October 2016 feature to explain why the cliff just west of Dover is named after the bard. His did so as the railway under this cliff had also suffered storm damage which took nine months to repair. As the great playwright asserted “All’s Well That Ends Well.”

Flooding at Cowley

Bridge Junction, Devon.

Stations

Since our first edition in November 2004, there have been 82 new mainline railway stations of which 16 were on new lines. Some of the new stations on which we reported were Shepherds Bush (2008); Laurencekirk (2009); Southend Airport (2011); Oxford Parkway (2015); Edinburgh Gateway (2016); Cambridge North (2017); Robroyston (2019) and Reston (2022).

The station enhancements on which we have reported include a mix of track remodelling and station rebuilding. In September 2007 we covered the transformation of St Pancras station for it to serve international, UK mainline, domestic-high speed, and Thameslink services.

Haymarket did not require any track alterations, it just needed to be rebuilt to cope with a 138% footfall increase in 15 years which was certain to increase further when the adjacent tram stop opened. As our July 2013 feature explains, the rebuilt station provided 10 times its previous concourse area. Nottingham was also getting overcrowded and needed to be integrated into an adjacent tram stop. Our August 2013 edition described these works and the associated track remodelling.

Other stations projects requiring significant track remodelling were Manchester

Victoria (July 2014), Liverpool Lime Street (November 2018), Derby (July 2018), and Waterloo (November 2018). Our January 2016 issue explained how and why Rochester got a new station to replace the old one 500 metres to the west. Market Harborough’s platforms were moved a little way to the west as part of a scheme to upgrade lineside to 110mph by realigning 3.8km of track as Peter Stanton described in his June 2019 feature.

Perhaps the most constrained of all the station rebuilds on which we have reported was Glasgow Queen Street which had to be shut for 141 days in 2016 to remodel the station and lay slab track in the tunnel leading to it. We covered this work in our August 2016 and January 2019 issues.

Since our first issue Edinburgh Waverley has been reroofed, and gained a new southern entrance and seven

additional or significantly lengthened platforms which we covered in a series of reports (December 2006, July 2011, September 2014, and January 2018). The regeneration of Bristol Temple Meads, including its challenging reroofing and the remodelling of its East Junction was described by Bob Wright in his January 2021 feature.

Transforming four of the top 10 busiest stations presented significant challenges. We reported the opening of a new Kings Cross concourse in April 2012 feature. At Waterloo, the re-opening of the old Eurostar platforms to domestic service allowed platform closures to remodel platforms 1 to 10 as Mark Phillips described in November 2018. The complete transformation of Birmingham New Street, at least above the platforms, was covered in various features the last of which was Marc Johnson’s July 2015 feature, two months before the project’s completion. It is difficult to think of a bigger challenge than transforming London Bridge over a six-year period which increased the through platforms from six to nine, realigning 15 tracks and platforms, as well as adding 92,000 square feet of sub surface retail concourse whilst the station was being used by 50 million passengers a year. As our July 2018 feature explained, this could only be done with a comprehensive system migration plan which integrated all associated projects.

Opening of Reston station on 23rd May 2022. New station Haymarket concourse under construction in 2013.

PHOTO: NETWORK RAIL

London Underground

LU’s deep tubes are typically 3.6 metres in diameter which is half that of the recently opened Elizabeth Line tunnels. From 2004 to 2019 the tube’s passenger numbers increased from 950 million to 1.38 billion a year. Accommodating these increased numbers within such constrained infrastructure is a huge challenge for which a number of clever innovative solutions have been developed.

In February 2011, Rail Engineer magazine interviewed LU’s key engineers including Malcolm Dobell, then head of train systems, about long-term plans to provide extra capacity. This included proposals for suitably configured articulated stock with reduced car length to maximise passenger space within the restricted tunnels. This new stock was also to be lighter, more efficient trains which reduces the problem of cooling the deep tube. This discussion also considered how LU will be introducing moving block signalling.

Soon afterwards, LU awarded the contract to upgrade the signalling of its sub-surface railway (SSR) which comprises the Circle, District, Hammersmith & City, and Metropolitan lines. This was awarded to Bombardier which was to provide its

CITYFLO 650 ATC which uses Communicatons-Based Train Control (CBTC). However, in May 2014 we reported that Thales had been invited to tender for this contract after TfL and Bombardier ended their contract “by mutual agreement”.

In October 2015, Clive Kessell explained the Thales Seltrac CBTC system and explained how this contract was progressing. In previous features Clive had explained how this system was now operational on the Jubilee line (April 2012) and Northern Line (May 2015). By March 2022, SSR lines were being controlled by the Thales CBTC system, and legacy signals removed, on six of the 14 required SSR areas.

Our ‘Squeezing more from the Tube’ feature in May 2013 considered both new trains and signalling but also emphasised that metro-style operation requires a production line approach with detailed attention to every operational aspect. As an example, the 200-second train turnaround at Brixton on the Victoria line requires one driver to shut down his/her cab before another driver opens up the cab at the other end of the train, to avoid the walk from one end to the other.

In July 2016, Malcolm Dobell, now one of our writers, provided a detailed explanation of the work being done to keep the 42-years-old Bakerloo line trains in service until at least 2026. The convoluted route from their Stonebridge Park Depot to Acton Works for this life-extension required an overnight journey subject to special rules when travelling over the Jubilee line which has signalling incompatible with Bakerloo line stock.

Malcolm had the opportunity to write about new LU Piccadilly line trains in his July 2018 feature after TfL confirmed its intention to award Siemens Mobility a contract of around £1.5 billion for 94 new generation tube trains. In this feature, he quoted from a TfL report which had identified the benefits of an articulated configuration with shorter carriages and predicted that these new trains would be so configured. His May 2021 feature about these trains showed his prediction to be correct.

In September 2021 we reported on this century’s first tube line opening, the 3km extension of the Northern line extension to Battersea, and how the two tunnel boring machines were set to work in April 2017 and achieved their break though in November 2017.

Light Rail

UK light rail systems comprise of two metros, the Glasgow Subway, and seven tram systems. Blackpool’s tram network dates from the 19th century, whilst other tram systems were built and extended from 1992 onwards. Between 2004 and 2019, UK light rail ridership increased from 143 million to 277 million per year.

Our first issue had a Nottingham tram on its cover. The city opened its first tram line in March 2004 and had recently hosted a PWI seminar ‘Modern Track for Light Rail’. Our March 2013 issue also had a Nottingham tram on its cover and included Chris Parker’s feature on the construction of the system’s phase two lines which included the Karlsruhe Friendship Bridge over the railway station.

The first Manchester Metrolink line opened in 1992 and was the UK’s first modern tram system. Since then, it has been progressively extended. Our August 2009 feature described how the size of the network was to be doubled with new branches to Rochdale, Drylsden, and Chorlton. By the time of our next report in December 2011, extensions to Manchester Airport and Ashton-under-Lyne had also been authorised. A second city crossing was later constructed as described in our August 2017 issue. At 103km, Metrolink is the largest UK tram network with 99 tram stops.

The West Midlands 20km tramline, between Birmingham and Wolverhampton, opened in 1999. In March and May 2013, we described its

started to run on 6km of main line to Rotherham. Our August 2013 feature explained how this tram-train concept required a new tyre profile with a deeper flange to reduce derailment risk over Network Rail’s switch blades. In January 2016, we described the Class 399 Supertram units to be used for this service. These are of the same type that will be used on the Welsh core valleys for which street running is planned.

In August 2009, we reported that the first tracks of Edinburgh’s tram system, for which construction started in 2007, had been laid in Princess Street. By the time of our August 2011 report this project was suffering delays, overspend, and a contractual dispute. Yet its depot was almost complete and the CAF-built trams were on schedule. Hence, they were delivered a few years before the truncated system opened. Our June 2014 issue reported the opening of this project and its difficulties. Such was the popularity of Edinburgh’s trams that, despite their troubled past, in 2015, the city council voted to extend the tram to Newhaven which was part of the original project. Our November 2022 issue described the work on this extension which is to open on time in Spring.

Blackpool’s electric tram system is one of the world’s oldest and was built between 1885 and 1926 so we have no reports of its extension. However, in October 2011, Terry Whitley was able to report on the project to refurbish the

Board. The work of these bodies and safety improvements such as the FOCUS+ system to reduce driver error was described in our November 2022 feature on the Light Rail Summit. Glasgow’s Subway, with its diminutive 4ftgauge trains, is also a UKTram member. Our November 2021 issue described its history and current modernisation programme which will see the first UK trains with Unattended Train Operation (UTO).

The Docklands Light Railway (DLR) was an essential part of the regeneration of London’s Docklands in the late 1980s. Since then, London City Airport, Canary Wharf and other developments required it to be progressively expanded from its original 13km network to one of 40km with longer trains as we reported in various features at the time. Clive Kessell’s November 2022 report describes how DLR has expanded from a “Trainset to a Metro” and explains the challenges of its signalling and control systems.

Although light rail offers great benefits it is expensive - a particularly costly example being £128 million for a 1.2km extension in Birmingham. An alternative, as described in our May and July 2022 issues is Very Light Rail (VLR) systems that have a low-cost track form which significantly reduces the need for utility diversions. It was recently announced that a VLR demonstration route in Coventry has been authorised.

Railway engineering

In addition to specific projects, Rail Engineer has various types of railway engineering features which we hope are helpful for those from another discipline or new to a particular topic. Many of these articles are safety related. Although there have been significant improvements in railway safety, there is still the potential for serious accidents as shown in the Rail Accident Investigation Branch (RAIB) reports.

RAIB was formed in 2005 and since then its forensic analysis has produced reports to determine an accident’s immediate cause, causal and underlying factors. An April 2015 feature showed how RAIB had investigated two quite different accidents which had common themes. These were the broken axle of a Class 222 unit and a track twist fault exacerbated by an unevenly loaded container.

In May 2021, we summarised the 543-page earthworks and 77-page weather reports that Network Rail had commissioned after the fatal Carmont derailment. We also summarised the final RAIB Carmont report in March 2022 which showed there was much to learn about earthworks and incident management.

In 1998 there were 952 broken rails. In 2021/22 there were 66. This reduction is despite a backdrop of heavier axle loads and a significant increase in traffic. Our October 2016 issue explained that this reduction was due to a campaign of re-railing, grinding strategies, ultrasonic inspections, and the tightening up of dip angles. Bob Hazel’s feature on the impact of hot weather on plain line track in November 2022 addressed another safety issue. Developing rail steel that is resistant to wear and the rolling contact fatigue (RCF) that caused the fatal Hatfield derailment in 2000 was the subject of an April 2015 feature.

Handing back newly laid switches and crossings (S&C) at 125 mph is quite an achievement. Grahame Taylor was there when it was done for the first time. His November 2016 report explained that this needed progressive assurance and months of careful planning.

The need for ballastless track and the comparative trials of three such systems was the subject of an April 2014 feature. In July 2020, we explained why HS2 had concluded that its slab

40 year old Glasgow Subway train with a soonto be introduced Stadlerbuilt Subway train.

(Below left) VLR vehicle with fast charging system at the VLR innovation centre in Dudley.

(Below right) Network Rail’s New Measurement Train has significant reduced track faults.

track would have a lower wholelife cost than ballasted track and also why HS2 had chosen a precast slab track system.

Level crossings present the greatest risk of a train accident. ORR statistics show that over the past 10 years they have resulted in an average of five potentially high-risk train accidents per year, which is 40% of the total. In our March and May 2022 issues, Paul Darlington explained what is being done to make them safer whilst Clive Kessell considered specific technical and communication innovations.

With around 20,000 signalling failures causing delay each year, their prevention is a key performance issue. Our March 2020 feature explained what is being done to reduce these failures by adopting a ‘predict and prevent’ approach rather than ‘find and fix’. Earthing signalling power systems is both a reliability and a safety issue as we explained in July 2019.

The cost of signalling is also a concern for which low-cost modular signalling has been developed. We explain this concept, and how it was installed on the North Wales Coast line, in our June 2018 issue.

For some, signal engineering is considered to be a black art, so we hope that our primer features on this topic such as the ‘Evolution of Signalling Control’ in May 2013 and ‘Train Location Systems’ in March 2020 will help make this less of a mystery. Though often taken for granted, radio is now an essential aspect of railway operations as explained in our July 2015 feature.

With increasing interconnectivity comes a greater risk of cybercrime. Our May 2022 feature explained the role of the British Transport Police’s Cybercrime unit, the nature of such crimes and how the rail industry can protect itself against them.

Clive Kessell’s comprehensive overview of the digital railway in this supplement describes the false hopes and slow

progress of digital signalling since our first 2004 edition and how there is now a credible programme for its delivery. Before then, Railtrack bet its future on WCML ERTMS level 3 moving block signalling. This unprecedented tale of corporate self-delusion is told in our September 2018 feature ‘Digital delusion’. Lessons have no doubt been learnt from this, one of which is the importance of listening to railway engineers.

Looking to the future

Our various railway innovation features, such as the reports from RIA’s excellent unlocking innovation seminars and innovation conferences indicate how railway engineering might progress. It is unlikely there will be any obvious dramatic developments. As the railway is a system, any new technology must interface with current assets so this innovation will be evolutionary.

It is likely that the biggest technical changes will come from big data analysis, machine learning, and cloud technologies which will, for example, provide improved remote condition monitoring. These are features of the fourth industrial revolution as described during RIA’s 2019 innovation conference in our May 2019 issue.

The extent to which the railway can support economic growth and decarbonisation depends on political decisions. It is to be hoped that will eventually be a rolling electrification programme, the required capacity enhancements such as the Castlefield corridor and that HS2’s eastern leg to Leeds and its Golbourne link might be reinstated.

Whatever happens, there will be many interesting tales of engineers keeping the railway running and improving it. We look forward to reporting such stories in our next 100 issues.

Example of a Network Rail level crossing safety campaign.

Pre cast slab track system of type chosen by HS2 installed in Winchburgh tunnel.

A ROLLING STOCK

retrospective 2004 TO 2023

Since its first issue in November 2004, the pages of Rail Engineer have provided a perspective on rolling stock developments. Over the past 20 years, the passenger rolling stock fleet has grown from around 12,000 to over 15,000 vehicles. In the five years to 2004, new rolling stock orders averaged around 600 per year. Many of these trains had to replace Mark 1 stock due to the mandatory requirement for their withdrawal by January 2005 due to their poor crashworthiness.

After 2004, there was a significant reduction in train orders. A 999-day period with no orders ended in November 2012 when the DfT authorised the procurement of 26 x 5-car Class 377 units for the Southern franchise. After this, there was a glut of new trains with around 7,500 vehicles ordered before the end of the decade at a cost of well over £10 billion. This was due to three large Government procurements of the InterCity Express Programme, Thameslink, and Crossrail trains. Also, new franchisees placed many orders as a result of cheap finance and a new focus on quality when evaluating franchise bids.

These large train orders were good news for passengers who got newer, longer trains. However, they also displaced large numbers of

Three generations of trains at Kings Cross.

serviceable rolling stock and the simultaneous introduction of these new trains was not without its problems.

In 2004, there were 808 mainline locomotives of which 116 were electric locomotives. There are now 732 locomotives including 68 electric locomotives. This decrease is largely due to significant reduction of the loco-hauled passenger services.

2004 to 2010

Loco-hauled passenger services on the West Coast Main Line ceased with the introduction of the full Class 390 Pendolino services which, for example, saw a 37% passenger increase between London and Manchester. In July 2005 we reported on an £8 million advertising campaign for this service including the technical challenge of producing its ‘The Return of the Train’ TV commercial incorporating clips from various classic films.

Although the 125mph Pendolinos speeded up services, at 140mph the Southeastern Class 395 units are the UK’s fastest domestic trains. One of the few train orders at this time was for 29 six-car Class 395 Hitachi units for the HS1 domestic service. In December 2007, Terry Whitley reported on their extensive testing programme. These trains were built in Hitachi’s Japanese Kasado plant and arrived in the UK in August 2007. Their initial tests had to be done within Signal Protected Zones on both Network Rail’s DC network and HS1. Terry gave a detailed description of these trains and their new depot at Ashford in August 2008.

At the time, perhaps few realised that these Class 395 units were the first of what is now over 1,800 Hitachi-built rail vehicles operating in the UK. The next step in this process was the news, as reported in our November 2006 edition, of Hitachi’s testing of electro-diesel technology on a special proving rig in Japan. This followed the DfT’s 2005 launch of the Intercity Express Programme (IEP) to replace the ageing InterCity 125 train fleet on Western and East Coast Main Lines, for which an invitation to tender was issued in November 2007. The value of this contract was £4.5 billion for trains consisting of 60 electric and 536 bi-mode carriages including their maintenance for 27.5 years. An option for a

further 270 electric vehicles at a cost of £1.2 billion was taken up in 2013.

The contract for 1140 carriages of Thameslink trains was another large Government procurement exercise for which an invitation to tender was issued in November 2008. Siemens was announced as the preferred bidder in June 2011 and the contract was let in June 2013 for £1.8 billion. This included maintenance for 20 years.

In August 2009, we described how, for its Thameslink bid, Siemens had invested £50 million to develop its Desiro platform into the Desiro City Class 700. Much of this focused on weight reduction, with two tonnes saved on each bogie by reducing its wheelbase and the use of inside frames. The Class 700 has no internal doors to provide a wider corridor connection and a spacious feel. However, this requires intelligent air conditioning to vent smoke for an affected car and pressurise adjacent cars.

Noughties decarbonisation

Various features in our early magazines described environmental improvements and made the case for electrification, such as ‘Further electrification missed opportunities’ in the September 2006 edition. However, there was little mention of carbon. As early as July 2005 there was a ‘Hydrogen Power’ news feature which described how, in the US, designs were being developed for a hydrogen-powered light rail system in Detroit. In December 2007, Grahame Taylor’s ‘Fuel Wheeze’ feature described how a First Transpennine Express and Siemens initiative had reduced the fuel consumption of their Class 185 DMUs by 7% to save 1.8 million litres of fuel each year.

An energy saving measure for DC traction was covered in August 2008. This was enabling regenerative braking on the south of London third rail network, starting with Electrostar Classes 375, 376 and 377 units. This followed a cross-industry initiative involving Network Rail, Bombardier, Southern and Southeastern Trains.

(Left) Graphic of new Thameslink train crossing Blackfriars bridge without a station on it.

(Above) Class 700 motor bogie with inboard bearing.

(Above) Class 700 trailer bogie with only a 2.1 metre wheelbase to give it a low weight.

Rail Engineer’s first feature to mention the C word was a July 2009 report from an IMechE seminar: ‘Meeting the carbon challenge’. This considered the “soon-to-decline availability of oil” and addressed embedded carbon in train construction and on-train energy storage using flywheels, indicating the low energy density of batteries at that time.

9-car Class 345 Aventra units. The design of these units was described in the December 2015 issue whilst the March 2011 issue described how the Aventra platform had been developed to provide a more reliable and lighter train thanks to the FLEXX Eco inside-frame bogie.

Our April 2017 feature “New trains in their thousands” explained how this glut of trains was due to franchise quality considerations and cheap finance for orders totalling well over £10 billion. Many of these new trains were built in Britain, with over half the orders placed with Bombardier and Hitachi.

vehicles. Many of these were EMUs that were surplus due to cancelled electrification schemes.

As described in our May 2014 issue, the LTRSS was a useful publication that forecasted future passenger rolling stock numbers and highlighted the issues that need to be addressed to get the best use of the UK fleet. It was produced by a Rolling Stock Strategy Steering Group and published by the Rail Delivery Group. Unfortunately, its sixth edition, published in 2018, was its last.

Emitting less and using less of everything was the remit given to MTU for their engines to replace the Paxman Valenta as part of the life-extension of the then 30-year-old HST fleet. This was described in the August 2008 issue which also carried a report explaining the potential of the Long Marston facility which a property developer had recently purchased from the Ministry of Defence. Amongst the vehicles stored there were withdrawn Porterbrook-owned Class 87 electric locomotives which were receiving ‘E’ Exams before being exported to Bulgaria.

New train glut

The 2010s saw orders for 8,131 passenger rail vehicles, over twice that of the previous decade. Vehicles ordered by manufacturer were: Alstom –750; Bombardier – 2,484; CAF – 751; Hitachi – 1,844, Siemens – 1,440; Stadler – 831 and Vivarail – 31. In 2021 Bombardier Transportation was acquired by Alstom.

A third of these orders were the three big Government IEP, Thameslink, and Crossrail procurements. Bombardier won the Crossrail order with 70 x

The large number of orders attracted Stadler and CAF as new entrants to the UK mainline train market with CAF building a train manufacturing plant in Newport South Wales. Ordering so many trains had its downsides. The 2017 Long Term Rolling Stock Strategy (LTRSS) predicted that the then UK fleet would increase to between 14,986 and 15,212 rail vehicles by 2019. It also considered that, when the current train orders are delivered, there will be a surplus of around 3,000 serviceable

These train orders resulted in mass extinction events as the new franchise holders as Greater Anglia replaced its entire fleet and South Western replaced its suburban fleet with a new fleet. In both cases this provided operational consistency and trains that were expected to be more economic to operate. However, it meant that these franchises had no further use for some quite new trains. For example, there is currently no use for 30 surplus ex-Greater Anglia Class 379 units that are just 12 years old.

There were significant delays with the near simultaneous introduction of these new train fleets which Malcolm Dobell considered in the December 2019 issue. Issues included the acceptance process, the challenges of new depots and providing sufficient stabling, training train crew and maintenance staff, and the benefits and challenges of modern software-driven trains including defining functionality and validation. Trains also have to demonstrate that they are compatible with the infrastructure on which they run. In this respect, one issue is that Network Rail is not incentivised to fix out-of-gauge infrastructure. The publication “New Trains - A Good Practice Guide” (available on the RDG website) was commended.

IEP and Thameslink

Rail Engineer has published various features covering the IEP programme. In December 2014, Rail Engineer magazine reported on its visit to Japan to see the

first train unveiled at Hitachi’s Kasado plant where the first 13 trains were to be built to verify design and assembly of each train. Thereafter, all further trains were built at Hitachi’s Newton Aycliffe plant which opened in September 2015. Bogies, traction systems, and the ETCS signalling system were produced in Japan, as were the 26-metrelong aluminium bodyshells which were produced using friction stir welding.

In January 2017 we reported on the roll-out of the first IEP train built at Newton Aycliffe. At the time this plant was producing three vehicles a week with an eventual target of five per week. Our July 2017 edition reported how Class 802 bi-mode units were being produced at Hitachi’s Pistoia’s plant in Italy. This was an additional order for GWR for which there was no production capacity at Newton Aycliffe.

The introduction of such bi-mode traction was a controversial topic, especially as this had been used as an

excuse to cancel electrification schemes. Such trains were felt to be “both unpowered diesels and overweight electrics”.

Malcolm Dobell considered this in his November 2017 feature “Bi-mode trains: unlocking opportunity?”. He concluded that these trains’ self-powered performance is inferior to their electric performance and can also be inferior to the diesel trains they replace. However, they do provide the customer benefit of through journeys beyond the electrified network that would otherwise require a change of trains.

LNER uses the name “Azuma” for its new fleet of IEP units which means ‘east’ in Japanese. Our August 2019 feature reported how the first public Azuma service from Edinburgh averaged 105mph on a nonstop run between Newcastle and London, though this was nearly stopped at Grantham which provided an opportunity to demonstrate the Azuma’s impressive acceleration under electric power. It only took two minutes and five seconds to accelerate from 29mph to 100mph up the 1 in 200 gradient south of Grantham.

Rail Engineer was on the inaugural Azuma service from Inverness on 10 December 2019 and, in our January 2020 issue, reported how, in diesel mode, its balancing speed up to Slochd was 56mph. Between Inverness and Perth it was two minutes slower than the HST trains it replaced, though on the journey to London this was recouped by the Azuma’s better performance in electric mode.

IEP electric and diesel power to weight ratio comparisons.

First IEP roll-out at Newton Aycliffe.

More importantly, between Inverness and London, the Azuma’s carbon emissions were around a third of the HSTs they replace.

Introducing new trains requires new and altered depots. For example, the Azuma fleet required a new depot at Doncaster, as Stuart Marsh reported in July 2019. Thameslink also required new depots for its Siemens Class 700 trains. Our May 2015 edition featured a detailed description of these new trains and their new depots at Hornsey and Three Bridges. In this issue, Colin Carr also explained how additional stabling was being provided for these new 115 trains which consist of 1,140 carriages that would be 23km long if laid end-to-end.

Other new trains

As well as building Class 80x trains, Hitachi was also building ScotRail’s Class 385 EMUs which were originally planned to be in service in December 2017. Our November 2017 feature described Hitachi’s Newton Aycliffe plant and explained how the Class 385 units were being built there. In April 2018 we described a ride on one of these units during one of its mileage accumulation runs when we were advised that, after demonstrating compliance with 2,000 clauses in the relevant standard, type approval

was imminent. Alas this was not to be as, a few days after this run, ASLEF advised its members that the units were not safe to drive at night due to the curved windscreen which caused the driver to see duplicate signals. This, and some software issues, delayed the introduction of these trains until July 2018.

A trip to Spain to see how CAF was building 140 Class 195 DMUs and 141 Class 331 EMUs for Northern Rail at its Zaragoza plant was reported in the April 2018 edition. CAF had been selected for this £490 million order which was its first for a UK train and one of the largest it had ever received. It was reported that CAF won this order because they were able to build both diesel and electric multiple units on their Civity platform. When this order was received in 2016, CAF announced its intention to build a rolling stock plant in Newport South Wales which was completed in September 2018 and then began manufacturing Class 195 units. Since then, this plant has also manufactured Class 196 and 197 DMUs as Malcolm Dobell described in his July 2022 feature.

CAF also supplied Mark 5A coaches for Caledonian Sleeper and Transpennine Express as we describe in our July 2021 feature. These are amongst the small number of loco-hauled passenger trains.

(Above right) Class 385 under construction at Newton Aycliffe.

Diesel powered Azuma crossing Culloden viaduct on 1 in 60 climb to Slochd summit.

Stadler is another manufacturer new to the UK train market. It won an order to replace Merseyrail’s Class 507 and 508 EMUs which were introduced in 1978 and are the oldest trains in regular UK Main line passenger service. Its offering is the bespoke articulated 4-car Class 777 EMU. In his May 2020 feature, Paul Darlington describes both these units and the infrastructure work to accommodate them. This included enhanced power supplies, platform alterations, an optical fibre and ethernet network.

The company won two more significant orders for trains with unconventional configurations. For Greater Anglia, its three and four car FLIRT Class 755 bi-mode units (in total 138 coaches) have an eight-metre power car in the centre of the train with a through corridor for passengers. In addition, 20 x 12-car Class 745 EMUs have coach pairs with articulated bogies. The issues associated with such long trains were addressed by our December 2019 feature on introducing new trains.

Greater Anglia also ordered 89 five-car and 22 ten-car Bombardier Aventra Class 720 EMUs.

In his January 2021 feature, Malcolm Dobell describes the challenges of introducing these units. The original order for 22 10-car trains was later amended to 44 five-car units due to inflexibility of long fixed formation units.

For Transport for Wales (TfW), Stadler have provided 11 x 4-car Class 231 FLIRT DMUs, 7 x 3-car and 17 x 4-car Class 756 FLIRT tri-mode units powered either by 25kV OLE, diesel or batteries and 36 x 3-car Class 398 Citylink tram trains. This is part of a transformation of the TfW’s rail services as described in our July 2022 feature.

Locomotives

Whilst there are a small number of timetabled loco-hauled passenger trains as well as charter trains, the UK locomotive fleet is primarily for freight haulage of which most is hauled by 390 x Class 66 freight locomotives. In contrast to passenger fleet, there have been relatively few changes to the locomotive fleet since 2004. This includes a slight reduction, essentially due to the reduction in passenger train haulage. This particularly affected the number of electric locomotives of which there are now 68 compared with 116 in 2004. The electric locomotives are now only 9% of the total fleet.

Mark 5A driving trailer coach.

(Below left) Class 398 tram train on show at Innotrans.

(Below right) Class 231 FLIRT DMU power car.

The have been some interesting additions to the fleet. In May 2011 we described Freightliner’s procurement of the Class 70 locomotive which, at 2.75MW is 12% more powerful than the Class 66. This feature showed how the UK’s limited gauge and axle weight constraints were overcome to produce the UK’s most powerful locomotive. Yet this shows the limitations of diesel power as the Class 70 has only 55% of the power of a Class 92 electric locomotive.

In December 2013 we reported how Stadler was producing 34 x mixed traffic diesel Class 68 and 10 x bimode class 88 locomotives for Direct Rail Services. The 2.75MW Class 68 locomotives entered service in 2014 and have a maximum speed of 160 km/h enabling them to be used on passenger trains including hauling Mark 5A coaches on Transpennine Express services and Mark 3 coaches on Chiltern Railways. The Class 88 was a development of the Class 68 and is the first UK dual-mode locomotive powered from 25kV OLE. Its maximum power in electric mode is 4MW and 0.7MW in diesel mode.

In March 2021 we reported how the Class 88 was being developed further to become the Class 93 for Rail Operations (UK) of which 10 are due to be delivered in 2023. The Class 93 has the same 900kW diesel engine as the Class 88 but is also fitted with a 400kW Lithium Titanate Oxide battery to provide extra

oomph whilst accelerating a freight train for short periods. During this time it will have the same performance as a classic 1.3MW Class 37 locomotive.

“56+66 equals 69” was the intriguing title of Malcolm Dobell’s July 2021 feature on how GB Railfreight managed to get a locomotive with performance of the no-longer produced Class 66. This described how it was possible to fit the 12-cylinder two-stroke diesel engine, as used in a Class 66, into a modified surplus class 56 locomotive.

Train technology

As well as features on specific classes of vehicles, we also covered more general aspects of rolling stock engineering, including those relating to accidents.

It is rare for a rolling stock failure to cause a derailment. Yet this was the cause of the serious derailment of an oiltanker train at Llangennech, as reported in our January 2022 edition. This showed deficient wagon maintenance to be the cause and highlighted the importance of understanding basic engineering such as the nature of bolted joints and the importance of torque wrenches.

The crashworthiness of passenger vehicles in serious derailments over the last 40 years was considered in our July 2021 issue in response to ill-formed comments following the fatal Carmont derailment. This considered respective performance of Mark1 and Mark 2/3 coaches in these accidents and the nature of modern crashworthiness standards, to show that old Mark 3 coaches are not unsafe and have saved many lives in the past. This feature also showed how effective train protection has significantly reduced the number of accidents.

Although cracks on trains are an expensive cause for concern, this is a problem that can be safely managed. This was the conclusion of a two-part feature in the March and May 2022 issues which explained

Class 93 locomotive graphic.

Tractive effort curves comparing Class 93 electric and battery performance with other diesel and electric locomotives.

how cracks are caused. It also included a case study of the cracking on Class 80X units that may well cost more than £100 million to fix.

In complete contrast, in May 2015, Simon Tew’s “What is TCMS?” feature explained how a Train Control & Management System (TCMS) is a train-borne distributed control system. This comprises computer devices and software, humanmachine interfaces, digital and analogue input/outputs capability and data networks that connect everything together. TCMS has many benefits which includes the reduction of train cabling. However, the complexity of software that affects everything on the train can be problematic, particularly during the introduction of new trains.

With the sensors and TCMS data collection and transmission fitted as standard on new trains, Remote Condition Monitoring (RCM) is offering significant reliability benefits. Train RCM was the focus of our January 2020 feature which also considered its application to older trains as well as the pros and cons of on-board and lineside monitoring.

Other electronics not seen on trains in 2004 were GSM-R radios and cab signalling (ETCS). GSM-R became fully operational in 2015 and was first mentioned in Rail Engineer in October 2008. The practicalities of fitting GSM-R cab radios were described in our March 2014 feature. All new trains are now fitted with ETCS or have passive provision for its fitment. A contract to fit ETCS to freight locomotives was signed in 2018. Currently ETCS is only operational on the Thameslink central core, Paddington to Heathrow and Cambrian lines.

Steel wheels on steel rails may offer the low rolling resistance

that makes railways highly energy efficient. Their Achilles heel is the tiny contact patch which can suffer from alarmingly low adhesion. In a series of four articles up to May 2020, Malcolm Dobell considered various trials to reduce this risk. The result was validation of the effectiveness of Double Variable Rate Sanders (DVRS).

Rail Decarbonisation

Following the then Rail Minister Jo Johnson’s call in February 2018 for diesel trains to be phased out, there was an emphasis on innovations for rail decarbonisation. In December 2018 we reported on an RSSB conference which offered prizes for innovations for “intelligent power networks to decarbonise rail”. However, such prizes were only offered for initiatives that decarbonised self-powered traction and excluded initiatives that helped improve railway electrification.

Whilst there is certainly a role for decarbonised self-powered traction on secondary routes, there is a danger that excessive focus on such solutions might detract from rail electrification which is the only decarbonisation solution for most of the network.

As we reported in November 2021, this was the case at COP26 in Glasgow when battery and hydrogen trains were lauded as trains for the future whilst they were surrounded by more efficient and powerful electric

Significant train accidents since 1980 – those shaded would have been prevented by effective Automatic Train Protection.

DVRS fitted on trial unit.

trains at Glasgow Central. However, posters at Scottish stations did proclaim that each of ScotRail’s electric train is a “Net Zero Hero.” For many railway engineers, hydrogen trains are an unnecessary distraction. Yet this view does not take account of the need to develop the hydrogen economy that will be required to eliminate the use of fossil fuels. This was the focus of our September 2022 feature which explained how Scotland’s hydrogen train was a pilot scheme to assess how such trains could be part of a wider hydrogen economy.

Trains of the future

With HS2 becoming operational around 2030, its trains will be in service well into the 2050s and so will need to be adaptable for both future needs and emerging technologies. The procurement of these trains as specified in a 338-page Train Technical Specification (TTS) and the pedigree of those bidding for this contract was considered in a two-part feature in March and April 2019.

The TTS specified that HS2 trains will be made up of one or two coupled 200-metre-long units, each with up to 550 seats, that can accelerate from stationary to 360km/h, cover 40 kilometres in 535 seconds, and offer a journey time from London to Birmingham of 45½ minutes. It also specifies a mean distance between service affecting failures of at least 300,000km on the HS2 network and 150,000 on the conventional rail network.

Our feature considered the high-speed trains that have been built by Hitachi, Bombardier, Alstom, Siemens, CAF, and Talgo which showed how the UK is far behind the rest of the world in respect of high-speed rail.

In December 2021, it was announced that the £2 billion contract to build 54 x HS2 trains has been let to a joint venture of Hitachi and Alstom which acquired Bombardier Transportation in January 2021. Vehicle body assembly and initial fit-out, will

(Above left) Hydroflex hydrogen train in Glasgow Central during COP26.

(Above right) Vivarail Class 230 Battery unit on a demonstration run in Glasgow during COP26.

Class 314 unit being converted into Scotland’s Hydrogen train inset shows hydrogen tanks.

be done at Hitachi’s Newton Aycliffe plant with fit-out and testing done by Alstom at Crewe and Derby. The first train is expected to be completed around 2027.

The next 100 issues?

HS2’s trains will certainly feature in the next 100 issues, though other rolling stock developments that might be seen before the 300th edition of the magazine are less certain.

The future passenger fleet will constitute selfpowered, bi-mode, and electric traction, although its future mix is difficult to predict due to the uncertainty of future electrification. In Scotland there is a clear strategy of interim discontinuous electrification to enable the ageing diesel fleet to be replaced by battery electric units.

South of the border there are no plans for the replacement of old British Rail-built diesel units. The commitment to replace diesel-only trains by 2040 poses particular issues for rolling stock owners as any diesel trains ordered now will have barely more than 10 years life when they are delivered. This might result in trains with a flexible power source, such as the Stadler FLIRT units.

Yet the reality is that, for many routes, diesel rail traction is likely to be the only practical option without electrification. It is possible the hydrogen

train fleets might be operational by 2040, though unless supported by a wider hydrogen economy, their costs may be prohibitive. Hence, without widespread electrification, the commitment to remove diesel-only trains by 2040 may be quietly dropped.

There are also many ageing EMUs that will soon need to be replaced, such as Southern’s networkers. It will be interesting to see what the next generation of EMUs will offer. For freight, it is to be hoped that there will at least be some infill electrification that could significantly increase electric freight haulage. Yet as electrics constitute only 9% of the locomotive fleet, this would need rail freight companies to justify the cost of additional electric locomotives. In this respect, it is good to see that GB Railfreight has ordered 30 Class 99 bi-mode Co-Co locomotives that are due to enter service in 2025.

Another uncertainty is the ETCS programme and associated need to replace the 2G GMS-R with the 5G FRMCS (Future Railway Mobile Communications System). Whatever the future holds, Rail Engineer will report it!

Italian Frecciarossa ETR1000 built by a Bombardier/Hitachi JV with a design speed of 360 km/h.

Artists impression of an HS2 train

The Digital Railway

A DECADE ON

Around 10 years ago, the term Digital Railway came into being. Since then, many articles written in Rail Engineer and elsewhere have covered the topic. But what does it mean and is there any consensus of its objectives and benefits? Getting a consistent definition has proved elusive so in this 200th edition, it is appropriate to look back and see what has been achieved and what has not.

Back to basics

The word digital is bandied about by many organisations and individuals, yet most haven’t a clue as to what it means. In earlier years, systems were analogue which, in broad terms, means that what’s put in at the sending end is essentially the same as what comes at the receiving end. En route, the signal (or information) is subject to distortion and interference, so techniques were successfully used to keep these factors to a minimum. Cables would be screened, often with co-axial tubes, filters removed frequencies outside of the required band, amplifiers increased the transmission level along the way and radio signal levels would be at a transmitted strength high enough for the receivers to produce the necessary quality intelligence. Even early computers worked with analogue inputs and outputs. All of this demanded expensive high-quality equipment with an upper practical limit on the amount of information that could be passed. Could there be a better way?

So emerged the digital concept. If the analogue signal could be encoded at the transmission point into a series of 0s and 1s, then transmitted to line with the receiver being able to recognise these, the original signal could be recreated without any distortion. The first digital computers emerged in the late 1950s followed by digital communication links, which were vital if computers were to transmit useful data.

Known initially as pulse code modulation (PCM), British Rail had such a system from Euston to Bletchley during the late 1960s. The process first sampled the analogue speech signal at a suitable bit rate and then converted each sample into an 8-bit code. Providing the far end can read this code, no matter how distorted, then the original speech can be reproduced. Low quality

CLIVE

cable pairs could be used with periodic regenerators to look at the incoming 0s and 1s and then regenerate them for onward transmission. It proved a great success from which all modern transmission systems with huge bit rates are part of our daily lives. Digital techniques extend way beyond transmission of information but the same basic principles apply.

The Digital Railway Network Rail’s ‘Digital Railway’ emerged in 2014 with Jerry England as the leader of a project group. An interview with Martin Arter, the programme development director, in 2015, explained the concept. At that time, the many hundreds of computer systems used by the railway covered timetabling, train planning, staff rostering, paybill, accountancy, freight train management (TOPS), and even some elements of signalling with the introduction of computer based interlockings. Many of these originated from the British Rail Information Systems and Technology Group based in Derby, led by the late Otto Benz. These systems tended to be standalone with little integration and limited potential to expand into other applications. An exception was TOPS where its ability to track trains was used for real time train reporting in the system known as TRUST.

Martin spelt out three prime objectives for the digital railway:

» Enabling provision of more trains thus increasing capacity

» Providing better connections between routes and at stations

» Greater convenience for the customer such as ticketing and reservation options, thus moving beyond the magnetic strip.

The digital railway was seen not in terms of technology or engineering but as an instrument for business change. The vision was correct, but it was naïve to not properly recognise the required technological

challenges. With only a small team, it was realised that a much more pragmatic approach would be needed if the vision was to be fulfilled.

Enter David Waboso, a seasoned railwayman with a track record of introducing new systems and technology into London Underground to achieve greater line capacity, and who had recently become Network Rail’s capital programmes director. He had the right background to take on the digital railway project. During an interview in late 2016, it became clear that whilst David subscribed to the vision of the team, the priorities needed to be re-assessed. The drive for greater capacity from the existing infrastructure and the need for improved operational performance meant concentrating on ERTMS/ETCS, Traffic Management Systems (TMS) and Driver Advisory Systems (DAS). From these would come intelligent trains, remote condition monitoring, energy supply resilience and more effective recovery from failures.

Business applications like ticketing, passenger information, train loading data and connections to the internet and social media would develop by themselves using industry initiatives applicable to the wider

travel audience. These goals would need the full co-operation of the entire industry: Network Rail, TOCs, and the supply chain. Almost by definition, the digital railway projects involved software, a troublesome element in the past, but would rely on properly specifying the functional and operational requirements.

Although progress was made, David decided to retire in early 2019 and reflected in an interview that progress with introducing ETCS was painfully slow, that TMS was proving difficult to implement, whilst DAS was being introduced

Clive Kessell with David Waboso.

Key components of the Digital Railway Programme.

gradually by train companies. When asked if the digital railway should remain as a separate entity, he concluded that a central advisory team was needed but that the implementation should be devolved to the routes and the TOCs. Integration into mainstream business must eventually happen.

A conference organised by the Railway Industry Association in June 2020 looked at Network Rail’s intention to create a digital railway Technical Authority with six ‘pillars’ making up the group’s focus. These were:

» Network strategy and operations

» Passenger interests

» Freight interests

» Network Rail Telecoms (NRT)

» Operations project delivery

» Signalling innovations including testing and commissioning

The digital railway group would need expanding from 180 people to 1500. Just where these people would come

from and how they would be trained was a critical question, but perhaps academia might offer some of the expertise? The supply chain and especially the role of SMEs needed to be geared up into an integrated design and development organisation. Progress with the ECML (East Coast Main Line) ETCS project was noted with many challenges emerging. This summary shows that the digital railway remained something of an enigma as to what it would contain and how it would be implemented. So much for the digital railway’s ‘public face’ - what has actually happened with the systems being promoted, and have they made the expected progress? Subsequent interviews present an interesting analysis.

Transmission of digital information

Although not officially part of the digital rail programme, but vital to its success, has been the creation of a digital backbone based upon a national fibre

cable network instigated initially by BR and subsequently by NR’s telecom subsidiary Network Rail Telecoms (NRT). Known as the Fixed Telecom Network (FTN), work to create this began in the early 1990s with the provision of a Synchronous Digital Hierarchy (SDH) network borne upon the fibre cables. The main BR centres were connected, with a huge increase in capacity (155.52Mbits) compared to the analogue networks being replaced. Network Rail expanded this project by creating a national team to provide fibre cable to even the most remote parts of the country and it has proved to be a worthwhile investment.

A September 2009 article gave information on Internet Protocol (IP) networking with standards for connecting computers to the internet. This involves every data device having its own IP address from which calls or messages are sent to routers that connect to other routers across the country, and indeed the world. Railway applications were soon recognised embracing speech (VoIP), data (embracing local LANs and WANs), video (for CCTV networking), and radio such as GSM-R.

Local projects within NR were planned but an article in October 2010 described the work done in Scotland to introduce a regional IP network, structured upon spare fibres in the cables to provide a capacity of 1Gbit/sec with a future capability to expand up to 10Gbit/sec. The network had a core layer based on two main rings emanating from Greenhill and Carstairs linking to the main Scottish centres, then two access layer rings drilling down to the main stations and depots around the region and finally local connections on copper cable to station or office devices.

As such, a national IP network was created under the direction of NRT, becoming known as the FTNx. NR recognised the importance of this investment, which provided the opportunity

FTNx Coverage.

for a multitude of applications, many for business and operational uses but including the safetyrelated distribution of signalling information and electrification control. With its high resilience coming from a ring structure and round the clock network management, signal engineers and electrification engineers accepted that it was no longer economic or practical to provide their own data distribution infrastructure. Using an all-purpose bearer made perfect sense without compromising the end device safety classification. So far, so good, but what has been the progress with other new digital applications forming part of the Digital Railway?

ERTMS and ETCS

In Europe and beyond, the need for a standardised signalling control system was apparent if trains were to cross borders seamlessly. So evolved the European Rail Traffic Management System (ERTMS) and its signalling component, European Train Control System (ETCS). The systems would give capacity enhancement and eventually allow the concept of moving block and the reduction of lineside signalling infrastructure. The ongoing progress has been varied, with the Swiss leading the way with a trial operation between Berne and Olten in the early years of this century. Various problems emerged with the software, and it was not until 2016 that a finalised version was signed off.

The UK decided to adopt ERTMS which was first described by Rail Engineer in an April 2005 feature. A two-part article in November and December 2007 explained how ERTMS had three component parts: ETCS, GSM-R, and ETML. A trial system on the Cambrian line was planned but also mentioned were other routes where resignalling was due and where ETCS would be applicable: Peterborough Ely Norwich, Oxford Evesham, Chester Holyhead, and Wolverhampton

Chester. None of these have been progressed but some have since been equipped with modular signalling technology.

The Cambrian trial proceeded, made easier by it being a route previously equipped with RETB and no lineside signals, controlled from a centre at Machynlleth. An article in December 2010 recorded the official opening from Pwllheli to Harlech using the newly installed GSM-R radio network to carry the data signals. A further article in May 2011 recounted an IRSE technical visit once the line was fully equipped back to Shrewsbury. Some of the advantages that ETCS would bring were noted, one being the giving of movement authorities to intermediate markers between passing loops thus potentially increasing capacity. However, operational flexibility was restricted by only allowing one train into a passing loop and proved stationary, before a second train could be accepted. Also noted was the high cost of retrofitting the captive fleet of Class 158 DMUs. The project gave valuable experience as to how ETCS would benefit busier lines.

An article in January 2012 looked at the advancement of ETCS across Europe. Whilst it could be easily deployed on new high-speed lines with dedicated train fleets, applying it to existing mixed traffic routes was beset with difficulties unless lineside signals were retained, thus diminishing the business case. Removing lineside signals requires all trains using the route to be equipped with ETCS, which is a major logistical challenge. The limited capability of the GSM-R radio to carry the growing amount of data was also flagged up as something that needed addressing.

Realism

The UK needed to fully test the technology and prove the benefits operationally. An article in July 2014 followed a visit to a test site near Hertford using an EMU fitted with ETCS equipment. In addition, a control centre test facility was built at Hitchin and sectioned off so that different manufacturers could install their particular system

Train heading towards Harlech past block marker (yellow arrow on blue background) Insert shows Eurobalise in the fourfoot CREADIT Four by Three]

and prove interoperability with the test train. The site was also used for testing Automatic Train Operation (ATO) as a part of the ETCS package which was subsequently successfully introduced on the Thameslink central core. This site has proved immensely useful but predictions for main line ETCS provision, GW to Bristol by 2018, ECML to Doncaster by 2020, Midland Main Line by 2022, were wildly optimistic.

More realism emerged in our March 2018 edition as to the ECML programme. The route’s operational challenges were outlined with a three-stage programme beginning in 2020, starting at the London end. Special arrangements would be needed at Peterborough to cater for non-fitted trains crossing the city from east to west. ETCS would need training of drivers and a visit to the Kings Cross simulator was described in the November 2016 edition, well before the first rollout programme was released. Designed around the then Class 91 and HST fleets, the system would be adapted for the Azuma trains on order.

A subsequent interview with Toufic Machnouk, the ECML programme manager, was reported in the March/April 2021 edition. By this time, account was taken of new train fleets, the remodelling of Kings Cross station, and the construction of the Werrington dive under. The plan was then estimated to cost £1.8 billion and would take until 2029 for it to reach Stoke Tunnel, just short of Grantham. Since then, the Northern

City line from Finsbury Park to Moorgate has been equipped and is under testing but is not expected to be fully operational until 2024.

Clearly, introducing ETCS was going to be a lot more difficult than originally envisaged, not just in the UK but across Europe as well. A September 2015 article revealed that only Denmark, Norway, Switzerland, Belgium, and Austria were intent on nationwide fitment, with Denmark nearly achieving this. Even here, interoperability problems emerged between the two supplier organisations.

The challenge of having ETCS Level 3, whereby virtually all lineside equipment can be removed including track circuits and axle counters plus allowing the adoption of moving block, is ongoing. A joint UK-Netherlands initiative to design a hybrid L3 system was described in the May 2017 edition, whereby one fitted train followed by another fitted train would allow the second train to advance closer to the first using moving block principles. Any unfitted train would have to proceed on the fixed block distances. A trial was intended but no report has emerged that this has happened in the UK or in Europe.

In the UK, only the following routes feature ETCS:

» The Cambrian from Shrewsbury to Aberystwyth and Machynlleth in 2010/11.

» The Thameslink central core from London Bridge to St Pancras with ATO.

» Great Western from Paddington to Heathrow primarily for Elizabeth Line trains, so retaining lineside signals except for the Heathrow branch.

» Northern City Line from Finsbury Park to Moorgate but only in test mode.

» ECML from Kings Cross to Stoke tunnel as a project but not due for full commissioning until 2029.

All new build trains since 2012 have had to be ready for ETCS fitment but, in reality, many of these trains will be life expired before the infrastructure is commissioned. Not the success story that was predicted two decades ago.

(Right) ETCS test train and ETCS simulator.

Traffic Management Systems (TMS)

The introduction of ETCS, whilst enabling increased capacity, would not be the total solution unless the movement of trains over a large area could be determined. This needs TMS. Network Rail initiated a ‘beauty parade’ of three suppliers who produced proprietary TMS systems with an article in May 2014 explaining this. The three systems were:

» Hitachi Tranista which was in use of the Japanese Shinkansen lines and suburban routes around Tokyo.

» Thales Aramis and linked to the Siemens WestCad platform.

» Alstom Iconis already deployed in the Bologna region of Italy and elsewhere.

All three were asked to model their system around the Leeds area with its multitude of routes and complex station

area. TMS would link to other data systems such as train describers, timetable data, train crew scheduling, rolling stock deployment and possession management, and use its intelligence to establish optimum train regulation patterns. Outputs would be given to signallers for the preferred routing of trains, to DAS (see later) giving speed advice to drivers, to Darwin for passenger information displays and on to social media, and to make easy provision for

timetabling additional trains into the network. The result was a contract let to Thales to provide TMS systems at Cardiff and Romford signalling centres. Both struggled to interface with other data systems but were eventually commissioned and used for timetable deconfliction. The system is capable of automatically setting optimised routes to replace earlier Automatic Route Setting (ARS) systems that relied only on timetable data.

Platform Docker and Train Graph output from Resonate’s Luminate TMS.

A fourth player entered the field in 2018, this being Resonate (ex Delta Rail and a spin off from the former BR Research dept) with its Luminate system that was introduced on the LondonBristol route of the GW main line. With a pedigree of train control and communications system development, this company understood how TMS would fit into existing railway infrastructure and systems. Luminate is deemed a success and has since been deployed on the Anglia route.

The Thameslink route, with its planned 24 trains per hour, was considered to need TMS to regulate trains at the central core entry points of Blackfriars and St Pancras. To be effective, it needed to focus on the converging routes for at least a 20-minute look back of train running data. The Hitachi Tranista system was selected and has been commissioned. The effectiveness of the decisionmaking capability remains to be declared.

A joint IMechE and IRSE conference in 2018 with an article in the August edition, reminded people that European Traffic Management Level (ETML), the third component of ERTMS, had been overtaken by the development of proprietary systems. Not having TMS as a standard product was becoming a real problem. Whilst TMS remains viewed as a cornerstone for improved rail operations, its full value and how it is implemented nationwide remains a challenge.

Driver Advisory Systems (DAS)

Coupled to both ETCS and TMS is the need to advise drivers of the optimum speed that the train should be driven to avoid deviating from the operational timetable. A Rail Engineer article in June 2013 followed a demonstration of DAS at Didcot Railway Operations Centre. DAS was being deployed by First Great Western (FGW) as onboard standalone devices, programmed with the train

characteristics (braking, maximum speed, etc.), the timetable, and the features of the route ahead (gradients, speed restrictions, junction information, stopping points). By connecting to a GPS receiver and a datalink via the GSM public mobile radio, the position of the train and its speed can be constantly monitored. Algorithms then calculate the correct speed for the train to be on time at the next location. The trains need an onboard processor and a cab-mounted touch screen upon which the advisory speed would be shown. The intention is to avoid junction conflicts and save energy by minimising the need for rapid acceleration and heavy braking. Several TOCs and FOCs have subsequently equipped their rolling stock with DAS equipment, mainly in standalone mode (S-DAS). It must be emphasised that the advice given does not override the reading of lineside signals and, as such, is not safety related.

S-DAS has limitations as it does not take account of other train movements that could impact on the timetabled path of another train. To overcome this, a connected system known as C-DAS is needed. Several companies claim to have such systems by linkage into active timetable databases and train describers which improves the information quality. However, to obtain accurate train running information, a connection to TMS is required. As indicated, the deployment of TMS has its own problems.

One challenge originating from the first applications was the cost and disruption in fitting

DAS units into cabs. It cost FGW a sizable amount to equip its main line fleet, so it was an act of faith. To avoid this cost, the idea emerged that DAS information could be incorporated on the screen of the new train radios being fitted. The radio has considerable computing power and seemed an obvious solution. An article describing this appeared in the March 2016 issue, where a trial on the London Norwich route was to be undertaken.

Track-to-train radio

In the early 1990s, Europe decided on the need for a common track-to-train radio system to make border crossings seamless. This resulted in the GSM-R standard. First reported in our October 2008 edition, it explained how the public GSM technology was being adapted for railway purposes to give priority calls, group calls, and a functional numbering system. Primarily intended for speech, the system incorporated a data capability to act as a bearer for ETCS. Being a 2G system, it was recognised that the public networks would soon be advancing to an improved technology giving more capacity and faster speeds.

By 2013, the limitations of GSM-R were being noticed but the introduction of packet switching (GPRS) improved the capacity for passing ETCS data, particularly relevant in high traffic areas. Our April 2013 edition looked at what would replace GSM-R and the need for additional radio spectrum. Any future system would be focussed on data rather than speech calls. Another consideration was

GSM-R Cab Radio.

whether the railways still needed their own radio infrastructure of base stations and masts or could instead rely on the modernised public mobile networks. Difficult questions, but concluding that GSM-R would need to remain in service until 2025.

Speech remained important, and getting a mobile radio that would easily fit into the restricted space of many cabs was a challenge. The March 2014 issue described how Siemens in Poole was developing a new radio that would fit existing space envelopes. As well as a fixed unit in most cabs, it had to be available in transportable form for use on special trains including steam locomotives. Whilst built for the existing GSM-R network, the radio had to be capable of being upgraded to 4G or 5G, whichever technology was chosen for the successor network.

By 2015, the urgency to decide on what would replace GSM-R led to an international conference looking at the various options. Increased interference in some areas of GSM-R operation was noted as a shortterm problem with a range of measures being put forward to

combat this. The project Future Railway Mobile Communications System (FRMCS) was established with new standards hoping to be in place by 2018. With 5G technology substantially complete, it seemed that FRMCS would be adopting that standard for future track to train radio. A report in the January 2019 edition, noted that the Union Internationale des Chemins de Fer (UIC) – the international union of railways, based in Paris – was developing a functional specification. With the technology decided, the question of how to migrate from GSM-R was seen as a big problem. Industry guarantees were given that GSM-R would be supported until 2030, only a decade away.

FRMCS would offer much more than just speech and an ETCS bearer. The need to provide radio services to the railway business and the travelling public was crucial and additional spectrum would be needed over and above the 4MHz allocated for GSM-R, probably in the 19001920MHz or 2.6GHz bands. Additional lineside base stations and masts would be required. The infrastructure would need

to be duplicated to allow both GSM-R and FRMCS operation for a significant period of time. On the trains, whilst the new mobiles will need modifications for the 5G upgrade, additional aerials will need fitting to the train roofs plus associated wiring. It was suggested that it should be a franchise requirement to enable this work to begin. Whilst not formerly seen as part of the digital railway, radio becomes a crucial bearer of data akin to the transmission networks.

Electrification

control Electrification systems in the UK, be they 25kV overhead or 750v third rail, need a system to connect the Control Rooms to the feeder stations, sub stations, track sectioning cabins, and such like. Thirteen Electrification Control Rooms (ECRs) existed nationwide with various proprietary links to the outstations. The December 2015 edition outlined a project to build a new national Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition (SCADA) network that would replace the existing ECRs and integrate electrical control into the Railway Operating Centres

(ROCs) then emerging. A contract was let with Telent but progress has been slow and is still ongoing.

The system is borne upon the FTNx using IP addressing, with two data centres to ensure resilience, each linking to the existing ECR sites if the ROC for the area is not yet commissioned. Much improved safety and security is built in compared to the former arrangement and would allow control of the electrified railway to be transferred to another site should an ECR location be disabled. To date, some ECRs still remain, and the project is running late and over budget.

Ticketing, reservations and barrier control

In line with the wider travel industry, buying tickets and reservations online is something of a minefield in order to get the best deals. Trainline and My Train Ticket are typical sites that give train and fare

information. The TOCs also offer ticketing services for their particular routes. Finding the optimum ticket for your journey can be laborious. Tickets are now available to load on to a smart phone and a growing percentage of travellers use this facility. Paper tickets will remain into the future as there will always be people, particularly the elderly, who prefer to have something physical in their hand. Nonetheless this is all part of the digital progression.

At all but rural stations, it is normal to go through a gate line before boarding the train. At peak times or if the train is late in being made ready for departure, there can be a considerable crowd to get through the barriers. This is a slow process as the ticket has to pass through or the smartphone screen be read and checked by the reader. Delay is caused if the ticket is not recognised by the system and recourse to a manual ticket check has to happen.

To speed things up, an article in our April 2017 issue, described an RSSB initiative to automatically link passengers with a smartphone ticket to the barrier being approached using a Bluetooth connection, thus eliminating any physical action. Two companies were developing trials: firstly Bytetoken, now a subsidiary of Siemens Mobility and secondly Thales Revenue Collection Systems. With barriers close together, restricting the information to a single barrier and not those adjacent, needed the precision of the Bluetooth location to be improved possibly by using a 3D camera.

The November 2019 edition reported that the system had been refined and branded as Air Gate. Infrared technology determines whether a passenger has a Bluetooth device and if not, they will be directed to a different set of barriers. The goal is to achieve a barrier transit time of 1 second as against 2.3 seconds for a traditional

Overview of SCADA system.

ticket check, which would be a significant time saving. Trials were predicted but no information can be found as to whether these progressed.

Real-time train reporting

Easier train travel booking is certainly being achieved. However, it is equally important to update travellers on how the services are running both before the journey and during it. This calls for real-time information being extracted from various Network Rail sources and distributed via the internet. Various systems have emerged to offer online services that passengers can access on their smartphones. Real Time Trains and Open Train Times (OTT) are two of them and an article in the April 2020 edition explained how the latter worked. To proceed, this needed Network Rail to grant permission to access their databases. The four main ones are:

» TPS (Train Planning System) to give timetable data.

» TRUST (Train reporting using system TOPS) to give real time running data at specific reporting points.

» TD (Train Describer) to get train movement data direct from signalling centres.

» VSTP (Very Short Term Planning) which yields short term amended timetable data.

From these, live track diagrams are produced and displayed on screen with train descriptions shown according to where trains actually are. The amount of data is enormous – about 7.25 million TD steps and 5250 train movements each day. Trains are displayed as the 4-digit head code so users have to be savvy in learning what the head codes represent but its usefulness is appreciated.

Another early digital railway was Darwin, used to compile greater accuracy in train running data before putting this out on to display screens at stations. The system receives the same type of inputs as for OTT and then assesses how any late running will impact on the service and predict time on station displays. Rail Engineer reported this in September 2011, but since then the system has expanded considerably and the data is even made available for some onboard train information displays.

In summary

Progressing a Digital Railway over 10 years and more has made for an interesting review.

In broad terms it can be split into two elements: Specific projects directed at improving railway operations and capacity gains.

Business projects to give better information and services to passengers much akin to trends in the general travel trade.

Both of these need an effective and reliable bearer backbone and in this the FTN transmission networks and the GSM-R radio network (soon to be updated) are a big success. Business projects have progressed well and online services are commonplace with daily usage measured in the millions. The general public is much better informed about rail travel than it has ever been.

For the specific operational projects, the progress is mixed. Certainly, DAS is used by ever increasing numbers of TOCs. TMS is slowly rolling out across more routes. A lack of standardisation is foreseen as a problem. The electrification SCADA control network is achieving its objectives and will be even more effective once all the Railway Operating Centres (ROCs) are fully operational.

The big concern is the roll out of ERTMS and ETCS. Progress is painfully slow and it will be decades before even all the main lines are equipped. Is the system too complex and too expensive?

Is enough use being made of cross acceptance practices with other European Railways to shorten the safety approval time and enable best practice? The benefits of more capacity and much less lineside equipment are there to be had but it will take years before these are realised. Fortunately, the UK has the Train Protection and Warning System (TPWS) that gives much improved train protection. Ways of updating and expanding TPWS to give some of the benefits of ETCS are being considered with trials expected shortly.

Does the Digital Railway still justify a separate banner? Unlikely, as David Waboso predicted, digital techniques and systems are becoming just part of the normal railway.

Air Gate barrier trial.

Taken from issue 46: August 2008

AN UPDATE The Hitachi 395s

Depot Protection System

This article follows on from my piece in last November’s Rail Engineer that covered the general description and introduction of the Class 395 units that will operate on Southeastern. These are being commissioned by Hitachi engineers at the new purpose-built depot at Ashford.

Depot Engineer Neville Dyson extended an invitation for a more detailed look at the technical aspects of the Class 395 at the Ashford depot – in particular the progress of the commissioning timetable, meeting some of the staff assigned with these processes.

Jason Andrews who is the Technical Trainer based at Ashford explained that engineering, maintenance and procurement are all located in the same office. This is to promote a constant free-flowing stream of information between depot engineering and maintenance and to allow prompt communication whilst dealing with any delays in service.

For movements within the confines of the depot, the Train Movements Team Leaders (Shunters) are in charge of depot movements and seeing units out into traffic. They are based in the ‘shunters cabin’ outside in the yard.

However, there is a constant video and audio feed between them and the Fleet Delivery Manager in the Operations Room.

On entering the maintenance area, a Mechan Depot Protection (DP) System is fitted to protect staff who carry out maintenance and repairs on the units. This is operative on all five roads. When staff are working on a particular road, this system allows them to sign into the road thereby locking that road off to any train movements. The staff have to sign out the road before train movement is permitted.

Bogie drop equipment

The first three units delivered for testing purposes were all at the depot during my visit, one positioned on the road that houses the BBM bogie drop equipment. As with most modern depots now being built, a bogie drop is fitted to allow easy removal and exchange of vehicle bogies to reduce downtime for vehicles at depots. A bogie can be lowered into a pit below the road and transported to the stores area. A new bogie is then replaced and fitted. Thanks to the bogie drop, this operation takes a minimum amount of time and effort.

A separate Sculfort wheel lathe is housed in a purpose-built shed away from the main depot. The 395 new wheel dimension is 870mm and the last turning size is 800mm. The wheel lathe is already in operation carrying out work for other Train Operating Companies.

395 Layout

A single unit comprises of a set of four motor vehicles and two driving trailer vehicles:

» Driving Pantograph Trailer 1(DPT1)

» Motor Standard 1 (MS1)

» Motor Standard 2 (MS2)

» Motor Standard 3 (MS3)

» Motor Standard 4 (MS4)

» Driving Pantograph Trailer 2 (DPT2)

Introduction to Train Management System (TMS)

All new-build trains and vehicles are now fitted with a Train Management System that is basically an on-board computer that monitors and records how the train is performing when in operation. At maintenance periodicities this information is then downloaded by technical staff using laptops and stored in the vehicles’ history information system at the depot. The recorded data is then used to monitor the reliability of the equipment fitted, to look for any out-of-course occurrences that may have happened during in-service operations and to keep a check on maintenance requirements.

The Train Management System is provided so that Drivers and maintenance staff have information on train performance, faults (with actions to mitigate them), tests (prove system operations) and commands (i.e. selective door control).

The system can be accessed at three levels using an identity card (IC) with a pin code or Drivers pin code to four different modes:

» Driver

» Driver Standards Manager

» Maintenance

The system is configured with Central units in the DPTS vehicles and terminal units in the MS vehicles and is interlinked by a transmission trunk line.

TMS login screen takes approximately 40 seconds from start up to function. (This is the ‘Boot Up’ time for the whole unit i.e. starting the

unit from cold, to being ready to drive away). Also fitted is a memory facility to record any abnormal functions of equipment.

External Passenger Door System General Description

It is important to consider that the Class 395 units will achieve a high-speed operation of 225 km/h and will have a relatively short station dwell time. (minimum 30 seconds, maximum 90 seconds) The side entrance doors are specified to be 1100mm width with an airtight function. External door system reliability is of the utmost importance to operational service trains. Attention to reliability and quality of door system is achieved by using pneumatic sliding doors that retract into carbody door pockets. The construction of a pneumatic sliding door is very simple, when compared with a sliding plug door. The pneumatic sliding doors slide on the door rail by only pressurised air. This creates a simple linear motion and reduces the number of components required to operate the doors,

especially when compared to sliding plug doors and therefore reduces the number of possible fault scenarios.

When the unit is in motion, the external door system provides an air tight seal to the carbody. The air tight seal is achieved by pressing the external door against the carbody at four positions by a simple actuator and linkage mechanism.

Brake Testing

The Hitachi Class 395 is a 6-car, fixed formation, dual voltage, EMU designed to operate domestic services over both CTRL and Network Rail lines. As part of the process to demonstrate that the Class 395 Unit is suitable for operation over Network Rail DC lines and CTRL it is necessary to ensure that the tare brake performance with the unit operating up to maximum speed is acceptable and compliant with the relevant standards.

Testing was carried out on Network Rail lines within an SPZ between Margate and Whitstable up to 100 mile/h (160 km/h) and on CTRL up to 140 mile/h (225 km/h). Testing was carried out as specified in the test procedure on Class 395 Unit 001, which was in the tare condition with fully inflated secondary air suspension throughout the tests.

My thanks to both Jason Andrews for his time and technical knowledge throughout my visit and to Neville Dyson for his invitation to visit the depot.

Written-off!

All in all, after a rather chilly start, it’s been a pretty fair year weather-wise. At the time of writing, we even seem to have enjoyed something of an Indian summer. It was all very different in 2012 of course and June stood out as a particularly wet month, in a year of wet months.

STUART MARSH

The evening of 28 June was one of particularly heavy and prolonged downpours across Scotland and Northern England. Widespread travel chaos ensued, with the WCML blocked by flooding and landslides in Cumbria and the ECML blocked by two landslips in Northumberland.

Scottish boulders

Across western Scotland, torrential rain was falling on already saturated ground and on the West Highland line, about half way along the shores of Loch Treig, a substantial landslide occurred between Corrour and Tulloch stations. At this point the railway runs along a shelf cut into the steep hillside above the shores of Loch Treig. The loch and glen are celebrated for their wild and majestic beauty and it’s difficult to imagine a more isolated place - there is no habitation and the nearest road, itself little more than a track, is four miles away!

Peering through the rain bleared windscreen of his GB Railfreight (GBRf) Class 66 locomotive, the driver of block freight 6S45 had no means of knowing what lay ahead. His train of twenty four PCA 4-wheel tank wagons was conveying alumina powder from the Alcan dock at North Blyth to the smelter at Fort William, when suddenly the shape of a large boulder loomed into view. It had been dislodged onto the track by a slip on the hillside above the railway boundary.

An emergency brake application had little time to take effect and all the driver could do was hang on as the locomotive and first five wagons were derailed to the left. Crashing though trees and ploughing down the embankment towards the loch, the locomotive came to rest on a natural shelf in the slope.

Although badly shaken, the driver was fortunate to survive this frightening ordeal uninjured. Even his rescue was spectacular, courtesy of a Sea King helicopter from RAF Lossiemouth.

Now what?

So much for the drama of the incident, but as ever there’s the problem of how to deal with the aftermath. The West Highland line was closed for a week as the derailed wagons were recovered and the track repaired, but just how does anyone deal with a 130 tonne locomotive lodged half way down a 30° slope with its bogies buried in the earth?

A Class 66 is a very expensive item, which would normally be a good enough incentive to attempt a lift, but with rail-only access it was soon clear that there were some major logistical and engineering problems. The steep embankment meant that rail mounted cranes couldn’t safely provide sufficient reach. Various options were considered and discounted, including the strengthening of the embankment and the provision of large concrete crane pads. Winching the locomotive was considered too, but it was decided that there was a real danger of destabilising the track formation.

Rumours and opinions about possible (and impossible) options seemed to abound, including jacking up the locomotive on air bags and floating large recovery pontoons on the loch, but these ideas were never seriously considered.

Recover or scrap?

The discussions on recovery options were nevertheless lengthy and complex, involving Network Rail, various recovery specialists and the insurers of both GBRf and Porterbrook, the owners of the locomotive. Any operation that would deliver an intact locomotive would need to be priced at less than the combined value of the locomotive, plus the cost of its subsequent repair. Alas, it was not to be, as the best estimates for recovery were in the region of £3 million. That, and the suspicion that the locomotive’s main frames were distorted, sealed its fate.

It was decided that the most cost effective solution would be to undertake as much component recovery as possible and then cut up the body shell on site. Number 66734 ‘The Eco Express’ would therefore become only the second Class 66 to be scrapped - the previous casualty being 66521, which was involved in the Heck collision.

Whilst talks took place, the locomotive was drained of all fluids (fortunately the fuel tank hadn’t been ruptured), sheeted over, then netted and tethered by cables to prevent any further movement towards the loch. Cameras were set up to monitor any shift of the locomotive, and so the situation remained until August 2013 when work on site was able to start.

Getting started

Unusually, the main contractor for the recovery project was Network Rail itself, necessitating some lateral thinking as far as the contractual arrangements were concerned. As Billy Agnew, Network Rail’s scheme project manager explained: “This was a novel position for us, requiring an entirely new approach.

“Initially there was something of a stumbling block caused by the complex contractual requirements and the related legal matters.

Network Rail’s solution was to appoint QTS Group as our principal sub-contractor for the project, although in effect they were working on behalf of GBRf and their insurers.” A ten week time slot was allocated for the entire project, which commenced in mid-August 2013.

The lack of road access had the potential to create severe logistical difficulties. Rail access was easy enough, but the problem was how to transfer plant and equipment between rail level and the worksite some 40-metres down the steep embankment. The solution was to construct a 400-metre long hardcore haul road linking a road/rail interchange point with a levelled working area adjacent to the locomotive.

This turned out to be one of the most difficult undertakings of the entire project, as Billy Agnew related: “Consultation with the land owners, Currour Estates, and the owners of the loch, Alcan, was a prerequisite. In addition, the environmental impact was of particular concern. Indeed, this is a responsibility that Network Rail takes very seriously.”

Using road-rail plant, the top soil was carefully removed for later reinstatement, and both sides of the roadway were bunded. Protection of the environment is a feature of all modern engineering projects of course, but the Loch Treig site was particularly sensitive.

The loch has been a reservoir since 1929 when the Treig Dam was built to enlarge the existing loch as part of the Lochaber hydro-electric scheme - a project incidentally that involved the diversion of the West Highland Line. To avoid contamination of the water supply and to protect wildlife within the loch an inflatable boom was deployed at the main work site to catch any accidental spillages.

Because of the heavy plant and machinery that would be needed on site, the slope around the locomotive required stabilisation. Gabion baskets were used to create access ramps diagonally up the side of the embankment and to provide a stable working platform adjacent to the locomotive.

It seemed clear from the outset that, due to the constraints of the site, only relatively small pieces could be hauled out. Clearly the disposal of the locomotive would involve a lot of gas cutting, so a scaffolding structure was built along one side of the locomotive to create a series of stepped work platforms. A visitor viewing platform was also constructed and again, gabions were used to provide stable foundations.

Component recovery

Where feasible, reusable parts were recovered before the cutting operation began. Working closely with the project team, Electro-Motive

Diesel Inc (EMD), the American manufacturers of Class 66, assisted in drawing up a component recovery schedule. EMD fitters were also provided on site.

It was initially thought that the 22-tonne EMD 710 V-12 engine block would be too heavy to haul out and would need to be cut in situ. In the event however, after removal of the turbocharger and separation of the main alternator, the engine was successfully lifted out by QTS Group engineers as a single unit, complete with its cylinder heads. Both driving cabs were also separated from the body shell as complete units, although this was largely for convenience, as they were destined for component recovery off site. Other major items recovered intact were the turbocharger and exhaust system, the alternator, the coolant group, compressors and blowers and the electronic control equipment.

Billy Agnew was pleased with the way things went. “QTS did extremely well and special praise should go to Andy Steel, contracts manager, and to Willie Potter, project/site manager. Their work was exemplary and, due to their resourcefulness and a lot of hard work, the ten week work programme was successfully completed in just six weeks.”

Most recovered parts and scrap metal sections were hauled up to rail level using tracked excavators. These components were then moved by rail to Tulloch station where a holding area was set up. Onward transport by road was then the responsibility of GBRf. The final items to be removed from the embankment were the two 3-axle bogies. After digging out, they were successfully hauled to rail level on their own wheels using a Colmar T10000FS tracked crane/ excavator. Both bogies were in good enough condition to be re-railed for onward movement to Tulloch station.

The aftermath

The total cost of the project was £1.85 million, which includes remediation works undertaken on the embankment after the locomotive was removed. This cost is, of course, offset to some extent by the high value components that were successfully removed. Finally, the haul road and bunding was lifted and the top soil replaced.

Billy Agnew reported that the land owners were very happy with the result, even claiming the condition of the land was better than before the road construction commenced! It’s worth noting that during the entire project, rail services on the West Highland Line were unaffected - another important cost consideration.

It’s interesting to note too that the name Loch Treig is Gaelic for loch of death - fortunately on this occasion a misnomer, unless we include the locomotive of course. Folklore has it that the loch was the home of the ‘Each-Uisge’, a fierce supernatural water-horse. In his 1893 publication ‘Folklore of Scottish lochs and Springs’ author James Mackinlay wrote that this mythical creature would ‘...tear any interloper into a thousand pieces with his teeth and trample and pound him into pulp with his jet-black, iron-hard, though unshod hoofs!’

For one unfortunate interloping Class 66, a thousand pieces is probably an understatement. Could there be some slight truth in those old tales after all?

During the wet summer of 2012 there were three further derailments caused by landslips, each bearing similarities to the Loch Treig derailment. A Class 156 hit rocks and boulders near the Falls of Cruachan on the Oban branch, a Class 153 ran into a slip at St Bees on the Cumbrian coast line and a Class 158 was partially derailed near Dunfermline.

Fortunately, there were no injuries, but all four incidents are being collectively investigated by the Railway Accident Investigation Branch. At the time of printing, the RAIB report was yet to be published.

Taken from issue 124: February 2015

OVER THE EDGE

GRAEME BICKERDIKE

Clever technology is forever loosening humanity’s grip on mundane, repetitive, high-volume tasks. Immune to boredom, gadgets are ideally suited to this role, often providing insight that we simply can’t match with our five basic senses. But when it comes to understanding structural condition, there remain few better tools than the Mark I eyeball. There is, of course, a world of difference between looking and seeing so, to deliver real value, the eye has to be connected to a perceptive mind, stuffed with knowledge accrued through theoretical study and real-world experience.

Getting the eye to a useful viewpoint can bring with it all sorts of difficulties. Overcoming these might be relatively straightforward when it comes to track inspections - subject to protection being set up that safeguards the patrolman from trains - but what if the eye needs to check out something with a significant vertical component?

Scaffolding might remain the to-go solution for longer-term projects, lifting large workgroups to within touching distance of a structure; mobile platforms are becoming ever-more ingenious and far-reaching. There is, though, nothing to rival rope access from a cost, simplicity and time perspective when it comes to the basics: looking at something, hitting it with a hammer, removing vegetation or applying a lick of paint.

Formalised industrial rope access has not been around as long as you might think. Its emergence in the UK goes back only to the exploitation of North Sea gas and oil fields in the 70s and 80s. To fulfil cleaning and maintenance needs on their platforms, companies turned to the potholing and rock climbing fraternity which was benefiting from a new generation of durable, lightweight equipment. What we know today as rope access is an evolution of those recreational pastimes, with additional safety measures bolted on.

Get a grip

School friends Jon Lawton and Dave Hesleden, directors today of Span Engineering, have been part of that evolution from its early days. They’d started climbing in their teens and were looking for part-time work to sit alongside their engineering studies at Sheffield Poly in the late-80s. The traditional option was bar work, but rope access firms - of which there were only a few - were crying out for good people. “If you were a climber and you had any kind of nous about you, you just had to knock on the door and they said ‘Right, when can you start?’,” recalls Jon.

Due to the obvious risks, every piece of equipment has to be secured to the technician or kept in sealed bags.

Initially, there was a huge amount of money sloshing around, reflecting the Eighties boom-time culture. A rope access team might do in a few days what previously had taken weeks with a scaffold, saving infrastructure owners a small fortune when it came to routine inspections and maintenance. And they were happy to share the financial benefit. Then rates fell through the floor as ‘blokes with ropes’ offered their services to earn a bit of cash for their next climbing adventure. Fortunately, these opportunists came and went, but their presence underlined the

industry’s need for a formalised structure to drive up competence and prevent reputational damage.

Enter IRATA (Industrial Rope Access Trade Association), the formation of which was driven by a handful of leading oil and gas companies in the late Eighties. It is now recognised as the global authority on industrial rope access, developing a code of practice and training regime that underpins a framework of techniques in use at the front line. In 2013, its membership of 277 companies employed 12,039 qualified rope access technicians, the split being broadly 50/50 between onshore and offshore. Over the years, around 73,000 people have been through its training programme.

IRATA’s intervention has turned the safety regulator’s perception of rope access through 180 degrees. The anxious furrowed brows of 30 years ago are gone; it now enjoys a preferred position in the risk hierarchy thanks to an unrivalled safety record. Worldwide, despite seven million man-hours being worked on ropes in 2013, the industry reported just 49 injuries, although there was a rare fatality in South Korea. The UK accident rate is about one-fifth that of comparable industries.

Rope access can involve entry into confined spaces such as the cluttered interior of a bridge pier.

PHOTO: SPAN ENGINEERING

PHOTO: SPAN ENGINEERING

Know the ropes

Beyond the obvious physical demands, rope access workers have to meet the challenge of a training and certification regime comprising three technical grades, the course for each lasting five days including a full day of assessment:

» Level 1 qualifies you to work at height under close supervision.

» Level 2 introduces deeper knowledge but a little more independence.

» Level 3 brings with it the responsibility to plan and supervise work activities, have an extensive knowledge of advanced rigging and rescue techniques as well as holding current first aid certification.

To step up a grade, technicians must have experience across a variety of situations over a period of at least one year, involving 1,000+ hours on the ropes. Competency is reassessed every three years. It’s a process that is necessarily gruelling and success is far from assured. “You’re putting someone in a potentially very dangerous position,” explains Dave. “And, if they’re not comfortable with that environment, they can put other people at risk. There is no room for error.”

Although rope has been around since prehistoric times, it underwent a transformation in the 1950s thanks to improvements in materials and

manufacturing. There are two basic types:

» Dynamic rope, compliant with mountaineering standard EN 892, can arrest a free fall whilst limiting shock load as a result of its ability to stretch. In other words, it is used to stop a climber from hitting the ground.

» Semi-static rope, meeting EN 1891 Type A, is used for practically all industrial applications including rail. It is lowstretch, typically 10-11mm in diameter and comprises a kernmantle construction with a core of synthetic fibres - providing about 70% of the strength - and a braided outer sheath.

Beyond this, the kit of rope access parts is too extensive to describe but the key elements are a full-body harness, carabiners (lockable), ascending devices, auto-lock descenders, lanyards (for attaching work tools to the harness), edge protectors (reducing/preventing wear on the rope when it runs over an edge) and anchors (to attach ropes/wires to appropriate points on the structure). All of this has to be inspected and maintained in accordance with the HSE’s Lifting Operations and Lifting Equipment (LOLER) Regulations 1998.

The fundamental principle of rope access is that the technician must be clipped to two independent systems at all times, one taking their weight for work positioning

(primary) and the other for fall arrest (backup). If they ever find themselves attached only to one system, something has gone badly wrong.

In suspense

Rail’s association with rope access dates back to the early Nineties, although the workforce numbers involved since have been constrained by the industry’s relatively onerous certification requirements. Jon Lawton and Dave Hesleden’s first assignment came in 1991, up in the roof space of an extension to Liverpool Street Station, installing dozens of filigree panels which had been…let’s say overlooked by the contractor. Their bread-and-butter work now is bridge examination. Here, the classic image of rope access - HV-clad adventurers suspended against a vertical face - represents only a small part of what is demanded. Whilst pier-ends and spandrels can generally be reached by straightforward abseiling, getting handson with all the other parts of a structure (as required for Detailed Examinations, usually every six years) often involves

(Above) Examining one of the Tay Bridge’s piers. (Inset) Every anchor point has to be subjected to an axial pull-out test. (Top) Careful planning ensures minimum disruption to train services.

PHOTO: SPAN ENGINEERING

PHOTOS: SPAN ENGINEERING

highly complex rigs, with ropes and steel wires wrapped right around a span. And there can be cluttered confined spaces to access - pier legs, bearing chambers and the like. Establishing suitable anchor points comes with its own challenges. Take, for example, the examination of a long arch soffit over water. This might initially entail working from an inflatable boat, reaching up the pier face to drill a hole for a temporary anchor bolt, clipping in and then repeating the process to ‘aid climb’ up to and across the arch. Once at the crown, stainless steel studs would then be fixed in resin, allowing a system of tensioned steel wires to be installed which technicians could clip into and slide along. All those anchor points have to be subjected to axial pull-out tests. The track offers a reliable anchorage and is often used as such, but clearly it is only available during possessions.

Imaginative rigging, sequencing and methodology can lessen or eliminate any work impact on the passage of trains - a factor that significantly influences Jon and Dave’s approach to planning. Beyond the obvious benefit, this improves examination quality by facilitating daylight working as well as extending the hours available and reducing fatigue. Despite efforts to improve efficiency, possessions continue to time-squeeze activities perceived as less important, particularly in heavily trafficked areas.

Another driver is the experience of the people taking part. The tendency now is for consultancies to train some of their staff engineers to IRATA Level 1 grade, enabling them to work on the ropes under supervision. The insight to be gleaned can greatly assist their subsequent

assessment of the structure’s condition but can change both the choice of equipment and the rescue plan which must be put in place to deal with anyone who becomes incapacitated.

Jon and Dave are unusual in having both attained STE4 qualifications - as required under Network Rail standard NR/SP/ CTM/107 to examine structures - and IRATA Level 3. This happy consequence of their climbing interest and engineering background puts them in a group probably numbering less than 100 across the railway industry. It means that a consultancy firm with a work bank of structures to examine might choose to fulfil 99% in-house, but ask a specialist company to handle the remainder because of the exceptional difficulties posed. Jon and Dave’s experience tends to attract more demanding jobs on larger, unique structures.

Not for everyone

Human fallibility manifests itself in every industry from time to time; there is no way to disable it. Railway history is littered with tragedies caused by folk cocking up. But in this context your mind is brought into sharp focus by a photo of Jon and Dave inspecting the 52 metre high mast to which the aircraft warning lights are fixed above Hong Kong’s 72-storey Bank of China Tower. There can be no fallibilityabsolutely none at all - when you’re 1,205 feet in the air, roped onto some steelwork the diameter of a post box with helicopters flying below you. You might expect then that the health and safety regime would have become stiflingly prescriptive. Oddly, though, it hasn’t. Talk

through the challenges that confront a rope access technician - especially those in supervisory roles - and it soon becomes clear how reliant the process is on things that can’t be quantified: experience and judgement calls, team dynamics, the willingness to check each other’s work. That’s not to say there aren’t procedures and paperwork, but accepted practice empowers those with proven skills to make decisions and adapt plans to meet emerging conditions. It’s what makes rope access work. If you think that runs counter to conventional wisdom, how do you explain those enviable accident statistics?

As yet, there isn’t a gadget that sees what humans can, hanging from ropes. In some respect that’s unfortunate, not least because circuit boards are dispensable and have no sense of fear. That’s a real issue. A few people go on rope access courses and find they can’t hack it; others pass the training but get too immersed in the equipment mechanics to do meaningful work.

Even Jon and Dave admit to occasional twitches when they peer over parapets from a ludicrous height. But that’s how it should be: if you’re intent on defying gravity, you’ve got to have a respect for it.

(Above) Repainting the 52m mast above the Bank of China Tower in Hong Kong.

(Top) Work on Oykel Viaduct, Sutherland.

PHOTOS: SPAN ENGINEERING

Taken from issue 142: August 2016

London Bridge Station Another Milestone

CLIVE KESSELL

The massive job to totally rebuild London Bridge station reaches a major stage over the forthcoming August bank holiday weekend. The work so far has progressed from south to north, starting with the terminating platforms, these being reduced from nine to six in total, with the new Platforms 10 to 15 being brought into service on a staged basis.

Part of this work involved taking down the large overall roof that covered this area (the main elements of which are now stored at the Vale of Rheidol Railway in Wales where it may be rebuilt at a later date) and replacing it with conventional platform canopies, plus demolition of the old terminus concourse and opening up the area towards the Shard and the bus station.

All this has been relatively straightforward, but now comes the Big One. A lot will change over the forthcoming August Bank Holiday weekend, and Andrew Hutton, the London Bridge development manager who has been in post since 2008 and intends to see the project through to completion, took the opportunity to show Rail Engineer around the site and explain what will happen.

Operational constraints

The through lines from London Bridge to Cannon Street and Charing Cross have long been a problem. The notorious Borough Market Junction, just to the north of the station, has been a significant constriction for decades, there being only two lines available for Charing Cross services over the Borough viaduct.

With the coming of Thameslink services through London Bridge and onwards to Blackfriars and Kings Cross St Pancras, the situation

was made much worse. Many trains had to cross flat junctions to get into and out of the station, making day-to-day operations one of the most challenging in the country.

Additional capacity both through and to the north of the station, plus a remodelling of the lines south of London Bridge (including a grade separated junction to get the Thameslink trains into the middle platforms), was seen as essential to solve the problem. The work, when completed, will allow Charing Cross, Thameslink and Cannon Street services to have an unimpeded path through the station, thus enabling a greater throughput of trains, especially at peak hours.

Rebuilding the platforms for these routes has been a vital part of the project.

The new station layout

The through higher level lines originally had six platforms built on brick arches. The current work will create nine new platforms on a footprint that uses some of the area previously taken up by the terminating platforms. To achieve this, the arches through the central section of the station have had to be demolished and the work involved has meant closing a significant part of the station and restricting the number of train movements.

Since mid-2014, trains to and from Charing Cross have

not stopped at London Bridge and the Thameslink services have been diverted to another route. This has enabled old Platforms 4, 5 and 6 to be demolished, with a minimum of two tracks being provided in different positions as work has progressed so as to retain a route into Charing Cross.

Between then and now, huge columns, cross heads and filler deck bridge spans have been built, extending across to where Platforms 7 and 8 were on the terminus side of the station, upon which the new platforms are being constructed.

During this period Cannon Street trains have continued to stop at the station using old Platforms 1, 2 and 3.

In addition to this platform work, and in recognition of the ever-growing number of people using the station with the associated need to improve passenger flows and minimise congestion, a new street level concourse is being constructed underneath both the terminus and higher level through lines. This will provide easy interchange between Southern, South Eastern and Thameslink services.

This concourse, when complete, will stretch from Tooley Street in the north to St Thomas Street in the south, and will be the biggest passenger circulating area in the country. The station building facia to both streets is being modernised in keeping with the ambience of the surrounding area.

Interchange and access

Part of the design challenge has been the provision of a walking route between the two streets for people not intending to travel by train, hence the concept of ‘paid’ and ‘unpaid’ areas. The ‘unpaid’ will be a corridor to provide the cross-station route with the ‘paid’ area being accessed by rows of ticket barriers leading to the escalators up to platform level. Thus interchange can take place without having to go through barriers.

Facilitating passenger flow is important and the escalators are located in the centre of the platforms to give travellers easy access to the concourse when alighting from a train.

On the terminus side of the station, the present exit route is via barriers at the buffer stop end and this will be retained. However, access to the new street-level concourse is also required for interchange purposes and therefore, in addition to the Shard entrance barrier line, one escalator and one set of stairs per platform are being provided, the escalators being switched from running up or down according to the peak period flows.

Complementing the concourse will be an extension of the passenger information displays, which will use a destination-orientated style rather than showing actual train services. Thus, people wanting to travel must look for their destination station, which should then tell them the next suitable train and the platform number. Anyone who uses Manchester Piccadilly station will be accustomed to the concept.

The display boards are being arranged so that passengers congregating around them will not block the walking route for others. A new ticket office in the unpaid area is being provided with lots of ticket machines to ‘self help’ the process as much as possible.

Accessing London Underground’s Northern and Jubilee lines is all-important. The escalators from the terminus concourse have recently been taken out of use and replaced with new ones near to the Shard building. The former escalators are being demolished and the passageway extended into the street level concourse to give access to the new platforms.

The route of the passageway will be changed periodically as work to complete the concourse takes place over the next two years. The slopes from the ends of platforms 1-3 leading to the present

Tooley Street entrance and the LU ticket hall are to be closed after August once these platforms are taken out of use.

In line with disability requirements, all of London Bridge station will have step free access with lifts supplementing the escalators and stairs to achieve this.

August Bank Holiday 2016

From Saturday 27 August until Thursday 1 September, new Platforms 7 to 9 will be brought into use to serve Charing Cross trains. At the same time, approximately two thirds of the new concourse will be commissioned with access from both the terminal and new higher-level platforms. This will include the escalators to platform level, customer information displays, the new ticket office, the introduction of the paid and unpaid areas, plus various retail / food outlets.

Throughout this period, Southern trains will run as normal into the terminus platforms. On the 27/28 August, there will be no trains to Charing Cross, Cannon Street or the London Bridge through lines, services being diverted to other London stations, principally Victoria. From 29 August until 1 September, a service will resume to Charing Cross. Cannon Street will remain closed until the end of the week.

Before - six through and nine terminating platforms.

Ongoing work

Part of the bank holiday work will be to provide two through tracks on the site where the eventual Thameslink platforms will be, to enable access to Cannon Street station. These are needed as the existing London Bridge east side Platforms 1-3 to Cannon Street will be closed whilst rebuilding takes place over the next two years.

Once the bank holiday period is over, the restoration of a train service from London Bridge to Charing Cross will have limitations as only three tracks (Platforms 7, 8, 9) will be available. To obtain the optimum throughput, a type of contra flow system will be introduced in the peak hours. In the morning, trains coming out of Charing Cross to the South East will not stop at London Bridge; in the evening the situation will be reversed with trains going into Charing Cross not stopping at London Bridge. This will facilitate the best means of achieving the necessary empty stock movements.

Work will then start in earnest to demolish the arches that support Platforms 1-3 and extend the new street level concourse northwards towards Tooley Street. By mid-2017, Platform 6 will be opened, thus creating two Down and two Up lines to Charing Cross and enabling the contra flow restriction to be lifted. In 2018, Platforms 1-5 will be ready, whence a service from London Bridge to Cannon Street will resume as well as restoring the Thameslink route through to Blackfriars.

Controlling the station

One task already completed is the provision of a new control room, sited to overlook the new street level concourse. Network Rail has overall responsibility for the station operation, and all areas will be monitored using 600 cameras, these being viewed on a bank of screens that scroll round the various images in sequence. Should any alert or emergency occur, the nearest camera(s) will zoom in on the particular zone.

PA announcements will be largely automated, but with Southeastern staff being responsible for broadcasting any special messages to anywhere on the station. Duty managers from Network Rail, Southeastern, and Southern (including Thameslink) will sit alongside each other in the control room. New shared staff accommodation and messing facilities are in place, catering for some 280 people who will work the station shifts.

Some logistics

When all is complete in terms of both station and track remodelling, Thameslink trains will pass through at two to three minute intervals, 16 an hour in each direction. Automatic Train Operation (ATO) will commence in the London Bridge area to achieve the 24 trains per hour when combining all the routes through the Central London core. Charing Cross and Cannon Street services will obtain a much easier flow resulting in faster journey times.

The cost of the station rebuild is around £1 billion which, when considering the work being carried out, is good value for money. The principal contractor for the station rebuild is Costain, with a multitude of sub-contractors working beneath them. The associated track and signalling work is contracted to Balfour Beatty.

Thanks to Chris Denham and Alexandra Swann of Network Rail for facilitating Rail Engineer’s visit to a busy worksite.

After - nine through and six terminating platforms.

Safety Summit

Book your delegate place or contact us for sponsorship opportunities at this essential rail event

Call 01530 816 456 visit railsummits.com email events@rail-media.com

Rail Safety

Summit 2023

14th March

Holywell Park Conference Centre

Loughborough University

We’re used to hearing phrases like ‘Safety First’. They’re a reminder that safety is never off the agenda.

Britain’s railways have maintained an enviable safety record in recent years, but reports of incidents and near misses demonstrate that there is room for improvement.

Register for the Rail Safety Summit to hear HSEQ leaders from RAIB and Network Rail discuss the issues that matter.

Speakers confirmed for 2023 so far:

• Andrew Hall, Chief Inspector, Rail Accident Investigation Branch (RAIB)

• Ian Prosser, HM Chief Inspector of Railways and Director of Railway Safety, Office of Rail Regulation

• John Jebson, OHSE Director, McGinley Support Services (Infrastructure)

• Marian Kelly, Head of SHE, London Underground

• Nick Millington, Acting Route Director, Wales and Borders Route, Network Rail

• Peter Dearman, Independent Consultant (Former Engineering Director, Atkins), Dearman Engineering

• Prof Sarah Sharples, Department for Transport (DfT), Chief Scientific Adviser and Professor of Human Factors at Nottingham University

• James Le Grice, Head of Rail Safety and Standards, Department for Transport (DfT)

• Ali Chegini, Director of System Safety and Health, RSSB

• Rupert Lown, Chief Health & Safety Officer, Network Rail

• Leo Scott Smith, CEO, Tended

Sponsored by

DRIVEN BY CHANGE Join Our P-Way Engineering Team

In joining Colas Rail, you will be joining a company that values your expertise and offers opportunities to broaden them.

You will have:

• Solid P-Way Engineering (Tech) experience

• Dozing using 2D lasers and 3D UTS

• Tamping

• Stressing all levels is preferable

P-Way Engineer – Anglia

We are expanding and with more work comes more opportunities.

As a P-Way Engineer, you will have the opportunity to work on the South Rail Systems Alliance work bank, maintaining and transforming vital UK Infrastructure across Anglia. Based out of our new Chelmsford office, your work will help deliver S&C, Plain Line, Re-rail, and Level Crossing projects!

You will be a key player, in ensuring our works are completed on time, safely, to standard and budget. You will be empowered to provide technical expertise on the planning and execution of works.

In your role, you will work within a team of P-way Engineers and a Delivery Team dealing with all technical matters on our multi-disciplinary sites, monitoring and ensuring technical compliance. Assist our Construction Managers with the production and planning of documents namely, Work Package Plans and Task Briefs.

• Knowledge of Track Renewals / Rail Projects.

• A full UK driving licence

• Flexibility with working shift patterns.

And what do we offer?

At Colas Rail we know how important job satisfaction is for everyone to support with life at home, your health and financial well-being, that’s why in return we offer a competitive salary and benefits package.

Please register your interest by sending your CV to recruitment@colasrail.com and we will provide you with further information.

We are constantly looking for new talent to strengthen the Colas Rail UK team.

Our people are our strength, and everyone working for Colas Rail UK plays a vital part in the company’s success.

MULTI-DISCIPLINED ENGINEERS (ELECTRICAL / MECHANICAL)

EXCITING CAREER OPPORTUNITIES FOR OTM TECHNICIANS / OPERATORSEAST & WEST COAST OF ENGLAND

Swietelsky Construction Co Ltd/SB Rail utilises the latest on-track technology to improve the safety, reliability and sustainability of mechanised railway engineering works. Owing to continued growth we are seeking multi-disciplined engineers to join our engineering team operating throughout the UK. (Additional exciting career opportunities are also available)

Swietelsky is proud to offer the most modern and diverse fleet of on track machines to the UK Rail industry.

We are a family friendly company and our ethos is shown in our flexible roster pattern of one in two weekends working, over our competitors. Generous rates of pay for a good and enjoyable day’s work.

The successful candidates for the role of OTM Technician/Operator will be highly motivated and a talented multi skilled engineer with experience working on hydraulic, pneumatic and electrical systems. Prior OTM experience is preferred but not essential as full in house training is provided.

Requirements for the successful candidate include:

• Undertake pre-planned maintenance, carry out reactive repairs if faults arise on site, operate OTM (full training given)

• Completed recognised Apprenticeship or NVQ to Level 3 in maintenance activities.

• Experience of diesel/hydraulic/PLC plant is desirable but not essential

• Good at problem solving and working under pressure.

• Attain and retain required competency as stated by ROGS (The Railways

• and Other Guided Transport System (Safety) Regulations 2006) and other applicable standards.

• Work away from home to meet contractual and training requirements.

In return:

• A generous and composite salary fully pensionable.

• Good work life balance working only 2 in every 4 weekends.

• 35 hour week on a 4 day shift pattern.

• 28 days holiday per year for full-time employees, which increases on a tiered system after 5 year’s service plus 8 Public holidays.

• A company van is provided for business use.

• Excellent employer contribution pension package and access to a 24 hour Employee Assistance Programme.

If you are interested in this or other available vacancies please contact www.sbrail.com or contact the recruitment team on recruitment@swietelsky.co.uk who will be pleased to provide you with a copy of the full job description as well as details of other available positions.

Signalling and Systems Assurance Opportunities

Queensland, Australia

Take advantage of the current rail infrastructure investment boom and progress your career in stunning Queensland. O ering relocation assistance, visa sponsorship and competitive remuneration, there’s never been a better time to elevate your career.

Randstad is proud to partner with Queensland Rail (QR) on a major international drive to employ signalling and systems assurance professionals from around the globe. Operating world-class passenger and freight rail services across Queensland, QR’s project pipeline of over $10 billion is expected to grow exponentially in the build up to the Brisbane 2032 Olympic and Paralympic Games. As a result, QR is committed to securing remarkable talent to deliver on its goals.

opportunities available

Senior Project Managers

Principles Testers

Testers In Charge

Design Managers

Design Engineers

Senior Project Engineers

Systems Assurance Engineers

Senior Manager Integration and Systems Assurance

career benefits

Relocation assistance

Visa sponsorship

Competitive remuneration

Flexible work environment

Development opportunities

Diverse and inclusive culture

why choose queensland?

More people from within Australia migrate to Queensland than any other state. It’s not hard to see why, with a fantastic climate, a ordable living, beautiful beaches, national parks and one of the world’s great wonders – The Great Barrier Reef, Queensland has it all.

how to apply

If you want to grasp this life changing opportunity then please submit your resume to qr@randstad.com.au or visit randstad.com.au/rail-australia

Signalling a career in Western Australia

Signaller / Network Controller Career Opportunities

About Arc Infrastructure

Arc Infrastructure manages and develops transport infrastructure assets that support growth and create jobs in Western Australia (WA). Rail is at the heart of our business, and the 5,500km rail network is the backbone of freight transport in Western Australia. Spanning a region around the same area as continental Europe, from the Midwest across to the Goldfields, and through to the stunning South West and Great Southern.We’re committed to working with industry, our customers, partners and communities to find new opportunities that will support and strengthen our rail network for the benefit of WA.

The Opportunity

Arc Infrastructure’s network control team is critical to our business, and responsible for the safe, economical, and effective monitoring and control of train services across our entire rail network.

We currently have opportunities for experienced Signallers / Network Controllers to join our team and make a difference on our network.

About you

The successful applicant will be an experienced Signaller/Network Controller who remains calm under pressure, is motivated, and is an excellent communicator.

You will be provided with in-house theoretical and on the job training. From our Perth-based network control centres, our experienced network controllers will work with you to help you adapt your skills and experience to our network. You will be working 12-hour shifts on a rolling roster over an average 38 hour working week.

Careers at Arc Infrastructure

Arc Infrastructure has created a culture of team work where diverse skills, ideas, and experience are valued. We promote a work environment that is characterised by personal accountability, mutual trust, and respect. At Arc, we take a genuine interest in our employees and their development. We understand our employees are the key to our success and, as a team, our focus is to ensure they feel safe, valued and fulfilled in the work that they do.

We will provide the successful applicant with a competitive remuneration package starting at $99,000 base salary, plus annual shift allowance of $27,663, plus employer superannuation contributions of 10.5%. In addition, we offer a benefits package including Visa sponsorship and relocation assistance.

ARC’S RECRUITMENT PROCESS

Arc Infrastructure will be in the UK as part of our recruitment drive in early 2023, please scan the QR code to apply. www.arcinfra.com

Signalling Opportunities…

Trackwork is expanding its Signalling Department (formally TICS Global Ltd) with a range of opportunities from entry level to senior appointments.

We currently have vacancies in:

 Business Development

 Commercial Management



Project Management



Project Engineering

 Design

 Installation

 Test and Commissioning

 Maintenance

If you are looking for an established employer that gives great career development and progression opportunities, then send your CV to jobs@trackwork.co.uk

People for Infrastructure

McGinley hires workers or finds permanent employees for companies in the infrastructure sector of the construction industry, building and managing workforces all over the UK

Whether you are looking for a job or a supply chain partner, we have the knowledge and expertise to help you succeed

As true infrastructure experts we have over 40 years ' experience and an unparalleled network. This combined with a large number of accreditations, memberships and awards give you the confidence you need to engage with us.

WE ARE RECRUITING

• PTS & safety critical contingent labour

• Signalling & telecoms

• Overhead line electrification

• Track welding

• Minor works packages

• Flexi-jobs apprenticeships